Exactly! If your poor, you're crazy. If you're rich, you're eccentric.
Just read
- Thread starter littleton tiger
- Start date
Mack won the Big 12 South in year 2
Mack also won it in year 4 and if he beats Colorado Texas plays for the national Title.
Mack wins the Big 12 and national title. in year 21
Mack wins the Big 12 and plays for the national title in year 25 of his coaching career.
Lets see if Sumlin can come close to that.
I love Bull Durham quotes. One of my all time favorite movies.
Probably no point in debating the merits of degree of winning an SECW title vs a Big 12 South title 15 years ago.
You only won the Big XII South a single time in 16 years and you won't ever win the $EC West so they're more comparable than you think. You suck in both scenarios. You're an aggy.
The Big XII South had 3 top 10 teams at the same time on more than one occasion btw so save your dishonesty.
Why not use AtM as a springboard to a better coaching job.......he got the AtM job for coaching at UH and not winning a conference title and he probably knows AtM isn't gonna win one in the SEC so why not go somewhere where he may be able to,...............ah hell it doesn't matter I just think he is aggy cursed and probably won't win anything until we are dead and gone
Between 2000 and 2009 the Big 12 South was the toughest division in college football. in 10 seasons the winner of the Big 12 South played for the MNC 5 times and won it twice.
Now are you going to say with a straight face that any division in that time span was tougher than the Big 12 South? No one considered the SEC West as being the toughest division until Saban got there.
Won't argue that. Doesn't mean the Big XII South wasn't salty.
One could argue you simply changed two masters in the Big XII for two new ones. aggy is in the same spot.
You could say that. I would argue that A&M has been in the top 10 at some point in each of their 4 seasons thus far and they have won their bowl games. Remains to be seen if they can take the next step and win a conf title.
The conference discussion is further proof that our rankings have been earned unlike say Baylor or TCU. Both very good teams who have not yet earned their rankings.
Really? Honestly? TCU hasn't lost since Baylor last year and demolished an SEC team. BU while playing chumps this far, hasn't been slow to kill off their opponents.
They both would beat the Ags!!! I'd put money on it if they get to play...
And who has Aggie played? and Bama (other than Ole Miss who was trying to give them the game)?
Here is my problem with Sumlin.....and Aggie fans pretty much.
They are way more fluff than they are substance.
They run their mouths about very little. And have accomplished even less. "Call me when he or you win something. Until then, you should really act as if." And those last two sentences were said recently by my friend who graduated from LSU and said he can't stand the way Aggies post on SEC boards.
Sumlin is a nice OC. Who is an ok HC. But is in over his head. As evidence by him not winning anything....anywhere. And him having repeated worse seasons while at ATM. All while the Aggie hype surrounding his 'legend' grows. It is just annoying to constantly hear about that day that you will finally do something.....especially given that it never happens.
You came in 9th in your conference last year. Which was down from 7th the year before. And you haven't won jack. How in the bloody hell have you "earned" anything? lulz
Wait, haven't earned their rankings this year? Or in general over the past few? I'd say that TCU's bowl game last year showed something at least? Or if you mean this season, well... based on the rankings that the playoff committee prefers for their stats on strength of schedule (which, admittedly, is NOT the first thing they look at... or second... or third... more of a "tie breaker" from what I've read), here are the SOS rankings for a few teams as far as games played so far:
1. Texas (68 / 12)
43. Texas Tech (56 / 51)
t44. TCU (39 / 37)
t60. Texas A&M (35 / 39)
64. Alabama (11 / 28)
t65. Oklahoma (26 / 39)
t65. LSU (1 / 6)
t94. Baylor (33 / 47)
t94. Oklahoma State (36 / 55)
Granted, it's almost certainly not a perfect way to choose this, and as I said, not something they use to pick teams until it comes to the nitty gritty between two close teams, but it IS a system that they look at, and while I don't think anyone who isn't a Bears fan would defend Baylor's schedule to date, TCU apparently (based on the committee's preferred formula) has played a stronger schedule so far than A&M.
In parenthesis after the school name I included the current SOS rank for the remaining opponents on each team's schedule (i.e., Texas goes way down, in no small part due to having Kansas there... while teams that play FCS teams aren't punished in this format since those games just don't "exist" according to the formula) and what the "cumulative projection rank" that you get when you combine the "already played" with the "remaining opponents"). There's also a note that went along with these rankings, where I found them, that this particular system actually affects the Big 12 teams negatively more than other conferences. It would appear that this has less to do with the lack of a championship game, and more to do with the fact that, in a round-robin format, every team you play in conference has had to play ever other team in conference, and therefore the losses are more concentrated and can't be split up across divisions. EVERY loss to every team in the conference automatically goes into your team's statistics, where in another conference, Kentucky could lose a game, and it not have as strong an effect on, say, Alabama since they don't play them. Apparently the committee is well aware of this and has agreed to take that into account in "tie-breaker" situations.
Again, not a perfect system by any means, but interesting to look at, especially since the committee deems it worth considering in close situations.
Baylor would be tough TCU doesn't concern me at all. We'd beat them by multiple scores their defense is just not good enough. Baylor is a different story, although they haven't played anyone its clear they are a very good team. I also know your threat of beating is empty and luckily for you it was.
I think they both outscore the Ags. Baylor would boat race them. It's not an empty threat, you were to big of a pussy to send me an email address. You should have done it. You would have been 6 games away from some petty cash.
Last edited:
Neither do the rankings in my post. That's all this year. And so far... based on the formula for SOS that the committee prefers (that they admit actually underrates the Big 12 schedules more than the other conferences)... TCU has the tougher schedule to date, both already played and overall.
Like I said, it might be an imperfect way to look at it, but stating outright that A&M has earned their ranking and TCU hasn't is kind of silly when the committee's SOS ranking formula disagrees, even before they adjust for the Big 12.
Nice tapout. 7th place to 9th. No titles of any kind. You haven't earned jack squat. Just because Bama and LSU are college football powers doesn't make you won despite being in their division. Sorry, lesser.
Yeah, you girls are good at talking trash about teams you don't have to play and lose to. Like a yippy dog behind a closed door.
