Aggies in Top 10 next year????

It's not THAT far-fetched. They did well recruiting. You add the incoming freshmen to the existing core and they should be pretty solid.

 

I think the top 10 is too high. A&M finished the year really, really well and there is nice talent (Bryan Davis probably being the best one) coming in next year, but they have to show more than I've seen so far to be convinced they are top 10. Namely, they need to play some real out of conference games for a change. Playing schools like Arkansas Tech, Savannah State, Mississippi Valley State, and Grambling State won't get you much respect and won't teach your team how to compete against top competition.

I think that they should be in the top 20, for sure, but that also means no more sneaking up on other teams. It means that everyone will be more fired up to play you than you'll be to play them (unless you're playing Texas or Kansas or somebody ranked higher). That's not a bad thing, as it means that the program is on the rise and it will prepare the players for a possible tournament run.

 

No way!

Go Horns and Coogs!

Geaux Tigers!

 

This is pretty exciting news. Yesterday I was at the rec and the entire team was practicing on one of the courts. Even managed to play with a few of them. Its weird to see Gilespie in person, almost like running into a celebrity. Well to me anyways. Its always great to rout for a team you can brush elbows with. But ya, top 10 is a little crazy. Gibson is going to explode for Texas, Kansas is going to be championship contender, and teams like OU, Nebraska, Mizzou, and Colorado are going to be competitive. TAMU is going to be fighting in the Big 12 so forget implementing a tough preseason. Its not neccisary. If we get another 20 win season we better PAY Gilespie, cut the baseball program, and designate Fran his b****.

 

gig em pie

 

I don't understand this thinking at all. Unlike in football (where one loss can knock you out of the National Championship race), playing tough teams and tough games during the regular season will only HELP a team for the tournament. If you're so concerned about what A&M's record will be by playing a real opponent (I'm not even talking about playing a Duke here...just a good team that plays in a major conference), given the toughness of Big 12 play, then what I hear you say is that A&M isn't that good of team to begin with. Therefore, you need to hide behind crap wins against Savannah State or something to boost your record. I don't see top teams schedule like that, avoiding any real competition until conference play. If Gillespie wants to turn A&M into more than a flash in the pan program, then he needs to start scheduling teams like he's not some scared mother, overprotecting her scrawny little boy from the big, mean kids down the street.

Look at this past year, where A&M's tournament bid was based solely on a win vs. Texas in College Station on a last second shot. They had no other win of note. It's no wonder that many in the national media questioned A&M's invitation (Seth Davis on CBS being one prominent one) to the tournament. Obviously, hindsight tells us that A&M was a good ballclub and deserving of a bid, but had they lost to Syracuse in the first round, you'd hear a lot of talk questioning whether they should have even been in the tournament. I'd be one of them, to be honest. In basketball, even losses can help and make a team better (if you have a good coach)...often even more than a win over an overmatched opponent that nobody respects.

 

This team was 0-16 in conference two years ago. He scheduled to get them some confidence early in the season, easy winnable games (teach them how to win first) . Then you run into the problem of A&M was a pretty decent team but not good enough to warrant scheduling. No good team would want to go to college station because it would either be a really bad loss or a win they should win and does nothing for them. It made no sense to play the aggies. There was no benefit going to college station. As for the road games, again it would be hard to get a really good team to schedule them for that reason. They would not play a home and home with us and it would make no sense to just go up there and get your butt handed to you. It left A&m with the prospects of going to schools like Auburn or Pacific, which for them put them in that cycle of "if we win here than thats fine but if we lose it is a bad loss". I hope everyone understood my point.

Now A&M will be in good shape to schedule because they are a legit team and seen as that around the country. Also they have two potential all Big 12 players returning and a great supporting cast,not to mention their best ever recruting class.

 

mark my words, a&m will never be able to sustain a quality basketball porgram. what young black man in his right mind would want to go to backwoods, racist college station when there are four or five other programs (UT,UH, BU, TT) that have better teams and more accepting cities. a&m blows donkey balls!!!

 

Nice sign of intelligence, sydmill.

 

Stay classy, Mr. Harris.

