quote:

---

I go to A&M

---

on the thread that was titled how i hate......gigem, wasnt it proven you do not attend a&m?

by the way i liked that thread

[This message has been edited by txdawg80 (edited 7/1/2008 4:18p).]

[This message has been edited by txdawg80 (edited 7/1/2008 4:18p).]

quote:

---

Arrests

MB - 13243843738923972943.85
A&M - less than that ^

---

Sorry but A&M most likely has had more players arrested since Mack Brown arrived than Texas has.

Do they count multiple arrests for single players, or times players were arrested yet it magically disappeared?

If you're asking if Broderick Newton and Toombs were counted once, or were they counted for each arrest, I don't know the answer to that.

[This message has been edited by MacD (edited 7/1/2008 4:55p).]

quote:

---

Diet Cokehead = yet another sip troll.

---

There are plenty of people that can vouche for me and know who I am and I'm an Aggie.

Go asked the Basketball Other board.

Regardless, while the stats are obviously put together by a sip, it's not like they are inaccurate. We simply don't have the legacy in our entire history that they have in the last 10 years.

It's simple as that. Sad, but true.

quote:

---

We simply don't have the legacy in our entire history that they have in the last 10 years.

---

1
19 conf. championships vs. 1 in that time frame. There's more to a legacy than 10 win seasons in this era where 14 games are possible vs. only 9 or 10 in the old days. There's lies, damn lies, and stats that only show half the truth.

We need to start winning.

I bet Mack leads the nation in a catagory called "most 10 win seasons with nothing to show for it". Where are all those conference championships? Oh, wait, A&M has won as many conference championships as Mack Brown since he's been at tu, and we had Dennis Franchione as our coach during that time...

quote:

---

"most 10 win seasons with nothing to show for it

---

i'm no horn fan, but this statement is idiotic, one nc is sufficient.

Mack has twice as man big game chokes as we do in 113 years of football.

The 2 programs are not comparable. A&M has been long absent from college football.

quote:

---

i'm no horn fan, but this statement is idiotic, one nc is sufficient.

---

While my tendency is to agree, I think that having that many 10 win seasons with but one conference championship to show for it is a pretty telling stat. One that I only wish we could match right now.

quote:

---

There are plenty of people that can vouche for me and know who I am and I'm an Aggie.

---

Excellent, then getting an Ag Tag by next week should be effortless. If by next week....no Ag Tag.........then you lied my son.

Lied.

quote:

---

Cecil, I don't think todays young guys have any real concept what A&M use to be like prior to the 1970s.

Sure they know the history, but they just don't comprehend it.

Comparing tu to A&M, all but the last 35 years, is like comparing a state public university to a tiny military school.

---

longhorns don't care about the facts. That's why conference championships were conveniently left out of that comparison of the two programs.

Despite our awful decade, A&M is considered top 20 all-time. We aren't a flash in the pan, we will start winning again.

Mack Brown's record vs. A&M in the last two years:

0-2

I am not too worried. A&M is a sleeping giant. We have all the ingredients to be come one of the powerhouses. We have a good history...not as rich as t.u., but you never know what could happen...see my examples below. We have an outstanding athletic director now. Look at our entire athletics program now compared to where it was just 5 years ago. If Dollar Bill can do that-I am confident he'll get it done in football too.

Look at Florida: 1894-1989: 0 National Championships, not even one 10+ win season in it's entire history before Spurrier. Only one conference championship in their entire pre-Spurrier history that was forfeited due to NCAA violations prior to Spurrier.

University of Miami: Just a competitive, but nothing special program until the 1983 season. Not even a single 10 win season prior to their 83 NC team 5 National championships, eleventy billion first round draft picks later in the span of only 20 years...

And what's good for us is that Florida (whos population is less than Texas) had 3 schools being really good all at the same time in the 1990s (FSU, UF, and Miami)...so if Florida can support 3 NC caliber programs at the same time, Texas can too. Our key is stopping or slowing down the exodus of talent going to OU or LSU.

UF and Miami were similar to what tceh is now. Competitive year in, year out, but never really a NC contender. Certainly not for any sustained period. At least we can say we have been a contender in our history on a handful of occasions. Yes, not as many as t.u., but far more than UF and Miami had before their coming out parties 20 years ago.

