- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
aggressor
| Favorite team: | Texas A&M  |
| Location: | Austin, TX |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 9325 |
| Registered on: | 9/28/2011 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
quote:
To be fair they are playing the #2 team.
lol, sure they are. It's a complete joke that these teams are 1/2.
1
10 of the Top 26 SOR teams are SEC, it helps the Conference. Do you hate the SEC bro?
re: Lateral move
Posted by aggressor on 12/5/25 at 3:54 pm to BootyFett69
Signing a bunch of 5 stars is an assurance of success, especially now with NIL and the portal. I mean it worked great for this guy.
re: Top 10 “Teams” Avg TV Viewership 2025
Posted by aggressor on 12/5/25 at 3:46 pm to BuckeyeGoon
The NBC contract really hurts ND in this regard. A lot of people forget they are there because most just look at ESPN and their affiliates or Fox and theirs.
re: Top 10 “Teams” Avg TV Viewership 2025
Posted by aggressor on 12/5/25 at 3:21 pm to Nasty_Canasta
quote:
Poor Aggy
Actually this is pretty damn impressive because a lot of the separation is about matchups. A&M didn't get a single game this year with Gameday or even SEC Nation which is pretty crazy as we usually get about one of each, sometimes more. Some of our biggest games were also on weeks with other big games. The Texas and ND games got huge ratings for us. The difference between most of the teams is also pretty small, one more hyped matchup and we would have been Top 5. We more than pull our weight considering that SEC Network doesn't have a single A&M grad working there, much less ESPN, that hypes us.
re: This is how you want a coach responding to bullshite committee rankings
Posted by aggressor on 12/5/25 at 12:11 am to SquatchDawg
quote:
quote: Most of the teams A&M played may not be ranked in the Top 20 but they were at the time and are still ranked in the Top 30-50. I totally disagree. Rankings are meaningless until at least halfway or 3/4 through the season. How good a team actually is > how good a team is supposed to be. Look at where TX started and finished. I guess you beating them does play a role in their rank falling but that doesn’t move the needle. ND lost to AM and are still top 10. Other than that what teams did you beat that took an unfair hit to their ranking? The fact is AM split between the two best teams they played with a loss late against a TX team the lost to UGA, FL (yuk) and got taken to OT against MsState and KY. The difference between 6th and 7th is stupid anyway. Just be glad you’re in. Miami, Vandy and UVA (if they win) have a real reason to be pissed.
There is a very real difference and that's why teams want a higher seed. 6 Seed probably means playing UVA in the first round and Tech in the second in the Cotton. 7 seed means playing Bama/ND/Miami in the first round and UGA or Indiana in either the Sugar or the Orange in the second. You want the better matchups.
The problem with the rest of your argument is A&M has a better SOS and SOR than the other teams they are being compared to.
re: This is how you want a coach responding to bullshite committee rankings
Posted by aggressor on 12/4/25 at 11:55 pm to ColoradoAg
quote:
If Elko wants an explanation it is easy - beat the teams you are supposed to like Texas. No sympathy at all.
Yes, A&M should just accept being held to a different standard than other schools because BAS or something.
If we beat Texas we would be 2 or 3 not 5 or 6 or 7.
quote:
quote:
5 or 6. You could make an argument Tech should be ranked much lower as well as that ASU loss was terrible being midseason and the Big 12 is basically a G5 now but is being treated like it's the SEC.
Should have put this in my post above...it could be argued that Texas Tech would be undefeated had their QB played in that ASU game, and they lost to a 4 loss team by ten, the same amount of points A&M lost to a 3 loss Texas team, with a healthy QB. Nothing against A&M at all....just making the same arguments they would rightfully and fairly make. What hurt A&M was the timing of their loss.
A&M has a better loss, a better win, a better SOS, and a better SOR than Tech. The only advantage Tech has is they have run up the score on terrible teams, that's it.
A&M also was without our best offensive player for half the season, Moss. He certainly would have been a huge help in the Texas game but that's how football goes and we aren't expecting a consolation. I am excited to have Moss back for the Playoffs though.
re: Do you want FSU in the SEC?
Posted by aggressor on 12/4/25 at 10:16 am to 14&Counting
quote:
Yes might as well take them.
I don’t want the B1G planting their flag in our backyard.
The B1G will not take FSU. Their targets would be Georgia Tech, UNC, and UVA. They want big research schools that are AAU members.
quote:
Honest question...where do most A&M fans believe they should have been ranked?
