It's Pat Henry and there is no close 2nd. There are prob 5/6 coaches that deserve mention

AG75FYL said:

---

You obviously don't know much about track and field

---

You're exactly right man, I know NOTHING about track and field. And the reason I know nothing about track and field is because I don't care about track and field…at all. And neither does anyone else judging by tv time, NIL, endorsements, etc., it's entirely irrelevant. I know that's going to upset you and I sincerely apologize, but I'm just trying to be honest.

ETA: but you raise a good point. I can't affirmatively state that he's the best coach we've ever had on campus if I don't know anything about some of the other sports* on campus. When I initially made the post, I was really referring to the big three so I apologize for not condensing my conclusions down to just those three.

"put away the anointing oil will ya." - Bill Parcells

To me the regular season is not as important as the post season. He's 2-2 in the CWS for TAMU. Jury is still out in my opinion.

I bet OP thought Jimbo was the best coach we ever had after the Orange Bowl win.

You can't even have this discussion until you win a natty.

But haven't you proved the point? Who else at A&M has done better than 2-2 at the CWS than him?

Then why don't just let his tenure here play out before you anoint Schloss? This baseball team might "underachieve" like the '89. '93, '99, '12, '16 Aggie baseball teams and I'm not even going to expand this to other sports.

This thread is a master class in goal post movement and ignorance by the OP.

Fair enough. I'm very pleased with Coach Schloss' performance so far and wanted to give credit where credit is due but I guess I'm in the minority. That's ok though! Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

And they likely WILL underperform this year. The odds of not winning the CWS are greater than the odds that they will win it. But if they do lose, it won't be because of bad coaching decisions, undisciplined play, etc, it will simply be because we got beat and I can live with that.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

I certainly can appreciate all of Henry's success, but I don't think it's fair to assume that the difficulty in all coaching jobs starts at par. What I mean, is that I think it's much harder for a man to teach a kid how to hit a fastball or throw a curve, than it is to tell a kid to "run fast".

ETA: and I think comparing their respective salaries validates my point.

---

There is far, far, FAR more to track and field than telling someone to "run fast".

I have a nephew who was on a track and field scholarship in college. He was a pole vaulter. There were many skills and techniques involved other than "running fast". Same for high jump, javelin, shot putting, discus, etc.

Even runners have to know much more than "run fast". Distance runners train much differently than sprinters.

You're trivializing the work that goes into track and field, substantially. It's like saying in baseball all you have to do is "Hit Hard". Different skills come into play for every position. Just like in track and field.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

AG75FYL said:

---

You obviously don't know much about track and field

---

You're exactly right man, I know NOTHING about track and field. And the reason I know nothing about track and field is because I don't care about track and field…at all. And neither does anyone else judging by tv time, NIL, endorsements, etc., it's entirely irrelevant. I know that's going to upset you and I sincerely apologize, but I'm just trying to be honest.

ETA: but you raise a good point. I can't affirmatively state that he's the best coach we've ever had on campus if I don't know anything about some of the other sports* on campus. When I initially made the post, I was really referring to the big three so I apologize for not condensing my conclusions down to just those three.

---

Sports

W said:

---

yes, in T&F the athlete is not competing directly against the physical skill of the other athlete

---

Wait we are just gonna let this statement slide??

thread makes my head hurt, but ill exit comfortably knowing that shane beamer is a better coach than dawn staley cause he makes 2.5-3x the money she does and i dont care about women bouncy ball, so hah.

You'll also exit with no reading comprehension because no one suggested any such thing in this thread.

Did you not make the argument that Schloss is a better coach than Henry because we are willing to pay him more?

I'm thrilled with the job Schloss has done since the end of last season. I think it's one of the best coaching jobs I've seen at A&M.

But would he be "officially the greatest" of all time if LSU hadn't hired Yeskie?

jkag89 said:

---

Did you not make the argument that Schloss is a better coach than Henry because we are willing to pay him more?

---

Not because he's a better coach but because he's worth exponentially more to the university.

How would you answer this hypothetical?

In the next several seasons Schloss brings us a couple of CWS Championships. Then a year or two later Elko gets us into the football playoff (or deep into it since it is expanding) and/or Buzz gets us to the Final Four. Then a year or two later about 2/3 into the season they achieve #1 Ranking. Would Schloss still be the best coach or Elko/Buzz since their salaries show they are " worth exponentially more to the university?" Is this not the argument you are making about Schloss and Henry?

Schlossnagle is German for "Castle nail." Not sure what to make of that, but maybe it's a metaphor for the guy holding up the program.

Coach Pat Henry has done a truly amazing job. One of the best ever. Anywhere.

Aggie87 said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

. . . There is far, far, FAR more to track and field than telling someone to "run fast".

---

---

You're right.




The REALLY good coaches also know to tell their runners to "TURN LEFT".

My point with the "salary" comment is that he gets paid more because baseball is the harder sport to coach (and manage and recruit, etc.), and because the return on the investment in him is MUCH greater than it is with Henry. I didn't say he gets paid more because he's a better coach.

It's the same with football. Elko gets paid more than Schloss because the job is harder, recruiting is harder, etc., and the return on the investment in him is better than it is with Schloss. His higher salary doesn't mean he's a better coach. Jimbo made a TON more than Schloss and I still think Schloss was much better at his job.

But we can end it here if y'all would like to, my bad. I posted that I thought our baseball coach was the best we've ever had on campus, ON THE A&M BASEBALL BOARD, and I got two pages in response telling me that I'm an idiot, I'm wrong, ignorant, not smart, etc. which seems strange, but that's ok. See you guys on Friday!

SchizoAg said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Here is why.

Since I've been alive (46 years) A&M has underachieved in literally everything sports related. Always a sleeping giant, never a blue blood.

