Why Tech Will Return To Being Tech
by miketag on Jun 22, 2009 8:09 PM CDT
55 comments
Last season we watched as Texas Tech put together their greatest season in the history of the program. They won 11 straight games and vaulted all the way up to #2 in the national rankings. College Gameday was in attendance at two Tech games in a row. Tech was deemed nationally relevant for the first time in recent memory. With the departure of Michael Crabtree to the NFL, and Graham Harrell to graduation I expect Tech to regress back to the program that we have all grown to know and love.
You know what I am talking about. I am talking about the 7-8 win team who can pull off an upset one week only to lose to a much inferior team the next week. In '09 Tech will resort to being a middle of the road conference team with a 4-4 or 5-3 record in the Big 12, and the bowl appearance that a record like that demands. Michael Crabtree made Tech capable of standing toe to toe with any team in the country. In Crabtree they had a WR who no DB could cover one on one. If you doubt how important Crabtree was to Tech, go watch the portions of the game that Crabtree missed because of his dinged ankle last year. Tech goes from being an offensive machine, to a good spread team that can go three and out just like everyone else. Detron Lewis is a heck of a college WR and will put up 1000 yds receiving this season. He is no Michael Crabtree.
Taylor Potts is taller and does have a stronger arm than Graham Harrell. He does not have the experience that Harrell had. It remains to be seen whether he has the inherent leadership qualities that Harrell had. Speaking of Harrell, I think the guy can be a good NFL QB. I think in order to get there, he needs to go to the CFL first a get a few years of seasoning against top competition so he can come in as a starter like Jeff Garcia and Warren Moon did. Wasting his time as a 4th QB on a training camp roster will get him nowhere.
Tech is at its best when it has experience on the OL. They lose three OL from last years lineup. Potts will have to deal with more pressure than he was accustomed to in his mop-up role last season. The pressure in addition to the usual first time starter mistakes will lead to turnovers which will lead to losses. Tech has to play tu in Austin in '09 where they will actually call holding on the Tech OL. No one enjoyed watching Tech beat tu last year as much as I did. However, if you watched the game, you know that the Tech OL held the tu DL like few have seen before. That will not be the case in Austin this year.
Even if McKinner Dixon becomes academically eligible (which I fully expect he will), the Tech defense has to deal with the loss of their best pass rusher to the NFL. It is not like the defense was a rolling ball of butcher knifes last year, especially at the end of the season when it got rolled over by OU and Ole Miss. Tech will have to outscore people this year much as they have done since Mike Leach arrived. They should be successful at that 7-8 times in the regular season in '09.
If you go 7-5 and go to a bowl game at Tech they give you a contract extension. If you do that at A&M, tu, or OU they talk about replacing you. Tech fans need to realize that last season was one for the ages where everything came together for them. No one in the Big 12 played defense, and with Harrell and Crabtree (not to mention role players like the smurf) they had one of the best offenses in the country. They were able to ride that offense and momentum to 11 wins. Kudos to them and I hope their fans enjoyed it. Now they will resort back to being the middle of the pack Big 12 program that they are.
0 recs |
55 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Nebraska in Lincoln, texas in Austin, OSU in Stillwater, Oklahoma in Lubbock
that would be four losses, and an 8-4 record
This isn’t including the “typical Tech” bad loss factor, either.
by Beergut on Jun 23, 2009 12:55 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
First of all, The aggies won only four games last year. Texas Tech won 11 games last year. Do not act as though your program is currently comparable to the program at Texas Tech. Texas Tech has won 7 of the last 8 games against the aggies. Next year’s game is in Lubbock, The aggies have not win in Lubbock since 1993.
The aggies lost to Baylor last year. If they lose to Baylor again this year, they will find themselves dead last in the Big 12 South Division AGAIN.
At Texas Tech, you do not receive extensions after 7 win seasons. You win extensions because you see your football team rising to the challenge of beating the heavyweights (OU, UT, Not the Aggies). UT (Last Year, 39-33) OU (2005, 2007).
