Beating ND would be big! No other way to slice it. Game day, night game. Would wash away all the BS off season talk and we would be the talk after the first week!

With our harder games at home. We might be competing for a playoff spot Vs them, Mizzou and the sips so all those games are key.

Odds we'll print cups of it after going 8-4? Anyone?

Brendan207 said:

---

I think we will be the surprise good team in the SEC this year - Missouri and Ole Miss are wildly overrated and they aren't going to be the ones crashing the playoff party. We are undefeated going into Baton Route on 10/26 and drop that one, and then we lose to Texas to end the season, but stay in the playoff conversation.

Florida stinks.

---

Lose to Texas, two losses, no playoff if you have three SEC teams with one loss (Georgia, Bama, Texas). They won't put four SEC teams in unless B1G has a very down year.

Beat ND, I'll expect 8-4. Have to win road games at some point that are not Jerry World.

WHEN!

Not sure what you are trying to imply. It seems you are implying a win should not be celebrated, which of course is nonsense. If you cannot even look forward to a possible big win to start the season, not sure why you even care about posting on an A&M football forum. Game day that first weekend at Kyle. And a rocking night game.

It's a very big game and winning it would be big. That's it.

Beat Notre Dame and 9-3 should be everyone's floor at that point, and one could argue that 10-2 may be more likely than 8-4. 8-4 is not the most likely outcome with a win in game one. That would show everyone we are going to be very tough to beat at home, and our schedule is favorable in terms of home/away games.

Lose to Notre Dame and 7-5 or 8-4 is more likely than 9-3 or 10-2. Though it depends on how you look in the game.

well_endowed_ag said:

---

gkaggie08 said:

---

No you didn't, you stated that you think we lose to ND. If you are saying that we go 8-4 after beating ND week 1, tell me the 4 losses you see coming

---

4 of Florida, Missouri, MSU, LSU, Auburn, South Carolina, and sip. I guess you can throw Arkansas in there too.

Thats a lot of games against a lot of pretty talented teams where things can go wrong, and history indicates things go wrong for us approximately 4 times.

---

You could end up being right, but vegas would have us closer to 10 wins than 8 at that point. It's almost like, history has nothing to do with this team. History says we lose to Notre Dame more often than we win, so if we beat them, we are likely better than the average team in our history.

Hth. If we beat Notre Dame, the odds of 9-3 or even 10-2 would both be greater than 8-4 at that time. It could change if we lose to Florida, or if Arkansas takes us down. But at the time of beating Notre Dame, we'd probably be at 9.5 or so on the o/u at that point for vegas.

beerad12man said:

---

well_endowed_ag said:

---

gkaggie08 said:

---

No you didn't, you stated that you think we lose to ND. If you are saying that we go 8-4 after beating ND week 1, tell me the 4 losses you see coming

---

4 of Florida, Missouri, MSU, LSU, Auburn, South Carolina, and sip. I guess you can throw Arkansas in there too.

Thats a lot of games against a lot of pretty talented teams where things can go wrong, and history indicates things go wrong for us approximately 4 times.

---

You could end up being right, but vegas would have us closer to 10 wins than 8 at that point. It's almost like, history has nothing to do with this team. History says we lose to Notre Dame more often than we win, so if we beat them, we are likely better than the average team in our history.

Hth. If we beat Notre Dame, the odds of 9-3 or even 10-2 would both be greater than 8-4 at that time. It could change if we lose to Florida, or if Arkansas takes us down. But at the time of beating Notre Dame, we'd probably be at 9.5 or so on the o/u at that point for vegas.

---

Yeah I don't really care what the odds are now or if we beat ND. I think we're going 8-4. There are new faces, but a lot of this team is the same one that averaged 6.7 wins for the last 3 seasons and 7.8 wins during Jimbo's tenure. This after averaging 8.5 wins under Sumlin and 7.8 without a Heisman winner, after averaging 6.5 wins under Sherman, after averaging 7 wins for the ten seasons before that under Fran and Slocum.

I just go by history. Honestly, 8 wins is on the higher end of what we've done over the last 25 years on average.

So the first game is typically the hardest when starting a new regime. Yet, you want to ignore a win. Interesting theory.

Answer me this one. How important do you think the strength and conditioning coach position is in college football.

I do not understand how someone can think that the score of game 1 can/will influence an entire season. Silly.

Bison said:

---

Brendan207 said:

---

I think we will be the surprise good team in the SEC this year - Missouri and Ole Miss are wildly overrated and they aren't going to be the ones crashing the playoff party. We are undefeated going into Baton Route on 10/26 and drop that one, and then we lose to Texas to end the season, but stay in the playoff conversation.