5 or 6. You could make an argument Tech should be ranked much lower as well as that ASU loss was terrible being midseason and the Big 12 is basically a G5 now but is being treated like it's the SEC.
re: This is how you want a coach responding to bullshite committee rankings
Posted by aggressor on 12/4/25 at 10:07 am to SquatchDawg
quote:
quote:
He wants someone to explain why we’re the lowest ranked one loss team when we have a higher SOS
The bigger question is how is that SOS 15th? Because ND is on it? TX? The other teams are either doormats or fired their coaches mid season.
That's simply untrue. Most of the teams A&M played may not be ranked in the Top 20 but they were at the time and are still ranked in the Top 30-50. The committee doesn't look at schedule in totality they only count certain games. A great example of how this is flawed was the Chair talked about how Vandy's win against Tennessee is no longer considered a good win because now UT isn't ranked, in large part because Vandy beat the brakes off of them. So they are literally being penalized for such a good win. A&M had the same issue by beating LSU and Mizzou by 3 scores, both were ranked at the time and both are still very talented teams that could almost certainly beat a lot of T25 teams.
Elko's point though is they say that SOS and SOR are supposed to be very important because those are the most comprehensive and objective measures. They both show the SEC as being by far the strongest conference for instance since SEC teams dominate both categories. Yet they are talking about offensive stats and playcalling. It's not like A&M couldn't have run up the score on a bunch of teams they played but they like to get up by 2 scores or more and just run the ball or put in reserves late. It doesn't make your team better because you are going bombs away against a team that is clearly overmatched when the game is already decided.
re: This is how you want a coach responding to bullshite committee rankings
Posted by aggressor on 12/4/25 at 9:58 am to SquatchDawg
quote:
True but does it really matter if you get eliminated in the first or second round? If the goal is a natty you’re going to have to play through the field whether the tough games are early or late.
Plus none of this is worth bitching about until the championship games are finished.
I don’t like the system either and you can bet your arse the rankings are being based on putting teams in slots so they don’t repeat games or that the committee believes will be interesting. Do you see a scenario where UGA loses and they get seeded to play Bama again round 1? Or all SEC teams get put in the same brackets. We all know what they’re doing.
My point is it seems silly to complain at this point because it’s all going to change again.
Well since it doesn't matter I'm sure you wouldn't mind if 1 loss Georgia switched with A&M then and we got a bye and you were the 7 seed. Cool.
re: SEC allegedly working to add Clemson and North Carolina
Posted by aggressor on 12/4/25 at 12:43 am to JamalMurry27
quote:
I hate it. would rather boot teams
Careful what you wish for. Problem is I can assure you that you won't like the teams that get booted and who gets to stay in the new era we are in. The SEC is about money now and you can't turn back the clock.
quote:
quote:
Exactly. Glad you agree your reasoning about why Vandy shouldn’t be in is stupid.
Texas played the most difficult schedule in the SEC this year.
I haven't done them all up yet, but I'm pretty sure Vandy is going to come in around 14th, with A&M 15th and Ole Miss 16th.
Florida did. They got Miami, South Florida, Texas, A&M, Georgia, Ole Miss, and Tennessee.
re: Vanderbilt is getting shafted.
Posted by aggressor on 12/3/25 at 6:08 pm to morriscat2
quote:
Q. Vanderbilt finishing 10-2 in the SEC, what is it that makes Vanderbilt be ranked so far below other 10-2 SEC teams and even below a 9-3 SEC team with Texas?
HUNTER YURACHEK: The committee has a great deal of respect for Vanderbilt and what they have achieved, an amazing season, a 10-win season. When you look at their schedule, now that Tennessee is no longer ranked, they just don't have a signature win. They've got wins against LSU, Missouri and Tennessee. Missouri and Tennessee were previously ranked in our poll. They are no longer ranked in our poll. Then the two ranked teams that Vanderbilt has played, Alabama and Texas, I think both of those games in their own way were a little bit different. The Alabama game is probably a little bit closer than the score indicates, and the Texas game was probably closer than the score actually indicates because if you remember, Texas was up in that game 34-10. I think it's just lacking that signature win or two that teams like a Texas and a Miami, Utah, teams above them have.
This is just the best. Essentially you beat Tennessee by too much and knocked them out of the rankings so now it doesn't count.
quote:
Quit whining. We are in and hosting, barring something weird.
Quit your BAS. We should get what we earned. That said this is simply pointing out the complete hypocrisy of the Committee and how it is going to lead to bad future outcomes for the sport. In the end being 5 or 6 or 7 doesn't really matter that much in terms of our chances of winning the Natty but that's not the point.
quote:
honestly, I think crappy OOC games were going to come anyway with the move to 9 conference games. SEC is brutal and no one wants to risk injury playing a tough opponent out of conference. Especially when it's clear that the playoff committee doesn't care. Your loss was to #13. Tech lost to ASU. Yet Tech is in front of you in the playoff seeding. They have no idea what they are doing.