While losing your quarterback and wide receiver to professional sports is never good for a program’s viability, Tech did not have Harrell and Crabtree for the past 8 years… during which Tech won 7 of the 8 matches against the aggies. Factually, they had Harrell starting for 3 years, and Crabtree for 2.
In reality, Texas Tech has had one of the best offenses in the country for many years running now. However, Tech did not have a legitimate defense until last year, when Ruffin McNeill had a full year at Defensive Coordinator. Therefore, despite the loss of Harrell and Crabtree, don’t expect a drop off in offensive production by the Raiders. Futhermore, Tech returns the majority of their defense, admittedly with some holes at free safety and one cornerback position, but the majority nonetheless. As a result, expect the same potent offense and a vastly improved defense. Unfortunately for the Aggie faithful, this means the Aggies don’t have a chance at beating the Raiders this year.
As for predictions, Tech more than likely will not make another run for the national championship this year. I think they will lose two games during the regular season this year. More than likely, one early to Texas, and another to OU or OSU, but not both. All in all, another ten win season in preparation for a big senior year for the underrated Michael Potts and his new regime. For Tech, this year is considered a practice year for the Potts’ senior year and their next run at a Big XII Title. However, the real run comes beyond Potts in the recent recruiting classes, and as the recruiting classes continue to improve. As Mike Lewis, the author of MoneyBall said, “God Help You if they get the kind of athletes they get at Texas, Oklahoma, or USC, nobody else will stand a chance.” Aggies beware, we are getting there.
The Aggies on the other hand, will lose to UT, OU, OSU, Tech, and more than likely again to Baylor in a barn burning rivalry. Finshing at the bottom of the conference once again, shy of bowl eligibility. A one game improvement to 5 victories this year for the aggies.
I understand how much the aggies hate losing to Texas Tech. You feel as though you should be a national power. However, a generation of losing continues. Realize this optimistic Aggie, Tech may not make a run for the national title again this year, but they will soon, and in the meantime they’re not going anywhere. You aggies should worry about not getting embarrassed again this season, or, just get used to it.
I, personally, don’t see the aggies being relevant again at any time in the near future. I can’t wait to hear your excuses in October, because you certainly won’t be winning by then.
by Aggies (4-8) and confident? on Jun 23, 2009 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your QBs name is Taylor Potts, not Michael. I expect y’all to lose to OU and OSU. You gave Leach the extension when he was beating one of the big boys, but losing to KU and the like (New Mexico & UNT ring a bell?). Do that consistently at A&M and you will get fired. You will never have the talent of OU or USC because you are still the 3rd choice in this state.
by miketag on Jun 23, 2009 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
UNT
I’m pretty sure it was Spike Dykes who was losing to UNT….not Leach, but point well taken.
According to you..Sherman should be on the hot seat b/c they lost to Arkansas State (at home).
by Stufrogg on Jun 24, 2009 12:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
BUT YOU WON 4 GAMES?
SHERMAN SHOULD BE REALLY CONCERNED CONSIDERING THE AGGIES WON FOUR GAMES LAST YEAR. YOU GUYS CONTRADICT YOURSELVES. DON’T TALK ABOUT WINNING 7 GAMES, BECAUSE YOU WON’T BE DOING IT ANYTIME SOON.
by Aggieshaveuglygirlssotheyscrewsheepnow on Jun 29, 2009 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tech has won the last two vs OU in Lubbock but I do not think they will this year.
by miketag on Jun 23, 2009 2:01 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The Ags are that much better than Tech?
I’m no historian, but if you look at our records in the Big 12 they seem quite comparable. I’m never sure what we mean when we talk about our consistent 10-win Aggie teams. This happened when? 1980’s? Let’s move on. I think it bears realizing that the Aggies are no different than these tech teams you reference: we can pull off a 12-7 upset against t.u. not long after almost losing to Army. I love the Aggies as much as anyone, but we aren’t great and we haven’t been in a long time. I think we’ll get back to a consistent 8-9 wins under Sherman before springing for a coach to take us to 11, but until then let’s be reasonable. The more we deny that Tech is any good, the more it stings to get destroyed by them year in and year out.
by techmed on Jun 23, 2009 9:18 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
When are we going to see the A&M that used to be a challenge!?