So why is that given all of our resources?

It all comes down to terrible head coaching hires over and over and over again.

We are not cursed as some think, we've just been awful at hiring coaches.

Schloss is the exception though and proving the point. The only thing we've been missing is competent head coaches.

---

No.

There is a hell of a lot more to winning than having a great head coach. Otherwise coaches would be able to win national titles anywhere -- not have to work their way up to a major program.

Schloss is great because of his ability to attract top assistants, high school recruits, and transfers. Much of that is due to the appeal of A&M itself. He's also pretty good at the coaching part of the job, but as outsiders we can't really separate him from his staff in that regard.

---

Schloss is getting those A+ staffers because he's an elite coach. Not the other way around. He's got two decades of success with many different staffs and rosters to prove it.

It's not the appeal of A&M bringing those guys here. We never manged to get this kind of talent before Jim showed up, and he was doing just fine at TCU. We're a historically mediocre baseball program with below average facilities and fan investment when comparing to the rest of the SEC; that's the truth of it if you take the maroon glasses off. Schloss is right when he *****es about our stadium...there are multiple SEC schools with stadiums twice the size of ours, meanwhile he gets to look across the street and watch our perennially underachieving football program have another $100M facility built.

He's here because he realized that SEC baseball is taking off and he sees the potential this place has if he can get the same level of buy in that football has. When he's done A&M probably will have that kind of allure your referring to, but it's going to be because of him

I wholeheartedly disagree. Schloss gets paid more because for better or worse baseball is just that more of a visible sport and hence brings more attention to the school.

As for why we might disagree is maybe we're just in wait and see mode. Those of us that have been following Aggie Baseball for years and years are thrilled what we've seen from Schloss so far but we've all seen and heard it before into a short period of a coach's tenure.. I'll use football because it is easiest to illustrate, RC did an excellent job maintaining what Jackie built but that was not good enough, Franconie was going to take us to the promiseland, then after a supposed misstep with Sherman, Sumlin and most recently Jimbo. In other words. we're OK letting a coach find his footing without all the hype.

jkag89 said:

---

I wholeheartedly disagree. Schloss gets paid more because for better or worse baseball is just that more of a visible sport and hence brings more attention to the school.

---

But isn't that EXACTLY what I said? That he gets paid more than Henry because the job is harder and it brings in more money for the school?

Coaching with NIL > coaching without NIL

There, it's finally been said. It's going to be hard to compare past and present coaches due to this.

Fun thread! Few athletics programs have underachieved as much as A&M…given the sick level of resources here. Look at UConn and basketball. Between the men and women…18 natties all since 1995.

It's fun to think what Schloss can do here!

Of course I'm also drinking the Elkohol! I hope we drop 60+ on the rancid steers come Nov.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

jkag89 said:

---

I wholeheartedly disagree. Schloss gets paid more because for better or worse baseball is just that more of a visible sport and hence brings more attention to the school.

---

But isn't that EXACTLY what I said? That he gets paid more than Henry because the job is harder and it brings in more money for the school?

---

Not in my opinion. I don't think any job is harder or easier. Some have more pressure surrounding them but I don't necessarily believe it is harder to be a great college football coach in comparison to a great baseball coach.

Best coach on campus? How you forget Kaylee Greiner, A&M's head coach of the National Champion Meat Judging team?

OP is a vegetarian. .

McInnis said:

---

I'm thrilled with the job Schloss has done since the end of last season. I think it's one of the best coaching jobs I've seen at A&M.

But would he be "officially the greatest" of all time if LSU hadn't hired Yeskie?

---

Wasn't Yeskie likely going to get the boot already?

Hungry Ojos said:

---

jkag89 said:

---

I wholeheartedly disagree. Schloss gets paid more because for better or worse baseball is just that more of a visible sport and hence brings more attention to the school.

---

But isn't that EXACTLY what I said? That he gets paid more than Henry because the job is harder and it brings in more money for the school?

---

My job is harder than my bosses job, but my boss gets paid more.

West Point Aggie said:

---

Fun thread! Few athletics programs have underachieved as much as A&M…given the sick level of resources here.

---

I've seen every other fanbase/forums say the same exact ***** "We are the biggest chokers in history". "We are going to <insert their school mascot/name here> this game". "We are the biggest underachievers". "We're snakebitten".

Tobias Funke said:

---

W said:

---

yes, in T&F the athlete is not competing directly against the physical skill of the other athlete

---

Wait we are just gonna let this statement slide??

---

Sometimes people just tell on themselves.

texAZtea said:

---

Tobias Funke said:

---

W said:

---

yes, in T&F the athlete is not competing directly against the physical skill of the other athlete

---

Wait we are just gonna let this statement slide??

---

Sometimes people just tell on themselves.

---

Yeah…bias confirmation is real…

Doesn't A&M have more all time wins in baseball than any SEC team?

While I acknowledge the lack of a title (many SEC teams have titles), that means we have consistently won more over the years than our peers. Chandler, Johnson, Childress all got a team to the CWS, all had the team ranked #1 for at least one week in a season. I really like Schloss, but sans the win over Notre Dame in Omaha, he has not accomplished one other single thing that his predecessors have not. Hoping that changes this year.

As for stating that A&M athletics always underachieves, I think that is a greatly exaggerated line of rhetoric. Football, yes. Other sports, not so much.

I think you can actually make a reasonable argument that many of our athletic teams actually overachieve on a regular basis. For God's sakes, we won national titles in T&F without a track for years. Our basketball team was historically never good and we are a pretty good program now. We wont a title in women's basketball at a school that no one cares about womens basketball. The women's sports ledger is really impressive once you realize that we didn't even add women on campus until the 70's.

Hungry Ojos is a sip

He's always talking bad about A&M