Our time is coming. Bill Byrne has narrowed the gap between our program and t.u.'s quite a bit the last 5 years. Where will be be 5 years from now? Not to mention we have beaten the horns the last 2 years.

it looks like our burnt orange friends have been reading this thread.

10+ win seasons
tu w/o MB 13
tu w/ MB 7
A&M 11

Jealousy aside, we would wish that we had Mack Brown after RC but the timing wasn't on our side. We won the Big 12 the year tu hired MB. After that, game over. He ran RC out of his profession, then Fran.

Mack Brown has turned every program around wherever he was hired. Look up Tulane, NC, and tu.

The difference between MB and all other coaches is that he absolutely loves and handles recruiting while he leaves the game planning and player development to his assistants. As a matter of fact, he is the one who has forever changed the face of recruiting in the state of Texas. That is saying alot.

That is why his assistants love working for him and his reputation is well known through out the coaching community. Why do you think that Gene Chizik and Will Muschamp took the offer on the spot?

He is the model CEO of college football program.

Sorry, but MB didn't run them out of town. As you recall, Fran beat tu the last two games. It was not one game that did either man in. Do you recall RC's 6-6 season?

You didn't get my point. MB is 8-3 against us. He also has owned every head to head recruiting battle.

He has done alot, alot more in his 10 years at tu than we have done in the last 20 years.

Maybe you are just too young.

[This message has been edited by Catchmeifyoucan94 (edited 7/2/2008 12:28a).]

Call the BS police. I'd like to make a citizen's arrest.

quote:

---

He ran RC out of his profession, then Fran.

---

...and Acie Law is solely responsible for the success of our basketball program.

You are taking one factor and elevating it to THE factor. Acie has much more to do with the success of Aggie basketball than MB does with the firing of two coaches.

quote:

---

He also has owned every head to head recruiting battle.

---

We haven't won one recruiting battle where a player picked A&M over tu? Next!

quote:

---

Maybe you are just too young.

---

Maybe you are Vince Young. Aside from a personal attack that is clearly off topic, if your username is any indication, you are 3 years my junior...so push!

When you make statements like you have made, you water down what might otherwise be a valid point.

Mack has had a hell of a run there... but A&m is on the upside with Sherman. We are very far behind, but I could care less if we arent as great as they are history wise, I just want good football in and out with some champs thrown in.

Diet cokehead is definitely an aggie. He did have an ag tag a long time ago and his spurs fandom is very annoying.

He is also very bitter about Dallas sports teams even though he lives here

quote:

---

but A&m is on the upside with Sherman.

---

How the f do you know that? His speeches? You guys said the same thing about fran and he failed, miserably. What you should have said is that you hope that a&m is on the upside with sherman. Personally, i think he fails worse than fran ,but we will see.

it was a crime that Dat didn't get the Butkis that year.

They can shake & bake all of the ridiculous stats they want......Mack is a running joke around the country because he choker and everyone knows it.

Bob stoops is a bigger choker.

quote:

---

i sent them an email after doing some research. tom responded that it was a good email and well-researched and that all tsips do is sneak in stats that fit their need.

---

Really? Then what the hell do you call this, from your very same post?

quote:

---

and from 1972 til now, we are 18-18 against texas.

---

You don’t like the series record, so you pick some arbitrary year and say it’s even since then? The only thing Aggies are better at than coming up with selective statistics is winning Internet polls. Texas, unfortunately for you, doesn’t need selective stats. Historically and currently, there are very few programs that can claim the kind of success that Texas has had, and you are certainly not one of them.

All Mack Brown has done in 10 years at Texas is win more games than any other coach in America during that time, play for 3 conference championships and win one, play in and win 2 BCS bowls, including a national championship over the so-called “greatest team ever,” have one Heisman winner and one runner-up, send an ungodly number of players to the NFL, and completely change the game when it comes to recruiting, to say nothing of what he has done financially for the UT football program (and, by association, every other UT sports team). Call him a choker. Say he can’t win big games. Say he can’t develop talent. Say he’s not a good gameday coach (what is a gameday coach supposed to do, besides win football games?) . The numbers speak for themselves, and there isn’t a single one of you that wouldn’t give your left nut to have a coach who accomplished all that in his entire career, much less in his first 10 years with your school.