I like how you are hoping Tech will be weak instead of A&M being strong!?
Typical Aggie… If you keep telling yourself these things it might help you believe it! haha I will save this post and email it back to you after the actual game! Although I am not a fan of the term “System”…. You would think that A&M would have learned by now that Mike Leach kind of knows what he is doing! Do us all a favor and stay over confident as usual… then blame your coach, the refs or what ever excuse it will be this year!
Guns up!!!! FYI Gun = Taylor Potts, The rocket arm that reportedly launches a better deep ball than Harrell; at 6-foot-5 (215 pounds)!
by Red_Blood on Jun 23, 2009 9:26 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I did not mention A&M anywhere in the post. The story was about how last year was an anomally for Tech. They will resort back to their norm now. For the guy who supposedly roots for A&M but has tech in his name, we rank in the top 20 all time in wins. It’s not like we just started winning games in the 80s. Like I have said before, Tech will give you a contract extension after a 7 win bowl year. Am fired Fran after a 7 win bowl year. I can go into detail about how Fran destroyed our program and set us back 5 years. That was not what this story was about. It was about how Tech will return to the 4-5 loss team we have come to expect them to be.
by miketag on Jun 23, 2009 12:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Just curious
when did Texas Tech give Mike Leach a contract extension after winning 7 games? Please find the link that would verify your facts/opinion. Being a casual Texas Tech fan, I think Leach and Texas Tech had a 10 year contract starting in 2000, and Leach received a contract extension after winning 11 games in 2009. I could be completely wrong about this, again, I’m just a casual fan and I’m pretty damned ignorant when it comes to searching for facts on the internet.
Ooops, I did find a link backing up the whole 10 year contract detail that you didn’t want to mention in your original post. It’s here and all I did was go to a website called Google and type in the search words “mike leach contract extension”. Showed up on the second page for me. Pretty cool.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
by Seth C on Jun 23, 2009 9:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait
he did receive a contract extension in 2006, but that was after a 9 win season in 2009. Here’s a pdf of that contract. Looks like he also got one after winning 8 in 2005. How dare Texas Tech reward it’s coaches for being successful. Typical Tech.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
by Seth C on Jun 23, 2009 10:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you consider 8 wins successful. At some schools 4 losses is considered a down year. That is my point. The expectations of Tech and the elite football schools are completely different. That is what I mean by “typical Tech.” You guys think that 8 wins is a great season and should be rewarded with an extension. That was the point of my original story. I expect Tech to revert back to its typical Tech type of season which is 7-8 wins and a bowl game.
by miketag on Jun 23, 2009 10:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you
for telling me what we consider successful. I had no idea what was successful until you told me. Thank goodness you’re here.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
by Seth C on Jun 24, 2009 5:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The actions of your athletic department indicate what your program feels is successful
by miketag on Jun 24, 2009 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE AGGIES SUCCESSFUL, SO YOU KNOW. BEATING ATM IS EASY.
by Aggieshaveuglygirlssotheyscrewsheepnow on Jun 29, 2009 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just being a casual Tech observer I remember Leach given a raise and extension earlier in his career. When he came to Tech from OU he was not given a 10 year contract. He originally signed a 5 year contract. That means that sometime during his first 5 years at the school he was given an extension.
by miketag on Jun 23, 2009 10:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So let me be sure
about this. TAMU has never given a contract extension to a coach for anything less than a national championship? So if TAMU has a floundering program (i.e. completely winless for 5 years before the new coach shows up), by your logic, you should never give that coach an extension for anything less than a national championship?