 

I understand the general concept of what you're saying, although I do not think that other teams' disinterest in a home-and-home is the only reason why A&M's out of conference schedule was so laughable. Okay, so you also mentioned that Gillespie wanted to give the team a confidence booster by playing some cupcakes, but it seemed that your point was that the major reason why was because other teams didn't want to play in College Station. I am correct in that? If so, then I say that this is typical for programs trying to emerge as legit basketball teams. Just because you can't get a home-and-home with a quality opponent does not mean that you don't try and schedule them. When you're staring up at people, it means that you go on the road, possibly take your lumps, and prove yourself.

Texas has played Duke several times in the past few years, including trips to Durham, but never has Duke made a trip to Austin in that time. Duke forced what was supposed to be a return trip to Austin this year into a "neutral" site game at the Meadowlands (which is anything but neurtal). That's the way it goes. Gonzaga doesn't get home-and-home games, but that doesn't stop them from playing good teams. I think they realize that they need to play that level of competition in order to develop the overall program and gain some national recognition.

The main point that I tried to make, however, was that regardless of the reasons and circumstances that lead to previous years' schedules, A&M needs to reverse course and schedule opponents like a legit team from now on...even if it means going on the road without a promise of a return engagement in College Station.

 

Look at it this way. Gonzaga met 5 ranked teams in non-conference play. 0 in conference. TAMU played 0 non-conference rankies but met 5 times with top 25 record teams in conference. This does not include games against tourney invited Pacific and Kansas. I don't see what the big deal is, Texas A&M played a weak preseason but they still showcased their talent against real competition in season while a team everyone slurps like Gonzaga was playing nail biters with trash! Im all for a tough preseason, I would enjoy those games. But like I said its just not neccissary especially when we are looking at entering next season ranked...

 

Here is another interesting prediction from a San Francisco newspaper. Im a huge homer for the Ags, but in no way do I think we will end up this high at the end of next year. I think we were this writers sleeper pick for being really good for next year however.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/04/05/SPGV2I3EGD1.DTL

"Our 2006-07 top 12 (while guessing which players will turn pro): 1) North Carolina, 2) Kansas, 3) UCLA, 4) Tennessee, 5) Texas A&M, 6) Alabama, 7) Ohio State, 8) Duke, 9) Wichita State, 10) Florida State, 11) Louisville, and 12) Memphis. "

 

And this explains the historically competitive, predominantly black football team how? The same football team that has started a black quarterback for the last 2.5 years.

 

So obviously you don't agree. Fine. I'm just wondering, then, why you think the top teams in major conferences bother to play anybody at all? If the competition is sufficient in conference to not only justify a tournament bid but to actually prepare (which is completely different than justifying on paper to a selection committee) a team for tournament success, it makes no sense to play anybody of note in out of conference play. Right? That would make Rick Barnes a complete idiot for scheduling non-conference games that he has a good chance of losing because they play the same teams that A&M plays...and that's enough. Right?

Perhaps, however, there IS a difference between playing a quality opponent in your conference that you play every year (perhaps multiple times a year), whose players your guys are all familiar with, in arenas that they're accustomed to VERSUS playing high-profile opponents in out of conference play, where the stakes are different and the environment is different. Perhaps both are indeed important to make a team tournament-ready. The fact that UT played Memphis, Villanova, West Virginia, Iowa, and even Duke (as bad as that loss was) made them a better team. Certainly, they were better than if they had played the likes of Texas Pan-Am or Sam Houston St. and waited until conference play to matchup with a real team.

I'll give you another example (and one that you Aggies won't like) of what I'm talking about. In this year's college football season, I don't think that Texas beats USC in the Rose Bowl if they didn't play Ohio State earlier in the year. The Ohio State game set the table for the whole season. I think it gave the team the confidence it needed to go undefeated in conference play and to not be intimidated by USC. The Big 12 was down this past year in football. No game matched the Ohio State game in terms of atmosphere or pressure (including the OU game). Without the experience of playing in Columbus and winning, perhaps UT doesn't make a stop on 4th down to get the ball back. Can't say for sure, but I am convinced that it only helped.

The point is that playing big time games prepares you. If you want A&M to be a big time program, I don't see how you've convinced yourself that you can truly be that without playing a tougher schedule. But that's just me, I guess.

 

That, imo, makes you a sensible Aggie...