Texas/Texas A&M History Lesson...

[g$$]

Since some (not all) on here seem to be historically challenged, I thought I might offer this:

No doubt Texas has the advantage overall (73-35-5). And Texas has dominated lately too. Friday will be the 114th meeting between the schools.

But remember, A&M used to be an all-male, all military school too. Check the series record since 1975 (when lots of things changed in the college football landscape including scholarship limits, etc. if you know history). Most historians refer to the Modern Era of College Football starting in the mid-1970s. If you doubt me, look it up:

Since 1975:
17 wins for A&M
15 wins for Texas

Now, both schools have had runs of late:
--A&M won 6 in a row from 1984-1989
--A&M won 10/11 from 1984-1994

--Texas won 6 in a row from 2000-2005
--Texas has won 7/10 since 1997

May the best team win Friday. I think Texas wins a close one but it sure would be nice to get a win in Fran's swan song & knock Texas possibly out of the BCS. How many Aggie coaches have beaten Texas 2 in a row & were still fired (if Ags do indeed pull the upset Friday)?

That would be zero - maybe Fran makes history again to go along with worst regular season loss (77-0 to OU) & 2 worst bowl losses in school history (TENN & Cal). Unlikely but possible.

Let the spin begin...GO

[wildstangs]

Texas wins Friday - and YOU can hold me to THAT!

[JJ7997]

Originally posted by g$$

Since 1975:
17 wins for A&M
15 wins for Texas



I would loved to have brought this up way before now, but since many of our " History Buffs " cant see the difference in ancient and modern history I thought it might go by the wayside in the ensuing landslide of knowledge it is bound to trigger.

[CenTexSports]

I am not a fan of either of the teams mentioned in this thread but I root for both when they are playing. However, it appears that Texas A&M supporters (much like those in Snyder) have major inferiority complex issues.

Both schools keep the abuse alive and coming by responding over the top on the smallest of comments.

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by g$$


Since 1975:
17 wins for A&M
15 wins for Texas



73-35-5

You only post since 1975 cause prior to that A&M has only had 18 wins opposed to Texas' 58. That is a 40 win advantage. Even with your logic Texas is still up 38 games :)

[88bobcats]

The past 113 games don't matter.

The only game that matters is the one tomorrow.

Texas is a great school. Texas A&M is a great school. Universities are there for education primarily, football secondarily. The t-shirt fans don't always understand this.

Football wouldn't be any fun without good rivalries. As an Aggie, I love to beat the 'Horns; but the 'Horn graduates are generally knowledgeable, well-educated alumni. Aggie grad's. also have top-notch educations.

Good luck to all the players in this game tomorrow. Stay safe, and represent your school well.

Gig 'em, Aggies!

[LordInfamous]

http://www.rivalwear.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=4

[Gobbla2001]

I think everyone knows that UT did a lot of sucking in between 1975 and the Mack era... this post is stupid...

what's the record since 2000? :rolleyes:

fact is:

Texas - More Wins
A&M - Less

Texas - More Nat'l Championships
A&M - Less

that's the only history lesson you need...

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by g$$
Since some (not all) on here seem to be historically challenged, I thought I might offer this:

No doubt Texas has the advantage overall (73-35-5). And Texas has dominated lately too. Friday will be the 114th meeting between the schools.

But remember, A&M used to be an all-male, all military school too. Check the series record since 1975 (when lots of things changed in the college football landscape including scholarship limits, etc. if you know history). Most historians refer to the Modern Era of College Football starting in the mid-1970s. If you doubt me, look it up:

Since 1975:
17 wins for A&M
15 wins for Texas

Now, both schools have had runs of late:
--A&M won 6 in a row from 1984-1989
--A&M won 10/11 from 1984-1994

--Texas won 6 in a row from 2000-2005
--Texas has won 7/10 since 1997

May the best team win Friday. I think Texas wins a close one but it sure would be nice to get a win in Fran's swan song & knock Texas possibly out of the BCS. How many Aggie coaches have beaten Texas 2 in a row & were still fired (if Ags do indeed pull the upset Friday)?

That would be zero - maybe Fran makes history again to go along with worst regular season loss (77-0 to OU) & 2 worst bowl losses in school history (TENN & Cal). Unlikely but possible.

Let the spin begin...GO




Originally posted by g$$
- that shows a lack of appreciation for history & what they accomplished.


So which one is it? Either history counts or it doesnt. :rolleyes:

[KTJ]

Most historians refer to the Modern Era of College Football starting in the mid


Link?

[g$$]

Originally posted by CenTexSports
I am not a fan of either of the teams mentioned in this thread but I root for both when they are playing. However, it appears that Texas A&M supporters (much like those in Snyder) have major inferiority complex issues.

Both schools keep the abuse alive and coming by responding over the top on the smallest of comments.