Yep.
We have a far better loss than Tech, a better win than Tech, a stronger schedule than Tech, and yet they are set to get a bye. Their best win was also at home, ours was on the road against our rival. It's just a joke.
Another fun quote was he the Chair said that Vandy beat Tennessee but since Tennessee is no longer ranked it lost value. Tennessee is only not ranked because Vandy beat the brakes off of them instead of winning close. So if they just won by 3 that would have been better than blowing them out.
He said that Ole Miss has a better offense than A&M but our scoring averages both in total and in Conference are within a point.
They just make shite up as they go.
Something A&M and Texas fans might find agreement on
Posted by aggressor on 12/3/25 at 2:54 pm
Neither one of us is getting any credit for playing difficult OOC games. For Texas at best it isn't helping you and possibly hurting you since you lost. For A&M we are ranked almost certainly exactly where we would be had we played a creampuff instead of beating ND as the lowest of the 4 1 loss teams. You can argue how much or how little either was rewarded or punished but in the end the Committee has made it clear that the juice is not worth the squeeze in scheduling difficult OOC games going forward.
Personally I think that's terrible for the sport. The other really bad precedent is the Chair specifically stated that Tech's margin of victory was the big reason they like them in spite of their soft schedule and they don't care about their loss at ASU. So they want teams to run up the score on much weaker teams.
So when OOC schedules become absolute garbage and teams feel the need to leave in starters and score 60 plus against teams that are completely overmatched they have no room to complain, it's what they are asking for. I just hope A&M makes that adjustment as well going forward since that's what they want.
Personally I think that's terrible for the sport. The other really bad precedent is the Chair specifically stated that Tech's margin of victory was the big reason they like them in spite of their soft schedule and they don't care about their loss at ASU. So they want teams to run up the score on much weaker teams.
So when OOC schedules become absolute garbage and teams feel the need to leave in starters and score 60 plus against teams that are completely overmatched they have no room to complain, it's what they are asking for. I just hope A&M makes that adjustment as well going forward since that's what they want.
re: SEC allegedly working to add Clemson and North Carolina
Posted by aggressor on 12/3/25 at 11:49 am to Fat Bastard
quote:
quote:
I wish we could go back to 10.
yeah but i can live with 12. the expansion adding the gamecocks and pigs i am ok with.
mizzou and TAMU have no business in the SEC and the shorthorns and land thieves sure as shite are NOT sec teams. it is a money making racket now.
It's been a money making racket for a long time and the wheel hasn't remotely stopped spinning on that. Just accept it or scream at the sky.
I remember A&M in the old SWC and that was fun with 8 Texas Teams plus Arky for flavor. I remember when making it to the Cotton Bowl was a huge deal and they had the Parade. Minimal corporate sponsorships. Just a different world then.
Plenty that sucked too though. Stadiums were smaller and not all games were on TV. No internet and you had to rely on what was written in the newspaper for recruiting news and analysis to go along with Dave Campbell's Texas Football or Athlon. They had to debate which game counted as the NC game as it was often #1 playing #8 and #2 playing #6 or something on NYD.
In the SEC you had member schools that never played each other and plenty of issues of your own.
Nothing we can do to change it, might as well embrace it.
quote:
Your conference opponent record ended up being 18-46 and you lost to the one SEC team you played with a .500+ record.
You started the year with 3 straight home SEC games, played 4 SEC teams that fired their coaches, and another with a backup QB. Your schedule is laughable.
You left out the part about how some of those teams fired their coaches because we humiliated them. You also left out the part where we played 3 straight road games which is ridiculous to ever happen in the SEC. Our SOS was 15 in the country, basically middle of the pack in the SEC this year.
Cry more.
quote:
quote:
I don't see UNC leaving NC State and Duke and to a lesser extent Virginia. Maybe Duke but NC State is literally part of UNC and the politics of leaving them high and dry would be hard to believe.
We heard this about Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, too.
I agree and said that as well. Anything can happen. That said it's definitely harder to see. NC State is bigger than UNC and only 30 miles away in Raleigh. It's a school with a lot of history and resources that is growing. The relationship between the schools is very intertwined, especially because UNC and NC State are built to complement each other (UNC essentially has almost no Engineering for instance). That said maybe it becomes more of a Georgia/GT situation I suppose.
Popular
74