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
by Seth C on Jun 24, 2009 6:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You attributed your statement to me, then claimed that was my logic. How does that work?
I think you give an extension to a coach when he has proven he is an elite coach. To me that means consecutive seasons of 10+ wins or conference championships. One of my biggest criticisms of Byrne is that he gave Fran an extension after going 7-5. I said that was phenomenally stupid at the time and was proven clairvoyant.
by miketag on Jun 24, 2009 11:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, here's what you said:
If you go 7-5 and go to a bowl game at Tech they give you a contract extension. If you do that at A&M, tu, or OU they talk about replacing you.
Thus, by that logic, TT and TAMU are no different, whether or not you agreed with the extension of Fran. Whether or not you were clairvoyant is irrelevant, your university did the same thing that you are accusing Texas Tech of doing, so I’m struggling to figure out why you think TAMU is any different than TT in this respect. I could tell you that I hated the extension of Coach “X”, therefore I only settle for national championships. The coaching world and life is full of gray areas and just doesn’t work like that. If that were the case, then TAMU’s AD would have a constant revolving door of coaches and that’s just not the case because the AD would get roasted for continually buying out the old coach and hiring a new one.
At the end of the day here’s what happens. University signs an up-and-coming coordinator (or coach at smaller school) to be the university’s new head coach and this new head coach is making chump change in the initial contract, but takes the chance so he can be a head coach. The new coach has more success than the coach he replaced and the AD and new head coach decide it’s best if they agree to a new contract. The university gets to keep the new coach at a reasonable price and the new coach gets a raise. If anything, it demonstrates that the AD had a little bit of foresight, especially when that head coach goes on to win 8 to 11 games from that point forward and the new head coach shows a little loyalty.
I don’t see how that’s settling for 7-5 every year, which is what I think is the premise of your post? And granted, Texas Tech is probably not going to have the same wins as they did in 2008, but does that mean that we’re willing to accept 7-5 from here to eternity? In short, no, it does not. What it does mean is that you’ve gone out on a ledge to predict that TT will be worse in 2009 after losing both defensive ends, the all-time leader in passing at TT, the best receiver in the nation for the past two years and replacing 3/4 of the secondary. I think most TT fans would agree with you, but the leap in logic that you make, “TT will be worse in 2009 than 2008, therefore Texas Tech will settle for 7-5 because they’re Texas Tech” makes no sense to me, and I’d imagine to most Texas Tech fans.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
by Seth C on Jun 24, 2009 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A&M won 9 games in ’06 and 7 in ’07 then fired our coach. At Tech those same results get you a raise. That is the difference.
by miketag on Jun 24, 2009 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW, since Leach arrived in Lubbock your average record is 8-4. Like I said, typical Tech.
by miketag on Jun 24, 2009 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Way to raise the level.
Then by your logic, I’m expecting a blog post from you asking for the hiring of every head coach in the TAMU system that did not win .900 of their games. I’ll be waiting. And if this is really how you feel, i.e., there’s no gray areas, then you should have demanded the firing of Sherman after his dismal first year. Be damned building a program or other excuses such as a coach leaving a program in shambles, it’s all about wins and losses and Sherman has proven that he can’t win, since he’s only 4-8 at TAMU.
I still find it ironic that you state in your original post that TT gave Leach an extension after winning 7 games, but you’ve not provided any proof or a link, however, you did provide proof that TAMU did this with Fran.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
by Seth C on Jun 25, 2009 5:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
*
should be firing of every head coach
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
by Seth C on Jun 25, 2009 5:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
this argument would only be relevant
if he said you should fire a coach after having a losing season his first year.
He simply said that the expectations at the two programs are different: at A&M, you receive and extension and a raise when you win championships (see Slocum, R.C., 1998) Our last two football head coaches were fired after going 6-6 and 7-5, respectively. At Tech, those records would not get you fired, but would be acceptable, and even get you an extension. That is the difference between the two programs.
by Beergut on Jun 25, 2009 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not true
he said that Fran received the extension after going 7-5. What’s the difference?
