quote:

---

You mean like having a prominent statue have its ass face college station? Obsession noted.

Generic Fan: What has Tech done?
Tektard: We beat A&M!!!!
Generic Fan: Are you ranked?
Tektard: Who cares! We beat A&M!
Generic Fan: Now, what championship have you won?
Tektard: Championships! You think I care about championships! We beat A and friggin' M!!!!
Generic Fan: So you say you're a program on the rise and you're future is bright. Why?
Tektard: Duuuuude! We beat A&M!!! Are you deaf?!!!
Generic Fan: You had a 5 loss season and a no name bowl? Why are you so cocky?
Tektard: Knock knock. Who's there? WE BEAT A&M!!!!

---

Excellent...just the type of posts I've come to expect every year after the atm game. Yeah yeah yeah, it's our superbowl and we're all supposed to be shaking in our boots for next year.

Stop. Rewind. Play.

So, unless Tech wins the Big 12, does that prove that the atm game was the superbowl?

I lost all hope of logic when I heard a Tektard mention "Tech" and "championship" in the same sentence. He might as well just said that Hillary Clinton is going to be the next governor of Texas.

techguy

Is it really asking for too much for you to show me what has Tech done besides beat A&M over the last 10 years?

quote:

---

Is it really asking for too much for you to show me what has Tech done besides beat A&M over the last 10 years?

---

It is too much to ask for, they haven't done anything over the last 50 years.

We were in contention for the Big 12 south until the last game of the year last year. We won 9 games, beat the holy hell outta Clemson in a bowl game...not evidence of folding up after the atm game. No, we haven't won the Big 12 yet or a NC. But when you say "haven't done jack ****", I think more in terms of going 6-6 and no bowl.

I can't be. I've reassured by several tektards that they are in fact on their way to a championship. So surely they are basing it on more than 5 loss season and a win over A&M.

quote:

---

But when you say "haven't done jack ****", I think more in terms of going 6-6 and no bowl.

---

Actually, you had a 6-6 no bowl season not too long ago. And you'll need to do more than beat Clemson in the friggin' Tangerine bowl on the heals of 5 loss season.

I agree with all of that. If we don't win 9 or 10 games this year, it'll be a disappointment. This is just a predictable and typical response from some of you ags. We win by 4 TDs and the response is "well, you've never won a Big 12 title". Well no sh*t, I didn't expect that would change overnight just because we beat atm for the umpteenth time in the last decade.

We probably won't win the Big12 again this year. If you haven't noticed, OU and UT are pretty good. If we win 10 games and bowl this year, I wouldn't consider it "not doing jack sh*t". And don't kid yourself, atm would be celebrating 9 or 10 wins and a bowl win.

The ags would have us believe that you purposely just cycle through a few years of 6-6 and don't want to waste time on 9 win seasons and a bowl win...as if atm has always been a nc team just waiting to happen at any moment. I ain't buying it. Downplay it if you like, but there's nothing wrong with 9 or 10 win seasons.

[This message has been edited by ttechguy (edited 10/7/2003 12:40a).]

Great, logical, and intellegent posts from the Raiders.

Crybaby B.S. sore loser posts from the ags.

Nice points...

Our program is steadily improving each year, with 9 wins last year, and most likely at least 10 wins this year. The program will continually improve.

Oh, and nice point about Fran this year. He comes in and does absolutely NOTHING in his first year so far. Leach never had this bad a season even with Spikes leftovers. (running an ENTIRELY NEW OFFENSE)

All points have been awarded to Raiders in this argument thus far.

By the way, I'm not buying this "down year" crap either. Obviously atm has had better records in the past. But remember, Tech was supposed to be in deep trouble after KK left. Last year was supposed to be an aberration. And damn near every defensive starter this year is a freshman or sophmore. So I guess we're in a down year too.

another excellent point.

Gee stevee, Lubbock was ranked by The Sporting News about 30 spots higher than CS (came in at #59, with only ut and perhaps one or two other Big12 teams ahead of us). Forbes put Lubbock in the the top 30 in terms of starting a new business. Look, I have no knock against CS, just that it's no better than Lubbock.

I just had to chime in on the whole finances issue. It seems that many of you have been overcharged for your prestigious aggy education.

If you know anything about the current status of revenues and expenses in intercollegiate atheltics, you would understand that what tech is doing is an amazing accomplishment. The trend is for rich teams to get richer, and poor teams to get poorer. However, TTU is one of the few poorer teams on the rise.

And to keep anymore of you from trying to show off your tier II education, this is why Tech is on the rise: Contrary to popular belief, on average, institutional support is not the biggest revenue in D1-A athletic budgets. Ticket sales and alumni contributions are. At Tech, both are on the increase - mainly because of Leach.

Also, for those who think that money buys championships, there has been recent research that supports otherwise.

By the way, every time someone brings up the stamp issue, you look really dumb. All athletic departments are on a tight budget.

quote:

---

for those who think that money buys championships, there has been recent research that supports otherwise.