The point of the stats created by that “sip” was to show what Mack Brown has done in 10 years at Texas vs. what A&M has done in the history of its program, and you probably should just stop with that. If you want to claim selective stats, we can go year for year, but it’s going to depress the hell out of you.

If you guys want to compare yourselves to another program, be my guest, but it probably shouldn’t be Texas. The Horns are way out of your league.

quote:

---

Discounting the obvious fact that we were a non-factor in college football from 1942 (hmm... what was going on then? ) through 1973, there's some other obvious fallacies.

---

HOW CAN YOU DISCOUNT 30+ seasons of football from 1942?????

That is like saying well, if you take away 1984-1994, Texas...yadda, yadda, yadda.

Look, you can mold stats 1000 different ways.

In the end, MB's record at Texas for 10 seasons is pretty amazing. IS it without holes, of course not.

Would about every team in the nation less maybe Ohio State, USC, and OU trade 10 year stretches? YES!

Is Texas' overall place in college football history exponentially more significant than Texas A&M as of 2008?

I cannot see how anyone can argue that?

Will that always be the case?

I don't know. You guys have resources to compete. Things change. But history is history.

You can excuse various elements of your history all you want, but it still COUNTS as your official records, stats, etc.

I agree TAMU has the potential to be a perennial 9-10 win team. It was proven for at least one decade of your 11 decades of football.

It is up to you to resurge and do it again.

However, the lame-a$$ excuses from the past are just that lame-a$$.

i admit i really have no dog in this fight, but i do hate tu, having said that how can you claim the '39 championship and still talk about it, but the records of this time must be thrown out?

quote:

---

HOW CAN YOU DISCOUNT 30+ seasons of football from 1942?????

---

Anyone who actually understands college football knows why. A&M's evolution is unique and unlike any other school out there, so it can't be likened to another situation...unless you can point out to me another example of a school the equivalent of The Citadel all the sudden having 45,000 students, a Presidential Library, etc...in other words, a MAJOR instituion. You can look forever and you'll NEVER find it. The fact that you don't understand WHY that's such a significant change says a lot. If that weren't true, then WHY did we come from absolutely sucking over those years, to being pretty damn good over the next 3 decades? Scholarship limits were imposed, the Corp became no longer mandatory for athletes, and we let women in. In other words, we went from The Citadel to just like every other major state University. And, all of a sudden....we improved DRASTICALLY. It didn't start with Sherrill...it started with Emory Bellard.

quote:

---

how can you claim the '39 championship and still talk about it, but the records of this time must be thrown out?

---

Because all-male military schools COULD win titles then, as the landscape was MUCH different than it was afterwards. The facts prove that. Those kind of schools couldn't win anymore once big, big money became part of the game in the post-WWII era. You'll also find out that the competition for enrollment at schools like that became much less competitive in the post-WWII era, because after it, Americans didn't want to have anything to do with them. Thus, in keeping with that perception, good athletes didn't want to either. Either way, I don't think anyone takes much from the '39 title anymore, and you won't hear many people beating their chests about it because it was so long ago.

Bud Lite:

I don't discount the effect of essentially changing the institution's make up, enrollment, etc. is the main factor in your successes from Bellard (skipping Tom Wilson) to Sherrill to Slocum.

However, there are plenty of schools that have under-gone dramatic changes in the size, perspective on athletics, etc.

Should we discount 1999-2007 in TAMU's football history since they have made bad institutional choices as a school in terms of coaches?

What other eras should we pare off?

Why don't we simply measure TAMU from 1984 to 1994?

Texas made a set of poor institutional choices from 1987-1997. I don't think that should count either.

Really, since the formation of conference play and the dropping of the "club" aspect of the sport where we all played army base teams, YMCAs, etc, college football is college football.

Has it changed? Yes.

You cannot alter or delete history because your school had a specific direction or composition.

at some point in it's history, wasnt florida state an all female teaching school?