I read some discussion about the LSU game but there are some lingering bad feelings between the Ags and the Tigers. I presume that is due to their negative recruiting and the fact that they bailed out of the last game with us without paying a penalty. Does anyone have current facts?

No, but if we let Tech take this game...I'm not sure the national media or recruits will laugh anymore when Tech claims to be the 2nd biggest football program in Texas behind the sips.

NO freakin' kidding... if Byrne lets Tech get a hold of a game with LSU, then he really has sealed his fate in my eyes as not only a chicken, but a dumb-a$$ at the same time.

This is a series that the Ags should be playing, and any of the lame-A$$ excuses Byrne keeps giving us (we don't want to let them into our fertile recruiting grounds) are just stupid.

Nut-up and bring on LSU!

First off, I would much rather play LSU as a Kyle/Red Stick home and home, but that doesn't seem likely at all. So, IMO, if LSU is going to seek a game in Texas anyway which throws the "recruiting foothold" argument out the window, might as well be against us. We'd probably score a nice pay day from a neutral site game as well, plus it satisfies Byrne's desire to have tougher non conference foes played later in the schedule (if the game is held during the State Fair)



[This message has been edited by MemAg92 (edited 5/29/2006 12:09p).]

A tard/L$U neutral game in Texas every year would be a double kick in our a$$. I understand the argument for not playing them now, but if we let this scenario fold out both programs will benefit mightily at our expense. We need to go ahead and schedule a long-term series with L$U.

quote:

---

...and any of the lame-A$$ excuses Byrne keeps giving us (we don't want to let them into our fertile recruiting grounds) are just stupid.

---

With such an effective, thorough, and insightful rebuttal, I don't know why Byrne doesn't see your point of view.

Whats the advantage, the corrupt Cajuns make damn sure that all the top instate players end up at LSU.
So whats their to gain from the game besides pride? We get to go head to head with Lousiana Tech for some of the second-tier instate talent?

Do any of you really understand the level of corruption that exists in the SEC? Personally I want as little to do with that conference as possible. I understand completely why Franchione made a lateral move the heck out of that snakepit to a struggling Big 12 program.

Keegan,
Well, if Byrne says we don't want to play them (for all his weak reasons) and Tech and LSU start a series in Dallas, what is the excuse gonna be? WE DON'T RECRUIT DALLAS?

Well, he'd be right on that point....

Real Maroon Blood,

Why the hell should we play them if they are just gonna quit on us like last time we had series against them?

Or is that not a "good" enough reason for you?

bring on those bastages.

LSU is already in Texas, they are next door have a MNC in the last couple years, etc. I say we take the series, we could really us the national attention. Even if it means taking an beating the first couple years we could pay off in the long run.

Am I the only one who likes as many games as possible at Kyle Field?

bring back the LSU series!

and screw the pansies who are against it.

LSU games are a blast and their fans are fun to tailgate with.

Plus the obvious national exposure.

you know what is funny.. Is when people complain about are soft schedule but they BI*** and complain about playing LSU..

Who cares "why or where" we play LSU, we just need to play them.. There is more upside to a series with LSU than negatives..

It would be nice to have non-conference games agaisnt the likes of Miami and LSU than the Citadel and some other crap schools

Playing LSU is Dallas would be good for us. We may get beat at first, but our program will not be down forever. Then, we will be able to recruit the players from Dallas that we haven't been able to get.

We don't want Tech to get the series. It will only help them continue to rise. They are already starting to recruit better, and getting this series would only add to that.

Wow. So now Tech scheduling LSU would vault them into top program status? This one game would allow Tech to surpass A&M, a program that has over 20 conference championships, a heisman winner, and 1/2 national championships? Tech has 0 outright conference championships in the SWC and Big XII, but somehow this one magical game will erase all of that?

Some of you guys have too much estrogen.

Gig 'em

[This message has been edited by BigD Ag (edited 5/29/2006 2:48p).]

Estrogen or Common Sense

It gives Tech just one more stepping stone to take that next step. I guess Houston and Baylor are "power houses" because they have more conference championships than Tech. Wake-up the landscape of college football in Texas has/and continues to change. Tech has been making the right moves...and we put on the maroon glasses and so "yeah, but we're a&m"...and tech just smiles and continues to put itself in a position to suceed and elevate its status.

-BigD Ag

Live in the now and not the past..

I am more worried with the now and the current state of our program.

IMO, Tech is surpassing us in Football and this series would be just another example. I am not saying it would make Tech a top tier football program but it shows you have the balls to play with the big boys.