---

such as?

It amazes me how many tech fans show up after the A&M game...Tell me, where were you before the A&M game?

krusty at ttu? when i think of that handle, i imagine some "well worn" coed driving a big pickup truck down Avenue P.

I had a test and was sick last week. I've periodically been on this board for over a year now. Why does that matter anyway? I'm not rubbing in anything.

As far as recent research, pick up a scholarly journal every now and then. Do your own research.

quote:

---

Tell me, where were you before the A&M game?

---

They were having a bake sale to raise money to keep Leach.

quote:

---

As far as recent research, pick up a scholarly journal every now and then. Do your own research.

---

you are the one who purported that money doesnt win championships, i ask for proof and you cant even give me one off the top of your head...

If you are going to make a statement that you can't prove, don't make it...how about actually doing some research before you say something

I'll give you some schools that have won championships with money...

ou
fsu
ohio state
miami

There is also a direct correlation between the ranking of athletic budgets and ranking in the Top 25. Our recent slide notwithstanding. But it has been proven time and time again that those programs with superior funding can, and do, pull themselves out of any rough times they encounter.

The empirical results suggest that increased operating spending on men’s football
is not associated, on average, with a substantial increase or decrease in net revenue from
football. This linkage between spending and revenue can be divided into two
components: the relationship between spending and winning, and the relationship
between winning and revenue. Our analysis suggests that both of these links are weak.


I've done my research. Your tier II education is shining through.

http://www.ncaa.org/databases/baselineStudy/baseline.pdf

quote:

---

If state income taxes are so easily absorbed by federal income taxes, then why do so many businesses relocate in Texas every year-- and a key reason is this-- NO STATE INCOME TAXES.

---

Economics 101 - State Income Taxes for Tier 3ers:

Part A: States with no income tax
1. Texas
2. Florida

End of class

Please. I don't need a study to see that the top programs in teh country all rank at or near the top in terms of athletic budget. Are you honestly trying to tell me that if Texas spent as much on football as Kent State did they'd be just as good?

quote:

---

The report’s authors warned that they did not have enough information to either prove or disprove some of the ideas they studied.

---

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/952446.asp

When they did this study they noted that...

quote:

---

“Since it is only the top
IA schools that generate significant positive net income, it is not surprising that new
arrivals to the big time do not flourish financially.”

---

It is those schools winning championships, which this arguement is about...not winning percentages

All I'm saying is there is evidence that contradicts what you've been saying about A&M's budget. Just because you have a higher budget doesn't mean you are better than tech.

I figured that the last decade of dominance would prove it, but by being an aggy by nature, you seemed to need extra evidence.

Oh my god y'all are dumb!

All researchers say they don't prove anything. They just support. It's CYA.

And if you don't think winning percentages have anything to do with winning championships you're kidding yourself.

Okay, that's one possibility. It's not a given that Florida is even going to fire its coach. Also, cost of living in Lubbock is bound to be much lower than in Florida.

quote:

---

All I'm saying is there is evidence that contradicts what you've been saying about A&M's budget. Just because you have a higher budget doesn't mean you are better than tech.

I figured that the last decade of dominance would prove it, but by being an aggy by nature, you seemed to need extra evidence.

---

And in the last decade of conference play you've finished the year ahead of A&M in the conference standings twice. That's why we make fun of you. Aside from beating A&M you've done exactly nothing.

quote:

---

Also, cost of living in Lubbock is bound to be much lower than in Florida.

---

There's a reason a BMW costs more than a Volkswagon you moron.

Gene, what does ten years ago have to do with now? Ten years ago A&M was a contender, unlike now. Now Tech is a contender, been getting better every year since Leach started, and only looks to get ever better.

Step out of the time machine, and face the present........

Here are some facts:

Texas Tech is 4-1
Texas A&M is 2-3

Texas A&M has more talent and a higher-paid coach.

The ags must have a really good history department. Seems like all aggies are always interested in it.

Uh, you brought up the fact that you have dominated us this decade. I only responded to the time frame that you provided.

We don't have more talent starting than Tech. We have very few players even on the team from teh 2000 and 2001 classes. That's why there are so man new and walk-on starters.

And regarding you being a contender, you're wrong. Tech doesn't contend for championships.

We shall see.


I can sense the slightest human suffering.
Sensing anything now?

quote:

---

We don't have more talent starting than Tech

---

hmmmmmmm......So now it is not the coaching or the system, but the talent.....Tech now has more talent than A&M...........But I thought your infinite resources would not allow losses to institutions with less resources?

You need to change your name to Gene "Fickle".........

I said more talent starting. The initial classed were more talented than Tech. But those players aren't very useful when they aren't on the team anymore. Our freshmen and sophomores are more talented than Tech. But it's hard to get them to beat a group of kids at Tech who run their system to perfection when our kids are still getting used to the speed of the NCAA game.