We'll see on recruiting. I couldn't care less what Rivals, ESPN and pre-season polls say. The proof is what happens on the field. If Sumllin brings in better players than his predecessor, they should be OK. I really wish A&M the best and hope Sumlin is the guy (but doubt it).
Haha hey... Assuming you made it OK? Yeah, I can tell my answer didn't [originally] cut it. Ha, that's OK.
LOL, no they couldn't. Only thing Aggie can win is women's basketball and male synchronized cheerleading LOL!
Umm...yeah. Sure. Considering the only two losses A&M has are to the #3 and #6 teams in the nation by a combined 8 points, I think they could compete for the Big 12 title.
Ha, they competed for like 2-3 Big 12 titles in a decade and a half, but, magically, the season they leave, they would absolutely be in contention? Sure.
Are you saying they wouldn't? They have a legitimately good offense with play makers at the skill positions, and they have a front 7 on defense that can compete with anybody. I'm not saying they would win the Big 12, but to imply they wouldn't at least contend is selling them majorly short. I'll be the first to admit that they have been completely irrelevant over the last 15 years, but they seem to have solid pieces in place now along with a good coach that can recruit. Being in the SEC will only help their recruiting moving forward.
Wont comment on the Aggies but UT and OU are weaker than ever, more so UT, KSU is good but I'd take the late 90's early 00's KSU teams over this one, WVU isn't as good as Leach's best Tech teams, Nebraska is gone, Missouri is gone - it's not just where the Aggies stand right now it's where the current level of competition sits at.
This is incisively dumb analysis. Florida isn't as good as the urban meyer years. Alabama isn't as good without Trent Richardson and the 2009 defense. Tennessee has sucked for decades. Auburn sucks without Cam Newton. Georgia misses Herschel Walke - therefore SEC SUXXX!!! If you actually look at the objective evidence - Big 12 - again - is ranked ahead in the computer rankings becuse of a tougher OOC schedule and because their MOV is generally higher. SEC teams meanwhile have a more circular argument (SEC is awesome because of signature wins...against SEC teams...). The signature noncon win is what...Michigan? They got torched by Louisiana Tech for 57 points- now imagine playing 6 teams or so like that that run the air raid/spread and that are all probably better than Lousiana Tech on offense.
All Big 12'ers seem to think this way. Pointing to OOC schedules, BCS rankings, pee-pee games malloy, etc... watch the games. Look at the talent. See the weaknesses. Simple as that. I watched WVU explode against Baylor then get slurped by the media and rocket in the polls. Umm... they sure as hell didn't look like the national title contenders the polls and media seemed to portraying them as to me. They looked like a joke team out there. Now they're losing. If we're not allowed to watch what's on the field and have our own opinions and instead are bound by some almighty computer ranking then ****. What can I say then. Give Boise State the title every year.
I know! People just posting objective evidence and citing to facts when making an argument, rather than just arguing by subjective presumption!
On top of the logic that SamFisher provided, there's also that intangible quality that every Aggie team since 1939 has had. It doesn't matter that on an objective basis, you guys should be able to compete. You guys should have won the conference last year, but what'd you do instead? Anyway, A&M may be on the upswing, but I think their relative success thus far is more damning to the SEC than reflective of an improvement to the Aggie program. The Big 12 isn't as top heavy as years past, but OU and KSU are damn good teams. After those 2, there is a dropoff, but every team in the league (Except for Kansas) could win any weekend. I am quite familiar with Aggie chokitude, and I am quite sure that even a good Aggie team would stumble 2-3 times going through that kind of schedule.
Yeah, no argument there, TAMU's D stunk it up that game. I don't think they'd win the Big 12 but they definitely have showed they can contend in it. LA Tech would have scored 96 on WVU.
Not arguing. Just sharing an opinion from what I've seen on the field. I'll leave the poll watching to the talking heads and computers. If I couldn't talk about what I actually see when I watch sports instead of numbers and computer algorithms I probably wouldn't have joined Clutchfans. Y'all have fun refreshing espn.com/ncaafb/pee-pee-games/polls.htm every Sunday while I watch football.
It's actually the opposite - It's watching football games, and then realizing that watching one football game does not make you qualified to judge the 59 other games that you did not watch each week. LA Tech played several defenses that were quantifiably worse than WVU (e.g. Rice) and didn't approach 96. So other than that there's nothing to support this, this is a good argument, and btw, it didn't cost me a saturday afternoon to come up with this tidbit.
You're right, I'm not even going to bother watching anymore. What's the point? The BCS computer running Win2000 knows more about football than I do. I'll simply use whatever polls and strength of schedules that have Duke in the top 25 to form an almighty, god-fearing opinion. I'll just use aggregated information that tells me UH should be playing for national titles because they're so dominant and hell, those SEC teams only play SEC teams, they've gotta suck.
It does know more than you do, because it at least attempts to account for the results of the other games, which you don't watch or apparently even read about. Basially you are taking a survey of 2 people, and then trying to extrapolate that result out to 100 people to predict future behavior/events. The computer is taking a survey of all 100 people.
