Tuesday Links and Notes

find it amusing that the athletic department refers to teh team as “back-to-back Big 12 Champions”, when in reality we won the Big 12 conference tournament in 2007 and the regular season title in 2008. I don’t consider that “back-to-back champions”, but I guess that is an issue of semantics.

They played a video for the Back-to-Back Big XII Champions at the game on Saturday. I commented to the group I was with that I thought it was ridiculous to claim this distinction. Although, A&M needs all the good pub they can get, so let’s spin it!

In his 5 years here, he has only one conference championship in a major men’s sport, so he wants them to spin it to make it look better.

If Baylor or texas did this, we’d make fun of them.

Aggies don’t understand why Tech keeps trying to field a football team without a defense.

Good one! Trying to make fun of Tech for something A&M lacks this year is hilarious. You should also make a joke about how A&M is the laughing stock of the Big 12 this year, even worse than Baylor. That would be funny too.

….that it would be easy to score on a team without a defense. I mean, even a girls team could score at will against a team without a defense. So, ummm I would guess you are projecting that A&M will win by a blowout, what with Tech not having a defense. Because if your team actually loses to a team that does not field a defense, you would have to way more than suck.

it seems our blog has coincidentally been invaded by Tech fans as of late. Perhaps to do some pregame bashing I presume?

just slumming to see how the lower half lives

slumming, huh?

I suppose the fact that A&M out ranks you in just about every academic category has no bearing on your opinion of the ‘lower half’

I would love to see a breakdown of the schools people who attended Tech also applied to and the acceptance rates at those schools. I have a theory of what that breakdown would entail. Im just saying…

Also, athletically A&M has a far superior athletic department. You had a run in women’s basketball, but that is a highlight in an otherwise bleak amount of championships.

Now in football, A&M has one of the winningest histories in College Football, top 20 in all-time wins.

Tech’s program has been very nice over the past few years. Success us Aggies wish we had, but you better get your licks in now. I was not a math major but the law of averages are not in your favor.

Again, congrats on the run you’ve been on and the season your having.

I am in no way claiming an upset at Kyle on saturday (Would obviously love it, but dont see it happening)

but I don’t want Tech’s recent “success”

Pulling off an occasional upset only to lose to a team you shouldn’t every year get old real fast.

If Tech somehow did lose Saturday, it would just be continuing what happened in 2005 and ’06, when they lost to the worst team in the conference that season, too.

I hate to bring facts into the equation but in the last decade (including this year).
First, lets start with the fact that they are ranked No. 7 in the country right now, but also over the last 10 years:

Tech record: 77-42 (5-3 Bowl games)
A&M’s record: 63-52 (1-5 Bowl games)

Yes, they’ve lost games they shouldn’t have, but we have probably lost more. We Lost to Baylor in 2004 and Arkansas State in 2008.

Have they won a conference championship? No, but have we? Plus, we are 2-7 (this year pending) against them over the last decade.

I think I would take that.

lets start with the fact that they are ranked No. 7 in the country right now

The last time they were ranked in the top 10, they got bitchslapped by texas while their QB pissed down his pantsleg on national television. Just because the media is dumb enough to rank them in the top 10 doesn’t legitimize their program.

77-42 means your average record is 8-4. You want that?

Yes, our record over the last ten years isn’t stellar, that is why we’ve hired a new head coach.

The difference is, Tech is HAPPY to be average. They’re perfecrtly fine with being mediocre, the best of the worst or the worst of the best. They don’t win division titles, they don’t win conference championships, they just pull out seasons above .500, and they’re okay with that. That is fine, for Tech. Given their resources, they really can’t expect much more.

I have higher expectations for A&M.

Yes, they’ve lost games they shouldn’t have, but we have probably lost more. We lost to Baylor in 2004 and Arkansas State in 2008.

Really?

Kansas, 2001.
NC State, 2002.
New Mexico, 2004.
Oklahoma State, 2005.
Colorado, 2006.

We have two anomalies 4 years apart; they make it a continual habit.

dammit

Good luck Saturday, Ag’s. Here’s to a fun game to watch…and no, Tech fans are not happy to be average, though 8-4 and a decent bowl game is hardly average (that would be 6-6). We desperately want a regular taste of 10 or 11 win seasons and championships – just like every fan of any school.

Our primary roadblock (besides defense, which is too obvious), is my belief that Leach is horrible at in-game adjustments. His arrogance and pride don’t allow him to mix things up when the opponent has clearly proven they can either A. hurry the QB; B. rough up the receivers at the line; or C. flood the middle of the field. When the defense doesn’t do any of those well, we roll. When they do, we keep bashing our collective foreheads against the wall.

But what is giving us more hope than in decades past is that our recruiting classes are steadily getting better. In years past, we may be lucky to get three or four 3-star kids and one or two 4-star kids out of a 25 man class. Now, almost every recruit is at least a 3-star. So our expectations have gone up proportionally. The results have gone up quite nicely over the last 8 years as well. But we in Raider Nation are VERY ready to move up from quite good to elite.

