re: Predict how many years it takes aTm to win: 1)the West 2)the SEC 3)a BCS Title

quote:

---

Baylor 67-31
Iowa State 9-1
Kansas 8-2
Kansas State 8-6
Missouri 7-4
Oklahoma 11-18
Oklahoma State 17-9
Texas 37-75
Texas Tech 36-32

---

Man I'm going to get raked over the coals for this, but some people may not realize that for much of it's existence up until the 60's A&M was a small all male military school. Needless to say WWII absolutely decimated our team and set us back for many years to come. Baylor has won like 2 games against us in the past 25+ years. We have a winning record vs Texas since scholarship limits were implemented in the 70's and in my 30 years, we are 15-15 against them. Yes we have had a very rough decade as coach Fran set our program back further than anyone could have ever imagined, but I just think at least two decades of Aggie football deserve an asterisk as we were sending basically our entire team overseas to fight for the longhorns' freedom to stay at home, sodomize eachother, and discuss Nietzsche and Karl Marx in the coffee and tea houses. Basically, if you beat A&M in the 40's, 50's, or 60's, I wouldn't be bragging b/c it's not saying much.

I think they will have more success than Arkansas. So:

West: Within 6 years (for comparison, Arkansas made their first in 4 years, USC in 19).

SEC: Within 12 (as we all know, neither Ark nor SC has won yet).

National: Hard to say, I'm going to guess in the next 20 years.

quote:

---

LSU is a traditional powerhouse... they are #14 in all time winning percentage. I dont know where u get this idea that we weren't relevant until saban.


LSU's winning percentage was only marginally better than Texas A&M's after the 1999 season when LSU hired Saban. A&M at that point had actually just overtaken LSU in wins at 603 to 601.

---

if you know your LSU history you know that the 90s were far and away the worst decade of football in the history of LSU's football program.

In retrospect them falling upon times that hard is remarkable considering the advantages they enjoy as the only major school in a talent rich state (and speaks volumes about the AD and coaches over that decade). When Gerry Dinardo is your clear #1 coach for the decade you have had some issues.

And yes, LSU's winning percentage was still higher than A&M's and a major resurgence of the football program has obviously significantly widened the gap relative to A&M (against much better competition in the SEC than A&M faced in the Big 12 the last 12 seasons).

The West: Before Ole Miss/State

The SEC: within Before Ole Miss/State/Vandy/Kentucky

National title: Before Arky/Ole Miss/State/Vandy/Kentucky

quote:

---

Recruits care about the program and how far it is from momma, not the city

---

This is bigger than we think. If Louisiana didn't have so much homegrown talent there's no way they're the major player they are. And I've become convinced kids don't care about quality of life in the school they choose otherwise Colorado in Boulder would be winning national titles.

Problem is...while College Station might be close to home and kids don't care that much about being in a great city...

They also deeply care about name programs. They're prima donnas. How else do you explain Nebraska? Ever been to Lincoln? There's one road heading north and south heading through it.

Close to home but they want to play for the big boys. College station isn't that far away from some big name SEC programs. I have a hard time believing Texas talent that wants to play in the SEC will want to solely play for a Texas team. That said, never underestimate Texas pride. That state preaches Texas above all others.

It's not going to be easy but the lure of playing in the SEC will help; it's a different dichotomy than just choosing between UT and A&M when they are both in the same conference...then it was a no-brainer...UT. Now, A&M offers something different.

quote:

---

And yes, LSU's winning percentage was still higher than A&M's and a major resurgence of the football program has obviously significantly widened the gap relative to A&M (against much better competition in the SEC than A&M faced in the Big 12 the last 12 seasons).

---

I think you're underestimating the Big 12. Not as good as the SEC, but not pushovers and I think most people would say that the Big 12 was the 2nd best conference since 2000. In the early 2000's part of that decade, the SEC was down relatively speaking compared to the big 12, IMO. Alabama was down, Tennessee and Georgia were still pretty good, South Carolina was mediocre under Holtz, Florida was good the last couple Spurrier years but only above average under Zook, Arkansas was not good, Auburn was decent, and the one great year where 13-0 SEC schedule wasnt considered good enough for a MNC game berth, LSU was obviously good.

The Big 12 meanwhile Texas and OU win national titles in that period, Nebraska and OU (twice) each played but lost in other BCS title games. Miles and Leach had turned Tech and OSU into decent programs, etc.

Never to all 3