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
by Seth C on Jun 25, 2009 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And to emphasize
again, you or Mike have not provided any sort of link where Leach received an extension after winning 7 games, although Mike admitted that Fran did receive an extension after 7 games. Rather than making assumptions about all of this, which is what Mike’s original post was, just an assumption, I’d love to see some actual proof a link, or something. If it happened at TT, then fine, it happened, but that doesn’t mean that it also didn’t happen at TAMU, because Mike admitted that it did with Fran. Whether or not they were fired wasn’t the argument, what Mike’s argument was that winning 7 games would not get you an extension at schools like UT, OU and TAMU, but it did happen at TAMU.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
by Seth C on Jun 25, 2009 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I haven't found any link to say when Leach's first extension was
although I am guessing it was following the 2002 season
Wikipedia mentions a contract extension that looks like it was signed following the 2005 season, although the news link it quotes is dead.
by Beergut on Jun 26, 2009 4:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So in other words
the assumption that Texas Tech gave Mike Leach a contract extension after 7 wins is not true, or just that, an assumption. “I’m guessing” means that Mike’s just making shit up and hoping that it sticks.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
by Seth C on Jun 26, 2009 4:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fran's extension was not for going 7-5
in Franchione’s original contract, it had a clasue that said if he got A&M to a bowl game in his first two seasons, an automatic extension would kick in.
We went to the Cotton Bowl following the 2004 season, so the extension kicked in.
by Beergut on Jun 26, 2009 4:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just going by
what Mike said. His words, not mine. Still a bad way to give an extension and a bowl game is a low bar.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
by Seth C on Jun 26, 2009 5:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
that whole contract sucked.
It is what happens when your president fires your head coach, and no one is in place to keep a booster from hiring the next head coach, which is pretty much what happened. I am just amazed this booster managed to put together such a horrid contract; A&M’s interests were not represented in Fran’s contract.
However, I will point out that having low thresholds to reach bonuses is nothing new in contracts; I haven’t checked the details, but I believe Leach’s contract triggers bonuses for finishing in the top 5 nationally in passing offenses. Well, given the number of times Leach’s teams pass in a game, this is a fairly low threshold to reach, too.
by Beergut on Jun 27, 2009 3:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, about that four win season the ags just had...
So then, why are you keeping your Coach after a 4 win season? Certainly, by atm’s prestigious standards, this coach should be fired immediately.
In reality, you guys won four games and kept your coach because you guys are beginning to feel comfortable at the bottom of the big 12, and the nation for that matter…
You show true jealousy when you knock a program leaps and bounds ahead of your own.
On a lighter note, I think Atm will improve this season. I see a whopping 5 win season for the ags. But that’s only if you can steal one against Baylor.
Try Winning For a Change.
by AggiesIrrevelantforever on Jun 25, 2009 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, while playing the citadel and the army. Please….
WE OWN TAMU.
by Aggieshaveuglygirlssotheyscrewsheepnow on Jun 29, 2009 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So then, you admit now that your own school gives contract extensions to coaches who win 7 games. Nice, now prove that we did that at any time.
by Aggieshaveuglygirlssotheyscrewsheepnow on Jun 29, 2009 3:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
nice strawman
he didn’t say anything about anything less than a national championship being acceptable
but nice try.
by Beergut on Jun 26, 2009 4:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's Mike's
logic, not mine. He’s the one being absolute here, not me. I think there are gray areas, Mike does not.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
by Seth C on Jun 26, 2009 5:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rebuilding for Tech
I think Tech will have a rebuilding year in 2009; however, I don’t think that they will just automatically resort back to 8-5 seasons every single year from here on out. Great systems, and great coaches attract great players. I believe Crabtree is just the first of many great, talented recievers that would like to have 1500+ yard seasons. If you were a talented reciever, wouldn’t you want to catch than many passes, in order to showcase your talents?