Just because the media is dumb enough to rank them in the top 10 doesn’t legitimize their program.

So if we were 6-0 right now, would you be saying we shouldnt be ranked in the top 10? Do I think they are one of the top 10 teams in the country…probably not, but they are close. That sure as heck doesnt mean that if we were 6-0 and #7 in the country, I wouldnt take it.

obviously my preference would be to go 12-0 every year, but thats not realistic.

I am NOT saying that 8-4 is the greatest record you could ever hope for, but as opposed to our record over the last ten years….Yes I would take 8-4 and the 5 Bowl wins.

We also lost to Iowa State at Home by 3 TD’s. We lost 77-0 in a game…granted they were good, but no respectable team should ever lose 77-0.

I realize we got a new coach to correct these things, and I believe sherm can do it, but that doesnt mean we dont have a history of some bad losses over the past few years. Our bad losses are blowouts, but losses none the less.

If we went 12-1 this year, won the Big XII and the Fiesta Bowl, but our one loss was to Arkansas State or Iowa State, we wouldnt be downplaying our great season bcuz we lost to a terrible team.

So I will conede that Tech lost to some bad teams, but even with those bad losses…they’ve won more games than us!

So if we were 6-0 right now, would you be saying we shouldnt be ranked in the top 10?
With our defense? Yes.

If I hadn’t watched them completely crater the last time they were ranked in the top 10, their ranking might mean something to me.

So any team that suffers an embarrassing loss while in the top 10 should not be considered a top 10 team?

If we were 6-0 and they were 6-0, why should we be considered a top 10 team?
Your answer: cuz we have a bad defense?

We obviously are not satisfied with mediocrity.
However, when looking at the past, there is NO WAY you can say your content with a worse record.

if over the past 10 years you could make $100k or $80K, which would you choose? Obviously, at the rate of $10k/yr or $8k/yr neither is a great option, but why would you choose to make less?

Thus, given the chance to win 77 or 63 wins over the last 10 years, i’ll take 77.

Also, I keep bringing up Fran’s bad losses because they were bad losses over the last 10 years and thats what we were talking about.

Okay, first, I think an apology should go out on behalf of my fellow Red Raiders who have highjacked your blog and been a bit, uhhhh, distasteful with the language and attitude. I think a while back I jumped all over Beergut for hammering us on DoubleTnation. I would hope, if we comment on opponent boards, that we respect that the opponent runs it.

Now, let me comment on the academic argument I have heard here and on the DMN college blog. Once someone is admitted to Tech, aTm, UT, or whatever, the degree of difficulty is almost identical. If you study English at Tech or A&M, you’ll probably have no trouble finishing at both places. If you study architechture at Tech or A&M, it will whip your ass both places. I know a lot of Aggies hate to hear that, but it’s true.

I have a sister in law who has been an English prof at Brown Univ for about 12 yrs. They have an acceptance rate of something like 15%. I think we would all agree that none of us could get into Brown.

That same sister in law graduated from Univ of South Carolina (not exactly Harvard of the South). According to her, and we’ve talked about this a lot because it interests us both, the difference in the actual quality of education (i.e. what you learn) is almost negligible when you compare one four year university to another, for the most part. There are some exceptions when you start getting into the tiny little colleges that nobody has heard of – they don’t attract decent teachers because they get little or no funding…and they pay crappy.

But taking a grown up look at this, what she say’s the main differentiator from high tier and low tier schools is the competition between students inside the university. Just graduating is not the goal at places like Brown. Graduating with high honors is, and that’s why people think it’s so tough.

The actual academics aren’t any more rigorous at Brown vs. USC vs. Tech vs. A&M, for the most part. The striving to make nothing but the highest possible grade is what makes it tough on students. There’s absurd amount of pressure on kids to do well and that comes from inside; it comes from parents and it comes from the counselors who want to brag to their colleagues that their charges are doing well because of their guidance.

Let’s face it, if you went to Tech, A&M, UT, Houston, or wherever, I think the main goal was to A. finish. B. Party your ass off. C. Get laid. A lot. The order of those three changes as you get closer to graduating.

So, to say that an Aggie or Longhorn has a “better” education than a Techster or a UTEP guy is silly and just not true.

Keep in mind that the addmitance requirements for state schools change yearly, and typically go higher. With public schools, lot of that is based on statistical analysis of the number of applicants vs. the number of open seats the school can accommodate vs.how many will graduate vs. grants.

We all know not every Aggie is a mensa member working for a Fortune 500 firm making $100K +, nor is every UTEP Miner a dolt flipping burgers at $8 an hour.

But taking a grown up look at this, what she say’s the main differentiator from high tier and low tier schools is the competition between students inside the university.

The actual academics aren’t any more rigorous at Brown vs. USC vs. Tech vs. A&M, for the most part. The striving to make nothing but the highest possible grade is what makes it tough on students.

The toughness of a curriculum is not decided by how competitive the students are to make the best grades, it is decided by how tough the deans and professors decide to make it to earn a degree.

your should have been you’re