Florida stinks.

---

Lose to Texas, two losses, no playoff if you have three SEC teams with one loss (Georgia, Bama, Texas). They won't put four SEC teams in unless B1G has a very down year.

Beat ND, I'll expect 8-4. Have to win road games at some point that are not Jerry World.

---

I don't think you quite grasp how big of a change occurred when the playoffs expanded. Big Ten is bidding for four teams to keep us from getting six.

Winning that game would be big and should be celebrated. But who cares what Vegas has us after that. Since when have we lived up to favorable odds?

When there's positivity and hype around us the players and/or staff never handle it well.

Game 1 would be great but remember Florida beat Utah and look what happened.
I'll have cigar night if we're 5-0 going into 11am Mizzou and one if we're 9-1 going into Jordan-Hare.

There's a pretty good chance we will be 5-0 going in the Missouri game.

After that things will get interesting.

IF the Ags win (which, come on, A&M has a long history of losing hype-games), everyone will get carried away until they lose to some team they shouldn't. Then lose a few more. Capping off with a loss to Texas, because, well, I mean, is it even A&M without dissapointment?

And yeah, that will be it. 7-5.

LB12Diamond said:

---

Answer me this one. How important do you think the strength and conditioning coach position is in college football.

---

Not as important as winning games.

You think we can pull off a "strength and conditioning coach position" national championship this year?

Hope so. However, I'll be more nervous AFTER that happens.

CoachLB said:

---

I will not be shocked when A&M beats ND. A lot plays into a full schedule, injuries things like that. But with no Bama, Ole Miss, Georgia on our schedule I really do not see a team on our schedule that the Aggies cannot beat. I believe our defense will be really good. Our offense has weapons and with Klein will get better every week. I am just really optimistic about the Aggies. No kool-aid, just from what I am seeing and hearing.

---

I agree.

I've been predicting 10-2 all along.

well_endowed_ag said:

---

beerad12man said:

---

well_endowed_ag said:

---

gkaggie08 said:

---

No you didn't, you stated that you think we lose to ND. If you are saying that we go 8-4 after beating ND week 1, tell me the 4 losses you see coming

---

4 of Florida, Missouri, MSU, LSU, Auburn, South Carolina, and sip. I guess you can throw Arkansas in there too.

Thats a lot of games against a lot of pretty talented teams where things can go wrong, and history indicates things go wrong for us approximately 4 times.

---

You could end up being right, but vegas would have us closer to 10 wins than 8 at that point. It's almost like, history has nothing to do with this team. History says we lose to Notre Dame more often than we win, so if we beat them, we are likely better than the average team in our history.

Hth. If we beat Notre Dame, the odds of 9-3 or even 10-2 would both be greater than 8-4 at that time. It could change if we lose to Florida, or if Arkansas takes us down. But at the time of beating Notre Dame, we'd probably be at 9.5 or so on the o/u at that point for vegas.

---

Yeah I don't really care what the odds are now or if we beat ND. I think we're going 8-4. There are new faces, but a lot of this team is the same one that averaged 6.7 wins for the last 3 seasons and 7.8 wins during Jimbo's tenure. This after averaging 8.5 wins under Sumlin and 7.8 without a Heisman winner, after averaging 6.5 wins under Sherman, after averaging 7 wins for the ten seasons before that under Fran and Slocum.

I just go by history. Honestly, 8 wins is on the higher end of what we've done over the last 25 years on average.

---

So if you just go by history, why bother playing the game? Our history is not going to impact how our current team performs. I would say that overall, historically speaking, our baseball program has been not great. Yet we just saw the best season we ever had come within a couple of runs of winning the national title. History is irrelevant.

True. However I'd argue there is a psyche element involved with some players and/or staff at places like A&M. But the right group pushes past it and sets a whole new standard.

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

well_endowed_ag said:

---

beerad12man said:

---

well_endowed_ag said:

---

gkaggie08 said:

---

No you didn't, you stated that you think we lose to ND. If you are saying that we go 8-4 after beating ND week 1, tell me the 4 losses you see coming

---

4 of Florida, Missouri, MSU, LSU, Auburn, South Carolina, and sip. I guess you can throw Arkansas in there too.

Thats a lot of games against a lot of pretty talented teams where things can go wrong, and history indicates things go wrong for us approximately 4 times.

---

You could end up being right, but vegas would have us closer to 10 wins than 8 at that point. It's almost like, history has nothing to do with this team. History says we lose to Notre Dame more often than we win, so if we beat them, we are likely better than the average team in our history.