You get better by playing the best not by beating up on "soft" non-conference teams.

Let's play LSU in Dallas...would be fine by me. It would not be to our benefit to se Tech play them in Dallas each year...I think it would make Leach's job easier in recruiting Dallas players (as it would for LSU).

I recall the 'old' days when we played LSU each year...they were damned exciting. While I'd rather have a home-and-away with the Tigers, an annual battle in Dallas would be great as well.

The past is part of our present. Those things I mentioned are things that we sell to recruits. We can leverage that.

I fully recognize that we haven't been doing well, but for me to realistically sit here and say Tech is going to surpass us...well, I couldn't do it with a straight face. Maybe I could if we weren't willing to do what it took to win.

Not having the LSU series in Dallas has nothing to do with our desire to win. Look at our past 8 years -- we have played Virginia Tech, Notre Dame, Clemson, Utah, etc. What has that got us? NOTHING. And why? Because nobody cares who you play unless you're winning.

Now, if your correlation of playing big boys is true, then please post Tech's marquee matchups over the past 8 years? I presume they have all been top 10 teams because, after all, "our willingness to play the big boys" has certainly paid off, wouldn't you say?

Fact of the matter is we're losing and some of you guys allow estrogen to take over facts. We have played marquee matchups these past 8 years and it got us nothing.

Gig 'em

Whoopgkc99


Thank you.. Well SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is time to take of the "Maroon Colored Glasses"!!!!

How is my saying that I am not overly worried about Tech's surpassing us putting on maroon colored glasses?

If anything, I think you have the maroon colored glasses. Somehow thinking that getting it handed to us by LSU in Dallas is somehow going to bring us back from the dead and start kicking ass is delusional.

I am more worried about winning the games we're actually supposed to win. Our problems are deeper and bigger than "oh, this LSU series will revive the A&M program." It seems to be what some of you are hinting towards.

By the way, comparing Houston/Baylor to A&M is pretty funny. Baylor is a small private school not named Notre Dame. Houston is a commuter school that's not in a major conference. A&M, meanwhile, continues to get better in the academic arena, is one of the biggest Universities in the nation, is one of the top 10 endowed Universities in the nation, has a presidential library, is one of the top research Universities in the world, plays in one of the top stadiums in all of college football, has a rich history and tradition, etc. You're right, the college football landscape is changing and it is benefiting big universities such as A&M.

The fact that the product that our coach is currently putting out there on the field doesn't reflect that has nothing to do with the LSU series, or lack of it.

Gig 'em


[This message has been edited by BigD Ag (edited 5/29/2006 3:11p).]

I didn't compare Houston/Baylor to A&M. I simply applied your logic to facts to demonstrate how ridiculous your train of thought is regarding the perception of tech's football program on the national landscape.

Hilarious that you go out of your way to illustrate my point in a later post.

Wrong again. Houston's program is dead for other reasons.

For example, when Texas was down in the 80s and early 90s, nobody could have convinced me that they would be surpassed by Tech or even A&M in the long-run.

There's simply too much infrastructure. They aren't going to go away like Houston.

Now, tell me, do you really think that A&M will somehow "go away?" Do you really think that one of the two flagship Universities in Texas will simply go away?

If you can logically explain to me how Tech will overcome all that we have and they don't and be the second best team in Texas, I'm all ears.

Your use of 2 schools that nobody cares about in an attempt to apply that to A&M was simply a poor comparison. Schools like A&M just don't go away for very long.

Tech has been better than us pretty much every year since 2000, yet we still outrecruit them. Give us one good season and they'll go back to where they ought to be. We'll get better players than them this year as well, in spite of their best season since I can remember and one of our more forgettable ones.

Gig 'em

Not if it means losing a home game every year, but home and home would be fine.

In your illustration --just replace A&M with Tech. And that is my point.

Look, all I know if that Tech and A&M had almost identically ranked recruiting classes. In your world that would never happen because we're a&m.

Tech has owned us in the last 10 years. They continue to upgrade their facilities. They are leading the pack in the naming rights department,in order to financially compete with a&m.

They are going forward while we are going backwards. WE could take steps to stop it. But, we show no signs of doing so. Playing an LSU series instead of allowing Tech to --would be one way to actively stop the bleeding.

Hiring Butch Davis or Mike Sherman or another proven winner as head coach would also be another step.

You can only bleed for so long, before you bleed to death.

quote:

---

If anything, I think you have the maroon colored glasses. Somehow thinking that getting it handed to us by LSU in Dallas is somehow going to bring us back from the dead and start kicking ass is delusional.

