Someone posted an analysis recently of how our recent record against t.u. was much more balanced than the overall record since we first started playing them. Something about scholarships, etc. as well was included. Anybody have a link or care to repost?

All you need to know is that between 1984 and 1994 you won 10 out of 11, other than that the series is pretty consistently Texas winning 66% of the time and A&M 33%. Since formation of Big XII its 10-5 Texas.

Over the last 25 years it's 13-12 A&M!

^^^Ummm, Not quite^^^ (directed towards hornfan)

Per Wiki:

Though the Longhorns lead the series overall, the series has been much closer since 1965 (when Texas A&M dropped compulsory participation in the Corps of Cadets). Since that time, the Aggies have accumulated 20 wins to 26 losses. During the last 39 meetings (from 1972—when NCAA introduced scholarship limitations—to the present), the series is even at 19-20. The Aggies best years in recent times were from 1984 to 1994 when the Aggies won 10 out of 11 games.

[This message has been edited by Bunbury (edited 9/26/2011 10:20a).]

19-16 since 1975, TAMU

1970-1974 were all losses.

Bunbury, actually, both right.

We also have a 100% winning percentage against them from 06-07!

Its always funny seeing sips downplay our domination on the field and recruiting from the mid 80s-90s as an abberration. Chit Mack Brown is an abberration you mofo.

So basically right back where we started take out 1984-1994 and the series is consistently Texas 66% A&M 33%. You cant change math its objective. Only by adding in that one decade of dominance ending 17 years ago to any set of numbers is the series any closer than 2/3 to 1/3.

[This message has been edited by FWHORN (edited 9/27/2011 8:47a).]

@FWHORN:
Read bunbury's logic u dummy

Yes, without a level playing field, you obviously won more games. And that is the only way you were able to accomplish it. Congrats.

A&M has a more prestigious and respected football program than tu based on W/L record since scholarship limits. That is fact.

well take out ut's 8 year run in the lat 90's early 2000's and a&m's record looks better.

Since Bunbury is relying on 1984-1994 how does that change anything? 26-20 since 1965 but take out 84/94 and its 25-10. So actually better than 2/3 to 1/3. Math is objective guys you cant change it just because you want to. Other than one period ending 17 years ago the series is consistent mathematically and it isnt the 50/50 you want to believe.

You should get a refund from acc for your poor education in simple logic.

Big Oil, I take it both of us have degrees from the top two institutions in the state (yes thats right I acknowledge Texas and Texas A&M are the two best, I have never denigrated the A&M degree I have good friends who went there and they should be proud to attend a top public school much as I am proud of Texas). That means we both had to at least take Calculus I to get our degrees.

So tell me, logically how what I have said that mathematically speaking the series is consistently 2/3-1/3 if you remove a single period of dominance from 84/94 is wrong. What rule of mathematical construction am I violating?

[This message has been edited by FWHORN (edited 9/27/2011 9:24a).]

Who cares what happened when we were a small, all male military college? It's like tu was playing the Citadel. I am proud of those teams because not much was expected from most of them as they represented our university well.

But how about comparing apples to apples when A&M became a comparable university to tu? Makes a little more sense doesn't it?

FWHORN...Thanks I needed a laugh this morning...MOROON!

Here, knock yourself out.

http://football.stassen.com/records/

What a ridiculous statistic. How about we arbitrarily take out the years 1995-2004 where Texas won 8 of 10. If we do that, A&M has won 68% of all the games played between Texas and A&M since 1975.

Your logic is stupid.

"Take out the whorn losses and we win more...."

ROFLMAO

Go back to the Big XII-3 and dominate Iowa State, we are off to play in the Conference of Champions.



[This message has been edited by Pooh Ah (edited 9/27/2011 9:35a).]

Here's a better infographic:

http://gridironhistory.com/images/LSUvsTAMU1970Forward.jpg

If the image above doesn't show up, http://gridironhistory.com/images/LSUvsTAMU1970Forward.jpg works. (Not sure why the image isn't loading here. URL is correct.)

Source: GridironHistory.com's "Team vs Team" page.

------------------------
Douglas
50% Attitude, 100% Bear, 110% Denizen Derriere Vacuity (and proud, too!)

Stalk me on Twitter - http://twitter.com/BearlyDoug

Your one stop shop for FBS Football history
http://gridironhistory.com

[This message has been edited by Hogville Webby (edited 9/27/2011 9:39a).]

quote:

---

What a ridiculous statistic. How about we arbitrarily take out the years 1995-2004 where Texas won 8 of 10. If we do that, A&M has won 68% of all the games played between Texas and A&M since 1975.

---

Uh oh. You did it now. I bet 911 operators all over Austin are swamped with calls due to tsip head explosions.

Horn...in all seriousness, do you really have a degree? Its okay, you can tell us, its nothing we haven't seen or heard before. How about the last 5 years, how does that "consistently" fit into your math equation?

1974...we let women in. Wth recruit would want to come to school here before that? That makes 1975 NOT an arbitrary date at all.

I really hate subjective math. Anyway. If we use the 1970 date, Texas is in their right to use 1995. which would make us 5-10 in the series. Also, I am sick of the all male argument as a negative. Have you looked at football history on how the service academies were prior to the 60s and actually up into the 70s for Navy. We have been good when we have hired good coaches. We have been bad when we have not. Under DX we won, under Jackie we won, under RC we won, under a lot of the others, we did not.

BTW, if the all male part was such a handicap, why did we win against most of our other opponents during those time periods. Sorry, this whole argument is based off someone looking at dates and find a date when we can say we are competitive or ahead in the series and then start finding a reason to validate it.

Heck if we are going to use fuzzy dates, then going sense 1970 we are 18-22 against tech.

^
:
:
"We"

quote:

---

if you remove a single period of dominance from 84/94 is wrong.

---

If you remove that ONE INCIDENT, Mrs. Lincoln had a wonderful night at Ford's Theater.

I love when threads like this start bringing out the rookies

quote:

---

A&M has a more prestigious and respected football program than tu based on W/L record since scholarship limits. That is fact.

---

The NCAA didn't enact sholarship limits until 1973 as we all know, but the old SWC had very clear scholie limits back through the 60's. In fact, you can go back and look at the teams and in the SWC the schools that had the largest rosters from 1960 through 1969 was Texas A&M, followed by Texas, then Tech and Arkansas.

From 1961 through 1963 A&M averaged 55.3 scholie players per year...two more than Texas. Scholie limits as a crutch is and always has been a myth. A&m teams suffered then as smaller schools suffer now...from a lack of facilities and top coaching staffs and the idea that Texas just carpet-bombed the state offering anyone and everyone has been proved false time and time again.

Since 2010 we have a 100% winning record versus tu...

quote:

---

What a ridiculous statistic. How about we arbitrarily take out the years 1995-2004 where Texas won 8 of 10. If we do that, A&M has won 68% of all the games played between Texas and A&M since 1975.

---

This says it all... How can you basically say, "oh we're going to take out those 11 years you dominated us because I didn't like them." Talk about broken, biased logic.

The 1919 Fightin Texas Aggie football team is probably the greatest team in college football history. Right up there with '95 Nebraska and '01 Miami.

Starting from 1970 is stupid. You should look at the overall record, not just a timeframe.