Hth. If we beat Notre Dame, the odds of 9-3 or even 10-2 would both be greater than 8-4 at that time. It could change if we lose to Florida, or if Arkansas takes us down. But at the time of beating Notre Dame, we'd probably be at 9.5 or so on the o/u at that point for vegas.

---

Yeah I don't really care what the odds are now or if we beat ND. I think we're going 8-4. There are new faces, but a lot of this team is the same one that averaged 6.7 wins for the last 3 seasons and 7.8 wins during Jimbo's tenure. This after averaging 8.5 wins under Sumlin and 7.8 without a Heisman winner, after averaging 6.5 wins under Sherman, after averaging 7 wins for the ten seasons before that under Fran and Slocum.

I just go by history. Honestly, 8 wins is on the higher end of what we've done over the last 25 years on average.

---

So if you just go by history, why bother playing the game? Our history is not going to impact how our current team performs. I would say that overall, historically speaking, our baseball program has been not great. Yet we just saw the best season we ever had come within a couple of runs of winning the national title. History is irrelevant.

---

In college football, history is the most accurate indicator of future success. There are of course outliers, but notice how much *****ing and moaning this board (myself included) does about the "blue bloods" and the media favorites year after year. Notice it's largely the same group of programs year after year. It's actually pretty predictable.

Until we break the mold for a sustained period of time, there is no reason to predict outlier success from our program in any particular year.

Predicting who will be the media-favorites and what our season record will be are two different things. But I hear ya. I'll believe it when I see it.

well_endowed_ag said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

well_endowed_ag said:

---

beerad12man said:

---

well_endowed_ag said:

---

gkaggie08 said:

---

No you didn't, you stated that you think we lose to ND. If you are saying that we go 8-4 after beating ND week 1, tell me the 4 losses you see coming

---

4 of Florida, Missouri, MSU, LSU, Auburn, South Carolina, and sip. I guess you can throw Arkansas in there too.

Thats a lot of games against a lot of pretty talented teams where things can go wrong, and history indicates things go wrong for us approximately 4 times.

---

You could end up being right, but vegas would have us closer to 10 wins than 8 at that point. It's almost like, history has nothing to do with this team. History says we lose to Notre Dame more often than we win, so if we beat them, we are likely better than the average team in our history.

Hth. If we beat Notre Dame, the odds of 9-3 or even 10-2 would both be greater than 8-4 at that time. It could change if we lose to Florida, or if Arkansas takes us down. But at the time of beating Notre Dame, we'd probably be at 9.5 or so on the o/u at that point for vegas.

---

Yeah I don't really care what the odds are now or if we beat ND. I think we're going 8-4. There are new faces, but a lot of this team is the same one that averaged 6.7 wins for the last 3 seasons and 7.8 wins during Jimbo's tenure. This after averaging 8.5 wins under Sumlin and 7.8 without a Heisman winner, after averaging 6.5 wins under Sherman, after averaging 7 wins for the ten seasons before that under Fran and Slocum.

I just go by history. Honestly, 8 wins is on the higher end of what we've done over the last 25 years on average.

---

So if you just go by history, why bother playing the game? Our history is not going to impact how our current team performs. I would say that overall, historically speaking, our baseball program has been not great. Yet we just saw the best season we ever had come within a couple of runs of winning the national title. History is irrelevant.

---

In college football, history is the most accurate indicator of future success. There are of course outliers, but notice how much *****ing and moaning this board (myself included) does about the "blue bloods" and the media favorites year after year. Notice it's largely the same group of programs year after year. It's actually pretty predictable.

Until we break the mold for a sustained period of time, there is no reason to predict outlier success from our program.

---

I disagree. Look at the baseball example I cited. Our football history is decent, with an overall winning % > 60%. Decent, but not great. Your assertion is that A&M should win between 6-8 games each and every year, if only to adhere to history. If that is the case, then there is no reason to bother with this or spend money on it. Since the outcome is already decided by our history.

Except history proves this wrong. Clemson or Florida State.

If we beat Notre Dame, I think we will finish 10-2 (6-2 SEC) and if we lose to Notre Dame, I think we will finish 9-3 (6-2 SEC). We have a favorable home/away schedule with our toughest games against Notre Dame, Missouri, LSU, and Texas at home and winnable road games at Florida, Mississippi State, South Carolina, and Auburn. With that schedule, I am expecting a floor of 8-4 and a ceiling of 11-1. Hopefully, we can beat Florida on 9/14 to snap a 10-game road losing streak and win a road game for the first time since a 35-14 rout at Missouri on 10/16/2021. Otherwise, our road losing streak will reach 11 games, and our road win drought will exceed 3 years before our next true road game at Mississippi State on 10/19.