---

never said it would bring us back from the dead..

I am tired of not playing great teams because we are afraid to lose.. Since when are we afraid of good competition.

Maybe you are ok with mediocre and wining


[This message has been edited by docbow (edited 5/29/2006 3:28p).]

It's hard to replace Tech with A&M when their name doesn't even show up as one of the top Universities in the US, when they don't have a presidential library, when they're not one of the top 10 endowed universities in the nation, when they don't have a top 10-15 research department with land, sea, and air grants. Now, if we indeed were doing nothing about it, I would agree with you, but that's simply not true. We are doing things about it, but some of our fans are simply too upset with the results to see it.

I do think Tech could have similar ranked classes to A&M, but not over the long-run. In random years, yes. However, A&M over the past 4 years has had 2 top 15 and one top 10 class. Tech has never been in the top 10 and I don't remember their ever being in the top 15. Fact is, as soon as we start showing results on the field again we'll be right back there and we don't need some magical LSU series to do that. We just need to freakin' beat Iowa State and Baylor, for starters. I'd say we have to stop that bleeding first.

Yes, they are upgrading their facilities. In case you haven't noticed, we are also upgrading ours. Have you seen what is going on at Kyle? Jumbotron has been replaced. Do I need to mention the Bright complex or have we already forgotten that one? Indoor facility will be tops in the nation. Reed arena will be getting major upgrades. Track will as well. Tennis, done and we'll have an indoor tennis facility to go along with it. Soccer? No problem, we're improving that. You are right though, we don't have Riley auto on our court and on Billy G's suit. Sorry about that, I guess we're just giving up.

How are we going backwards? Because last I checked we just had our best ever Sears cup showing 2 years ago. Where is Tech on that list? What steps could we take to stop it? Oh, you mean steps like fire RC and hire Fran? We did that. We spent $2MM on the guy. Could anyone have foreseen what would happen with Fran in his first 3 years? Maybe people smarter than myself, but I will admit that I was absolutely thrilled. Now, I'm not too sure that we didn't make a mistake. I hope we didn't. You mention Butch Davis and in a perfect world I think we'd have him here tomorrow. Now, if you can get around that little hurdle of money that would be great. As recently as last year RC was still on our payroll. Now you're suggesting buying out Fran's contract and replacing him with another $2MM coach? If we could do that and not feel the pinch I would 100% agree with you. However, let's look for realistic solutions. We're in a bit of a bind here. We gambled and thought we hired a heck of a coach. He's not turning out to be that after 3 years. I hope he turns it around in year 4. It has more to do with that than with A&M just sitting on its hands.

I almost forgot, let me tell you about some of the things A&M has done to "stop the bleeding." Gillispie, Blair, Henry (probably the best track coach in the nation), Childress. These are all new hires within the past 3 years, brought on to do one thing, win. We're trying.

I agree with you on our football coaching situation, but it gets more complicated when you bring numbers into the simple equation of "bring in Davis or Sherman..."

Gig 'em

quote:

---

Because nobody cares who you play unless you're winning.

---

Bingo.

we are talking football here, who care about the other comparisons..

quote:

---

Fact is, as soon as we start showing results on the field again we'll be right back there and we don't need some magical LSU series to do that. We just need to freakin' beat Iowa State and Baylor, for starters. I'd say we have to stop that bleeding first.

---

First of all, no one is saying that this one series with LSU is magical, so let it go. It is about once again improving through better games and competition. The rest of your quote is just plain sad if that is your thinking.


[This message has been edited by docbow (edited 5/29/2006 4:01p).]

http://rivals100.rivals.com/teamrank.asp

Tech #25
A&M #27

So basically one year Tech held even with us in recruiting...after their best season in nearly 30 years and thier second best in school history....after we had our 2nd losing season in 3 years. That tells you something.

The Rivals rating that were quoted on Signing Day had A&M ahead of Tech.

If Byrne wants to play a neutral site game in Dallas, then I much prefer it to be a non-conference game, and this particular matchup scratches some other itches (exposure in Dallas, national appeal, and getting all the folks moaning about resuming this series to switch to some other subject). As a season ticket holder, I would feel much better about being asked to buy tickets to a marquee non-conference matchup (something we apparently aren't going to see much of at Kyle, given recent scheduling trends) in Dallas than I would giving up a good conference home game.

Yeah the counted a recruit that did not sign. When they found out he did not sign they adjusted the ratings. Also, the player who helped yall the most in your ratings has not yet qualified.