Tech had the #30 recruiting class this year, which is damn good. This past ’08 season was the result of a #25 recruiting class, not too shabby! Lord help everyone, if they ever had a top 10 recruiting class!
The Tech team is pretty young going into ‘09, and almost everyone will be coming back for ’10. I honestly think they will be a forced to be reckoned with in ’10. Last I heard, McKinner Dixon is off the team for good. I think Mike Leach has had enough of his shannigans…I’m sure Big 12 QB’s are happy about that.
Also, these recievers that will be stepping it up in ’09, are DAMN good! They may not be as good as Crabtree, but overall, the recieving corps will be better than last year. I think Tech will have a good chance to win the Big 12 in 2010. They will beat one of the big boys this year.
7-5 is a dissappointing season for Tech. If they don’t win at least 8 it will be a let down, but the now the expectations are rising.
A&M made their biggest mistake by firing R.C. Slocum. I don’t know if A&M will ever really surpass Tech’s program at this point in history. I don’t see A&M as ever really being better than the 3rd or 4th program in the state from here on out into the future, becaue they don’t know how to hire good coaches.
Leach and TCU’s Patterson do more with less than anyone. Even SMU snagged them a great coach in June Jones, who will turn that around. But it seems like A&M is so concerned with image, that they are afraid to hire somebody unorthodox. They really need an ‘outside-the-box’ thinker, if they are going to ever have a chance to really contend for something in the BIG 12 South.
(Baylor also hired a great coach in Art Briles, when will A&M put away their pride-of-image and learn? Anyone one of the above said coaches would’ve done great things there)
by Stufrogg on Jun 23, 2009 1:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Briles was evidently the 2nd choice after Sherman. When Byrne interviewed Sherman he was blown away so we hired Sherman. Time will tell whether it was the right choice. I definitely think it was. I think Briles is a hell of a coach. Patterson and Saban are the best defensive coaches in the country. Patterson just does not know what to do on offense.
by miketag on Jun 23, 2009 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Should say that I think Sherman was a good hire after all I have observed. At the time, I was very lukewarm about the hire.
by miketag on Jun 23, 2009 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Leach and Patterson
Dude, could you imagine a team with Mike Leach as OC and Gary Patterson as DC? I don’t care what school…they would be unstoppable!
by Stufrogg on Jun 24, 2009 12:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
would never work
both would want the best athletes for their side of the ball, and would not be able to co-exist
Leaqch and Patterson are successful in part b/c they are able to recruit to their systems, and put the best athletes on their particular focus, which is offense for Leach, and defense for Patterson
by Beergut on Jun 24, 2009 2:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not so fast…
What does that mean typical Tech? This is all about growing, cultivating and maintaining a culture of winning. I am flattered you wrote about us. But let’s beg to offer a different view. What you are seeing is level of consistent effort over time. Coaching stability, funding stability, facility stability. These are facts. It produces good players. Who graduate. It’s the result of working on getting better all the time. A conditioning program which works. A scheme which is consistently leading the nation. It’s not about slipping back. The Big 12 is tough. Not just on the high plains every team is quiet capable even Baylor and Iowa State can rise up punch you in the mouth. Growing up in Texas watching all the SWC games (now Big 12) it impressed upon me the value of the teams and coaches place on competing at the highest level. The facts don’t support your argument. I.e. tech slips back to a mediocre performing team with a 60% win loss record. And gets to a 2nd tier bowl. Its not supported by the O- line, Wr’s, QB depth. It’s not supported by the defensive improvements. It’s not supported by the recruiting and facilities or Alumni support statistics. You have Tech Assistant Coaches being hired away to improve other Universities programs. Typical? It’s just a feeling you have. It’s not about replacing stars and senior starters. It’s been done with these coaches before. Watch the season unfold. It’s a 10-2 or better season. Tech has turned its corner. A&M is starting its turn. Good luck. BTW congrats to your track team. But not so fast with the "typical" Tech label.
by centexraider on Jun 23, 2009 3:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
What facts? How many 10 win seasons have you had in your programs history without Graham Harrell at QB?
by miketag on Jun 23, 2009 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you lost me when you started talking about
your strength and conditioning program and defensive improvement
Tech’s defensive “improvement” last season was an illusion, as texas, Oklahoma, Baylor, and Mississippi showed.
by Beergut on Jun 23, 2009 5:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
TEXAS TECH’S DEFENSE WAS ONE OF THE BEST IN THE BIG 12 LAST YEAR. LOOK AT THE FACTS.