Next year, we will have a much less favorable home/away schedule because our toughest games against Notre Dame, Missouri, LSU, and Texas will all be on the road. Hopefully, we can take advantage of a favorable home/away schedule to finish at least 10-3 this year because it will be even harder to accomplish that goal next year.

NewEra2023 said:

---

Winning that game would be big and should be celebrated. But who cares what Vegas has us after that. Since when have we lived up to favorable odds?

When there's positivity and hype around us the players and/or staff never handle it well.

Game 1 would be great but remember Florida beat Utah and look what happened.
I'll have cigar night if we're 5-0 going into 11am Mizzou and one if we're 9-1 going into Jordan-Hare.

---

Actually, it's pretty much dead on over the years on the whole. It's usually our fans odds set on texags we fall short of. Usually vegas is within a game and damn close almost every year. 2022 being the obvious major exception that we greatly underachieved in. We have underachieved by 1.5 games or more 3 times in 12 years. After a ND win, we would likely be at 9.5, meaning we'd have to underachieve by 1.5 games from that point forward. Even for our disappointing program, that would be a bigger disappointing close to a season than normal from that point forward.

2012 o/u 7.5 - actual 10
2013 o/u 9.5 - actual 8
2014 o/u 7.5 - actual 7
2015 o/u 7.5 - actual 7
2016 o/u 6 - actual 8
2017 o/u 7 - actual 7
2018 o/u 7 - actual 8
2019 o/u 8 - actual 7
2020 o/u 7 actual 8
2021 o/u 9.5 - actual 8
2022 o/u 9.5 - actual 5 (the big outlier)
2023 o/u 8 - actual 7

Take out the biggest two outliers, one good and one bad (2012 and 2022) it's literally 84.5:85 in terms of wins predicted versus actual wins over 10 seasons.

Jimbo was a huge underachiever, but Sumlin actually overachieved on the whole (based on vegas win totals, granted some of that was his blundering down the stretch to finish the previous year). Vegas still hit it's mark overall. Is Elko more likely to overachieve or underachieve? I don't know, but if he beats ND, I think 8-4 is just not a prediction mired in reality at that given moment.

well_endowed_ag said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

well_endowed_ag said:

---

beerad12man said:

---

well_endowed_ag said:

---

gkaggie08 said:

---

No you didn't, you stated that you think we lose to ND. If you are saying that we go 8-4 after beating ND week 1, tell me the 4 losses you see coming

---

4 of Florida, Missouri, MSU, LSU, Auburn, South Carolina, and sip. I guess you can throw Arkansas in there too.

Thats a lot of games against a lot of pretty talented teams where things can go wrong, and history indicates things go wrong for us approximately 4 times.

---

You could end up being right, but vegas would have us closer to 10 wins than 8 at that point. It's almost like, history has nothing to do with this team. History says we lose to Notre Dame more often than we win, so if we beat them, we are likely better than the average team in our history.

Hth. If we beat Notre Dame, the odds of 9-3 or even 10-2 would both be greater than 8-4 at that time. It could change if we lose to Florida, or if Arkansas takes us down. But at the time of beating Notre Dame, we'd probably be at 9.5 or so on the o/u at that point for vegas.

---

Yeah I don't really care what the odds are now or if we beat ND. I think we're going 8-4. There are new faces, but a lot of this team is the same one that averaged 6.7 wins for the last 3 seasons and 7.8 wins during Jimbo's tenure. This after averaging 8.5 wins under Sumlin and 7.8 without a Heisman winner, after averaging 6.5 wins under Sherman, after averaging 7 wins for the ten seasons before that under Fran and Slocum.

I just go by history. Honestly, 8 wins is on the higher end of what we've done over the last 25 years on average.

---

So if you just go by history, why bother playing the game? Our history is not going to impact how our current team performs. I would say that overall, historically speaking, our baseball program has been not great. Yet we just saw the best season we ever had come within a couple of runs of winning the national title. History is irrelevant.

---

In college football, history is the most accurate indicator of future success. There are of course outliers, but notice how much *****ing and moaning this board (myself included) does about the "blue bloods" and the media favorites year after year. Notice it's largely the same group of programs year after year. It's actually pretty predictable.

Until we break the mold for a sustained period of time, there is no reason to predict outlier success from our program in any particular year.

