Texas A&M

[Yeofoot]

How much longer do y'all think the Aggies are going to be subpar? They used to be really good every year, and now, wow.

[billybud]

Things go in cycles...as late as 2001, Southern Cal was 6-6 and was 5-7 in 2000. High flying Ohio State was 8-4 in 2004 and 7-5 in 2001...luck, injuries, schedule...it all combines some years for good or bad. Ten seasons ago this year, Texas went 4-7, for example.

The Aggies are having problems in conference the last six years, however the Aggies would have looked better if they didn't have losses to OOC teams like Virginia Tech, Clemson, Utah, and Notre Dame...if they had scheduled patsies they would have maybe a nine win season instead of a seven or eight win season......

Texas Tech (along with Texas) has been their nemesis...the Aggies have a better record against Oklahoma the last six seasons than against Texas Tech.

The wheel will turn.

[Spence]

How much longer do y'all think the Aggies are going to be subpar? They used to be really good every year, and now, wow.

Until they get a defense to match their offense. Teams get more credit then they deserve when they have a good offense and a less then average defense. When they play a team that has both they are exposed.

[Eric]

Gary Darnell is the defensive coordinator for Texas A&M this year.....He's not going to be able to do crap with that defense. A&M will be subpar for another half decade, to be honest. Franchonie won't be there for another 2 years or so.

[colorado_loves_football]

How good will A&M be?

Lets see.

Better than Baylor, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Colorado and maybe better than Missouri.

So thats mediocre I suppose, and you always have to be ready to play at Kyle Field, no matter how "bad" the Ag's supposedly are. I know Texas has learned that, I can also remember Nebraska falling there too.

I'd be interested in learning how you arrive at that 'assessment' given how generally 'disappointing' Texas A&M was, last year. Secondly, I think Baylor is a team to be reckoned with. Simply because a team hasn't been 'good' doesn't mean they aren't making strides. I think Baylor might challenge for the Big XII S. title if things fall together. Last year, they nearly upset Oklahoma (in OK). True, A&M does appear to have Baylor's #, but Baylor has a way of 'getting even'. I'll be interested in seeing how the Bears do, this year, one reason (among others) I'll be watching their opener against TCU, is to see how they 'stand' against 'good' competition. Im' not putting down a 'W' just yet, for TCU.

[Yeofoot]

Baylor is definitely on the verge of being good, but it's never a good sign when your best player is your punter.

[Eric]

Baylor winning the South title? Maybe a decade from now. That's a little far-fetched, don't ya think?

A&M is mediocre. They're getting to a bowl game because they play teams like The Citadel, Army, and other cupcakes. Not sure if UL Lafayette is on the schedule or not

[Eric]

Who's the 4th team? Louisiana Tech comes to mind. I know you Huskers get them in week 1.

[colorado_loves_football]

I think Texas A&M returning 6 and 6 from a 5-6 season is enough justification for me "predicting" their mediocrity and them being an all together "better" football team then the other teams I listed. Also the fact that they are maintaining an experienced head football coach who has enjoyed some success, I feel they are due for an average season.

That good enough for you CLF? If not, thats really too bad.

That doesn't explain your 'logic' behind Baylor.

Here's A&M's record, for reference purposes:
L 24 Clemson (SC) 25 (A)
W 66 Southern Methodist (TX) 8 (H)
W 44 Texas St. 31 (H)
W 16 Baylor (TX) 13 (H)
L 20 Colorado 41 (A)
W 62 Oklahoma St. 23 (H)
W 30 Kansas St. 28 (A)
L 14 Iowa St. 42 (H)
L 17 Texas Tech 56 (A)
L 30 Oklahoma 36 (A)
L 29 Texas 40 (H)

Baylor, on the other hand, beat Iowa St, and lost to Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Texas. They also lost to Missouri, and Nebraska.
Basically, they stood on 'level' ground, last year, so I would appreciate an explaination as to why you think Texas A&M will beat them, in Waco.

[RazorHawk]

I sure wish they would get their program back, as the Texas vs A&M rivalry game has not been very interesting lately, unless you are a Texas fan. I always enjoy pulling for the Aggies to beat Texas, and I love their traditions. Hated to see the bonfire go.

[colorado_loves_football]

I'm sorry that it's so difficult for you to understand my logic CLF.

It's to the point and without a windy 4 page quote of he said, she said. Really really hard

So I will see if I can explain it as simply as possible for you.

It's a prediction so that means it's how I feel about something, I don't have to justify how I feel about something, especially to someone who is as illogical as yourself. (TCU deserving a BCS or NC bid, enough said, and don't bother debating this, you've already had 7000 pages on it and not convinced a single person, so save your type) Thats the only reasoning I need on that topic.

Texas A&M had 5 wins last year.

They return 6 starters on offense
They return 6 starters on Defense
They return a coach with moderate success

In my OPINION (since you don't seem to understand what an opinion is) Baylor will remain at the bottom of the league, reguardless of what they did last season. They may be a little better overall, but I don't exactly find Waco to be the Horseshoe of the Big XII south. When it comes down to it, we will see what happens, because for now, it's only talk.

Texas A&M will have a better football team that Baylor,Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Colorado, and possibly Missouri. and with a 7 or 8 win season, I expect them to be mediocre, and have a BETTER record than the above mentioned teams.

My logic really isn't up for debate, you can agree or disagree.

I'm not your nursrey school teacher, I'm not explaining anything else to you.

Exactly, and I still don't follow your 'logic'. I didn't even bring Missouri, or Colorado (or K-State for that matter) into it. Texas A&M, IMO will likely replace Baylor as the Big XII S. 'cellar dweller'.

Your other arguments don't deserve the time or energy to respond to.

[Eric]