I agree, which is why I believe the Princeton is the greatest college program in the history of football.

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

This. I for the life of me cannot wrap my mind around the belief that tu will always dominate us because their W/L record is so much better. Small military schools (non-academy) don't exactly get the best recruiting. To disregard this (as countless ESPN "reporters" often do) is complete idiocy.

Hey, to me, it looks like there are atleast a couple longhorns commenting on this issue. I see someone also, said why look at a segment of time, why not evaluate the entire history. So, let us take a look at that! Most every horn fan I know talks alot about how much better they are than us in athletics as a whole. First point to ponder, how much does it show insecurity or confidence, if you must be happy about this, knowing that so much of that success is at a time when we were strickly a military academy. Want to talk about an extreme recruiting disadvantage or what? But, whatever you need to do, or think, to make yourself feel better. I think this in itself should make you feel terrible about yourself and your own personal perspective. Me personally, I had a lot of friends that went to Texas and we will always remain life long friends. I have nothing against Texas as an institution, academically, or athletically. I have a problem with their insecure fans that feel they have to rep a quality university in such a negative manner. I'm just saying. Now, looking at history since we were no longer strickly a military institution, we are behind but not very much. Also to be said, that is terrible, when you consider, you get 4 and 5 star athletes and we get 2 and 3 and do alot more with alot less. Sorry, but if you're honest with yourself, look at the history, verify what I state and change your ways. Be a better person for yourself and a better fan for your school. I hope.

Look at more than just the head to head record. Look at overall accomplishments. ESPN should include undefeated A&M seasons and exclude seasons in which tu wasn't undefeated but still won a NC. Factor in that A&M went to a bowl game last year and tu didn't. Those are facts which prove decisively that the A&M football program is superior to tu's.

FWhorn- then let's take out YOUR 11yr period of dominance from '95 to '05.

That means Ags have won 17-9 in the modern era, for a winning percentage of 65%.

of course we have had major infractions in that 10 of 11 stretch.

Just imagine had that gold Trans AM landed om campus.

For most of the history of this series, A&M was an all-male military school about 1/5 the size of tu. And you brag about winning 2 out of 3? OU and Neb did much better than that against their scrub competition in the Big 2 Little 6. They were winning 9 out of 10 or better. For decades. It actually is amazing that the Ags did as well as they did with such a disadvantage.

Anyway, clinging to your favorite part of history is petty. The two most important games in the series are the last one and the next one... and the Aggies are undefeated!

Just a side note: while tu was good at football, the Aggies were good at defending our country. It's all a matter of priorities.

to the whorns:

why don't we just eliminate, for fairness purposes, all the years in which A&M won.

Then you can say tu has a 100% record against us.

your arrogant attitude is one reason, but not the main reason, we are leaving.

"goodbye to texas university" you are now in our rear view mirror.

FWWHORN: "If you take out all the years that A&M won, tu has dominated the series."

quote:

---

1974...we let women in.

---

This was in 1968, not 74. I should know, my wife of 42 years, is in the Class of 68. She was in the first class totally open to women. For a couple of years before that, there were a few women allowed in as daughters of faculty, staff, etc.

1974 might have been when the first women's dorms were opened.

Last of the Old Army

And now it's 2024.....and they have followed us to the SEC. With them comes, controversy and the inflated egos to mask their inferiority complex. This is clearly evident by the fan base participation. When you market your merchandise in Walmart chains, you get what you deserve. Bandwagon fans steal the prestige of your program and you were a better fit for the Big 10. But, we have them once again. I never missed them one second for 12 years. Gig'em

I think the record since scholarship limitations were put in place is a good time frame to measure our h2h.

Muy said:

---

I think the record since scholarship limitations were put in place is a good time frame to measure our h2h.

---

Absolutely, title IX was passed in 1972 and our university had just transitioned from the all white all male school in 63-68. 1969 was the last all-white football team to win a Championship (whorns)

Completely different game before civil rights and scholarships, and a very different school as well

Raised here and lived first 25 years of my life.