No inferiority complex here fella. I have family on both sides. I love my school/degree & they love theirs. I respect that. We have some fun with it & then move on. I just have no respect for people who don't know history & fail to recognize what fine, nationally recognized universities BOTH are. I was accepted to both & CHOSE my destination after juco baseball. Not any regrets either. Texas A&M was the place for me.

May the best team win Friday. That shoud be Texas, but you never know until it plays out.

[g$$]

Originally posted by Go Blue
73-35-5

You only post since 1975 cause prior to that A&M has only had 18 wins opposed to Texas' 58. That is a 40 win advantage. Even with your logic Texas is still up 38 games :)


I posted the overall, & told you why 1975 is a landmark year for college football (not just A&M). If that confuses you or you don't care to accept it, then I can't help you. Learn history & what it means so you can better understand the future.

[g$$]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
I think everyone knows that UT did a lot of sucking in between 1975 and the Mack era... this post is stupid...



I don't need any lessons from someone who doesn't know the history. To make the statement above is ludicrous: Texas played for NC in 1984 (following 1983 season) & lost to Georgia in Cotton Bowl, knocking them out of it. Earl Campbell played at Texas & won the Heisman in 1977, lost to a great ND team in Cotton Bowl, & lots of great teams & players during this time period (Johnnie Johnson, Roosevelt Leaks, Jerry Gray, Doug Dawson, Jeff Leiding, Brad Shearer, Marty Akins, Johnny Lam Jones, etc.). Won the conference numerous times, including the big upset of NEB under Mackovic too.

Texas football does not begin & end with Mack Brown. There were some down years under McWilliams & Mackovic, & under Fred Akers towards the end. But it is not all inclusive from 1975 until 1997. Learn what the heck you are talking about or don't speak at all.

[g$$]

Originally posted by rockdale80
So which one is it? Either history counts or it doesnt. :rolleyes:

Sure history counts, & it should be embraced & revered. I never said differently. History teaches valuable lessons & gives you a greater perspective as a whole. I guess you are confused since you don't think "old" guys could play (as you said in another thread)! I know better.

[Bull Butter]

In the 1978 Cotton Bowl, Texas went in at # 1 and lost to Notre Dame. In the 1982 Cotton Bowl, Texas was #2 and lost to Georgia, so it wasn't all bad between DKR and Mac.

[g$$]

Originally posted by KTJ
Link?

Many links. Go to any reputable college football site & do the research. Read & listen to long-time writers & broadcasters. Study up on how the rules, scholarships, funding, stadium expansions, conferences, etc. changed in the mid-1970s. You have to gain a greater perspective to understand what changed the landscape. It changed big-time & opened the doors for other teams to have a chance. A&M allowing women in the late 1960s changed the school forever - for the better! Rice & TCU fell by the wayside after years of being really good previously. A&M rose from the dead. Baylor under Grant Teaff had some very good teams. SMU started a renaissance which led to the Death Penalty in the late 1980s. This was not just a regional thing but nationally too. Best of luck.

[g$$]

Originally posted by JJ7997
I would loved to have brought this up way before now, but since many of our " History Buffs " cant see the difference in ancient and modern history I thought it might go by the wayside in the ensuing landslide of knowledge it is bound to trigger.

Correct, most on here only know the present & have no appreciation for the past. Some sure do but most do not.

[g$$]

Originally posted by Bull Butter
In the 1978 Cotton Bowl, Texas went in at # 1 and lost to Notre Dame. In the 1982 Cotton Bowl, Texas was #2 and lost to Georgia, so it wasn't all bad between DKR and Mac.

Exactly, as I also posted. Youngster has no clue Bull.

It was the 1984 Cotton Bowl following the 1983 season you mentioned.

1984 Cotton Bowl: Georgia 10, Texas 9

DALLAS -- The Longhorns were a perfect 11-0-0 and held the No. 2 spot in the national rankings heading into the 1984 Cotton Bowl. A victory over seventh-ranked Georgia would put the Horns in a favorable position to grab the National Championship should top-ranked Nebraska stumble against Miami in the Orange Bowl later that evening.

Unfortunately, it was the Longhorns who stumbled first.

With more than four minutes to play Texas owned a 9-3 margin in a game controlled by defense and field goals. Jeff Ward put the Longhorns up 3-0 with a 22-yard field goal on UT’s first possession and added back-to-back efforts of 40 and 27 yards in the third quarter.

Georgia’s only score came on a Kevin Butler 43-yard boot in the closing seconds of the first quarter.

With the clock reading 4:35 in the fourth quarter, Texas again forced a sputtering Bulldogs offense into a punting situation from the Georgia 34. Only twice in the second half had the Dawgs moved the ball into Texas territory, and with time on UT’s side, many thought that a fake punt was a possibility.