---

You say no reason, but I'd say beating ND would be a damn good reason. Considering, once again, that most of our past teams would lose to a team of that caliber. So if we beat them, I'd argue that there's now no reason to believe that the past history should be factored in to THIS team. An Aggie win over Notre Dame would serve as a bigger data point for the rest of the 2024 season that ANYTHING that happened in 2022, 2017, 2014, or 2008.

If we beat ND I think the floor is 9-3.

What was Vegas after the USCar win in '14?

Genuinely curious

I can't take anyone seriously who thinks we may lose to Arkansas. They're going to be the worst team in the SEC. They're following the Chavis model by hiring a coach we fired, who was already past his prime.

We're going 9-3 if we beat ND. 8-4 if we lose. That's par for the course for Aggie expectations. In year one of Elko, that's highly respectable.

Aggie_Nuke said:

---

Z Team said:

---

How does the outcome of game 1 impact your expectations for the rest of the season?

---

Doesn't matter, we'll just continue on in year 85 of mediocrity.......... just like we've always done.

---

well_endowed_ag said:

---

LB12Diamond said:

---

Answer me this one. How important do you think the strength and conditioning coach position is in college football.

---

Not as important as winning games.

You think we can pull off a "strength and conditioning coach position" national championship this year?

---

LOL

I was curious how bad your response would be on this question. It was actually worse than I thought possible. Shows you basically have no depth at all in your thinking.

Elko has stated the most important thing is what teams do in the offseason to ensure positive results in the fall.

Mr not endowed with football IQ, basically states it means nothing.

What he does state is winning games only matters after arguing the entire thread even if we beat ND we still go 8-4. Thus meaning, a ND wins means nothing. The exact oppo at what he just stated.

FYI, everyone is laughing at you on this thread.

well_endowed_ag said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

well_endowed_ag said:

---

beerad12man said:

---

well_endowed_ag said:

---

gkaggie08 said:

---

No you didn't, you stated that you think we lose to ND. If you are saying that we go 8-4 after beating ND week 1, tell me the 4 losses you see coming

---

4 of Florida, Missouri, MSU, LSU, Auburn, South Carolina, and sip. I guess you can throw Arkansas in there too.

Thats a lot of games against a lot of pretty talented teams where things can go wrong, and history indicates things go wrong for us approximately 4 times.

---

You could end up being right, but vegas would have us closer to 10 wins than 8 at that point. It's almost like, history has nothing to do with this team. History says we lose to Notre Dame more often than we win, so if we beat them, we are likely better than the average team in our history.

Hth. If we beat Notre Dame, the odds of 9-3 or even 10-2 would both be greater than 8-4 at that time. It could change if we lose to Florida, or if Arkansas takes us down. But at the time of beating Notre Dame, we'd probably be at 9.5 or so on the o/u at that point for vegas.

---

Yeah I don't really care what the odds are now or if we beat ND. I think we're going 8-4. There are new faces, but a lot of this team is the same one that averaged 6.7 wins for the last 3 seasons and 7.8 wins during Jimbo's tenure. This after averaging 8.5 wins under Sumlin and 7.8 without a Heisman winner, after averaging 6.5 wins under Sherman, after averaging 7 wins for the ten seasons before that under Fran and Slocum.

I just go by history. Honestly, 8 wins is on the higher end of what we've done over the last 25 years on average.

---

So if you just go by history, why bother playing the game? Our history is not going to impact how our current team performs. I would say that overall, historically speaking, our baseball program has been not great. Yet we just saw the best season we ever had come within a couple of runs of winning the national title. History is irrelevant.

---

In college football, history is the most accurate indicator of future success. There are of course outliers, but notice how much *****ing and moaning this board (myself included) does about the "blue bloods" and the media favorites year after year. Notice it's largely the same group of programs year after year. It's actually pretty predictable.

Until we break the mold for a sustained period of time, there is no reason to predict outlier success from our program in any particular year.

---

So with that said, we should always assume 8-5

Stop with the built in excuses. Anything less than a win is unacceptable for this University

Throw history out in today's game with NIL and the portal and with programs ability to actually put money to work. If a roster of this talent and experience cant win 9 games its because of injury or in game coaching that is so inept it likely changes for 2025.

TexasAGGIEinAR said:

---

I can't take anyone seriously who thinks we may lose to Arkansas. They're going to be the worst team in the SEC. They're following the Chavis model by hiring a coach we fired, who was already past his prime.

---

A little much. Agree Ark Vandy and Miss State will be the worst but Petrino is still an elite OC. Our offense would've been exceptional under him if not for Jimbo. It was already better than what it was.