Colonel Rudder was a genius, cursed when he decided and Buildings and Roads named after him now.

Scholarship limitations enforced was first step but let's not kid ourselves. Dropping Corp requirement opened the door to Daddy's little girl attending and more attractive place for young men including Athletes.

Created the giant State Institution we see today and as Steve Jobs used to say "an inflection point" particularly in the tu fb series.

Scholarships limited -->Darrel Royal and Frank Broyles retire-->tu / ark domination ends

from 1974 to the end of the SWC (1995)...

Baylor went 10-12 vs. the horns

from 1940 to 1973...Baylor beat t.u. a grand total of 3 times

integration and scholarship limitations changed things for many schools

Who cares.

I look at it one of 2 ways.
1.What the record was since you were born.
2. Or don't be claiming wins beyond what you can remember without looking it up on your phone. If you can't remember who wonwith a $1MM bet on the line in 1958. Then maybe don't claim that as a victory

HOLDEN M. D. said:

---

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

---

Can't disagree more.

Are you honestly trying to say that Army or Navy should be able to compete with Ohio State or Michigan year in and year out? Let's hear your thesis on why you think an all-male military college should be able to compete consistently with a co-ed university.

That reply is 13 years old hopefully they've changed their mind

Haha didn't even notice that. Probably a whorn anyway...

First rule. Never argue with a whorn.

They can spin any narrative or numbers like no one else.

You can't get therapy for narcissism. But you can throat punch them on the field at every opportunity.

Wait until they have a mediocre/down year in the SEC. They'll disappear like gnats for a while.

TAMU1990 said:

---

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?

---

It's the only "national championship" of the Aggies if you look at it that way

Not like that matters much.

FWHORN said:

---

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.

---

So just randomly and conveniently take out a 10 year period where sips lost and their record looks better?? That is genius! That Texas State education is doing wonders for you.

OMB100GAS said:

---

Muy said:

---

I think the record since scholarship limitations were put in place is a good time frame to measure our h2h.

---

Absolutely, title IX was passed in 1972 and our university had just transitioned from the all white all male school in 63-68. 1969 was the last all-white football team to win a Championship (whorns)

Completely different game before civil rights and scholarships, and a very different school as well

---

We were also (I believe) just 4 years from being an all-male (well almost) smaller ROTC school.

I'd like to take out 1941-1974 when Texas was 30-3 and Aggies were busy fighting major World Wars.

Thus giving Longhorns the freedom to wave dildos in the streets.

Been an Aggie since the Fall of '81 (my freshman year). Series is 16-15 tu since '81.

That's all I care about.

bigcheese013 said:

---

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

---

oh honey bless your heart

First black student 1963
First women 1968
First black football starter 1971
Title IX passed 1972
Vietnam war veteran and Medal of Honor recipient Clarence Sasser graduates 1973

I'll take war heroes over championships.

From 1974 to present the series is tied 19-19

Just look at the whole record. It is what it is.

Sure you can explain streaks and yada yada, but it doesn't matter.

The record is the record.

I can smell the low IQ

Welp, Vanderbilt is 8-1-4 against Texas, gonna take a few years to get out of Vandys shadow…..

TAMU1990 said:

---

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?

---

Well, I guess A&M cares because there are pre-war national championship claims on the stadium aren't there? Do those not count now? And does A&M keep score against schools like TCU and SMU? How about Vanderbilt? Do those games not count? You know who else was an all male tiny university until the early 70s? Notre Dame, the dominant school that was the face of college football the whole century.

FWHORN said:

---

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).]

---

Yes, take out pre-1970 and the sips are dog**** other than a few years.

OMB100GAS said:

---

From 1974 to present the series is tied 19-19

---

Another note about 1974, it was the first year the coaches poll decided their champion AFTER bowl games (AP already did so)

This is significant because in 1970 Texas was a Coaches Poll National Champ, but then they lost to ND in the cotton bowl, and Nebraska was named AP Champion


1974 is the best year to count from