YALL HAVE FUN WINNING 5 GAMES NEXT YEAR!
GOOD LUCK AGAINST BAYLOR.
by Aggies (4-8) and confident? on Jun 24, 2009 8:04 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, they really shined down the stretch didn’t they? That’s kinds like me bragging about A&M’s pass defense last year. Every defense in the Big 12 last season stunk
by miketag on Jun 24, 2009 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
To whom were you speaking?
A&M will never be nationally relevant again.
by AggiesIrrevelantforever on Jun 25, 2009 10:47 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Im sorry, I never knew Aggies hated loosing so badly. It’s like no OTHER team in the world hates loosing? Wow.
As a Tech student, Im glad to say I have never seen in my 3 years a loss to A&M, not only that, I was in 1st grade last time we lost to A&M.
I also am glad that this year we, obviously, beat ya’ll again since making the trip to Lubbock seems like an automatic L in the loss column for A&M. And I’ll laugh again because it’ll mean another year, another coach search for A&M. Nice knowing ya Sherman!
Maybe 8th year senior JaFORKski Lane can make ANOTHER gar-un-tee ya’ll will beat us? ha, shocker. Another big, fat loud mouth Aggie.
Have fun loosing your “Battle of the Brazos” with baylor, funny, i never recalled anyone having a rivarly with Baylor, because NOBODY LOOSES TO BAYLOR.
I guess, in that same sense we could stop calling the A&M- Tech rivalry a “rivalry”, because you actually have to win once for it to be one.
Have fun chasing your little collie dog and having the “12 men” be not enough to defend the AIR RAID.
by ttutyler on Jun 26, 2009 3:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
let me get this straight
in 2004, you were in the first grade
in 2009, you are in your third year of school at Tech
Wow, they’ve really dropped their standards for admission in Lubbock.
by Beergut on Jun 27, 2009 3:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are really hanging on to that one sole win in the last 8 years. Congrats.
by Aggieshaveuglygirlssotheyscrewsheepnow on Jun 29, 2009 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
what mike is getting at
in his post is the expectations of tech. i am no aggie fan at all and i somewhat like tech, but the bottom line he is right about the expectations of tech. tech is a school that prides itself on overachieving with minimal talent, that is not the mark of a perennial power house that will consistently compete for national titles. That is the mentality of a program that is content with an 8 win season and a good upset. Like I said, I actually like tech, but I have seen for an entire decade how the success of their season usually has something to do with a big upset over a program that is superior to them with superior talent. Its not a knock against tech, its just the truth. What mike is getting at is with expectations like this( by their own admission, inferior talent that overachieves) tech will slide back into the 7-9 win season bracket and have the occasional upset.
by wishiwasalonghorn on Jun 29, 2009 6:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
That may have been true in the past...
but times have changed at Tech. I seriously doubt that Tech will be willing to settle at being bowl eligible as a bench mark. Mike Leach has changed the culture of this team along with the big 12 creation. Recruiting will only get better and if A&M continues to faulter it will only get better for Tech over time. The stadium and facilities are finally making strides in the right direction. Season tickets are selling out. I can honestly see this team turned in new direction from the past. I know that most outside of Tech probably have a hard time believing this but time will tell. Tech isn’t even 100 years old yet so when some of the older alumni start leaving money to the school it will also benefit. For now it’s baby steps but I do see a positive progression that will continue.
by Raider1992 on Jul 8, 2009 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