The Longhorns elected not to bring in their regular punt return unit and Craig Curry replaced Jitter Fields as the return man. Georgia’s Chip Andrews got off a clean 43-yard punt, but Curry couldn’t handle the ball and the Dawgs recovered on the Texas 23.

Three plays later, UT’s hopes for the National Championship went down the drain when John Lastinger ran the option around the right side and dashed 17 yards for the touchdown. Butler added the extra point and with 3:22 left Georgia had a 10-9 lead it would not relinquish.

Later that evening, top-ranked Nebraska met the same fate as Miami pulled off the 31-30 upset and moved past the Longhorns to secure the National Championship.


Attendance: 67,891
Cold
Georgia 3 0 0 7 10
Texas 3 0 6 0 9
First Quarter
10:32 UT - Jeff Ward 22-yd field goal; Drive: 8 plays, 59 yards
0:17 UGA - Kevin Butler 43-yd field goal; Drive: 5 plays, 22 yards
Third Quarter
7:10 UT - Ward 40-yd field goal; Drive: 7 plays, 28 yards
3:50 UT - Ward 27-yg field goal; Drive: 9 plays, 26 yards
Fourth Quarter
3:22 UGA - John Lastinger 17-yd run (Butler kick); Drive: 3 plays, 23 yards
Team Statistics Georgia UT
First Downs 13 14
Att-Net Yards Rush 45-149 47-110
Pass Comp-Att-Int 6-20-1 8-26-2
Net Yards Passing 66 168
Total Plays-Yards 65-215 73-278
Fumbles-Lost 2-1 4-2
Punts-Avg 9-41.2 7-46.7
Penalties-Yards 3-25 6-52

Individual Statistics
Texas
Rushing (Att./Yds/TD): Ronnie Robinson (28-88-0); Terry Orr (7-19-0); John Walker (2-8-0); Don Holloway (1-4-0); Rob Moerschell (1-3-0); Rick McIvor (8-minus 12-0).
Passing (Comp./Att./Int./Yds/TD): Rick McIvor (8-26-2-168-0).
Receiving (No./Yds/TD): Bobby Micho (2-59-0); Kelvin Epps (1-44-0); Bill Boy Bryant (2-41-0); Ronnie Robinson (2-17-0); Brent Duhon (1-7-0).
Punting (No./Yds/Avg.): John Teltschik (7-327-46.7).
Georgia
Rushing (Att./Yds/TD): Keith Montgomery (11-40-0); Fred Lane (1-35-0); Barry Young (10-30-0); John Lastinger (12-19-1); Scott Williams (3-19-0); Bertrand Jackson (7-3-0); Todd Williams (1-3-0).
Passing (Comp./Att./Int./Yds/TD): John Lastinger (6-19-1-66-0); Herman Archie (0-1-0-0-0).
Receiving (No./Yds/TD): Kevin Harris (2-33-0); James Wisham (1-14-0); Scott Williams (1-11-0); Bertrand Jackson (1-8-0); Fred Lane (1-0-0).
Punting (No./Yds/Avg.): Chip Andrews (9-371-41.2).

[Big Papa]

Originally posted by g$$
Since some (not all) on here seem to be historically challenged, I thought I might offer this:

No doubt Texas has the advantage overall (73-35-5). And Texas has dominated lately too. Friday will be the 114th meeting between the schools.

But remember, A&M used to be an all-male, all military school too. Check the series record since 1975 (when lots of things changed in the college football landscape including scholarship limits, etc. if you know history). Most historians refer to the Modern Era of College Football starting in the mid-1970s. If you doubt me, look it up:

Since 1975:
17 wins for A&M
15 wins for Texas

Now, both schools have had runs of late:
--A&M won 6 in a row from 1984-1989
--A&M won 10/11 from 1984-1994

--Texas won 6 in a row from 2000-2005
--Texas has won 7/10 since 1997

May the best team win Friday. I think Texas wins a close one but it sure would be nice to get a win in Fran's swan song & knock Texas possibly out of the BCS. How many Aggie coaches have beaten Texas 2 in a row & were still fired (if Ags do indeed pull the upset Friday)?

That would be zero - maybe Fran makes history again to go along with worst regular season loss (77-0 to OU) & 2 worst bowl losses in school history (TENN & Cal). Unlikely but possible.

Let the spin begin...GO

wait is this what one calls a....spin?

[KTJ]

Originally posted by g$$
Many links. Go to any reputable college football site & do the research. Read & listen to long-time writers & broadcasters. Study up on how the rules, scholarships, funding, stadium expansions, conferences, etc. changed in the mid-1970s. You have to gain a greater perspective to understand what changed the landscape. It changed big-time & opened the doors for other teams to have a chance. A&M allowing women in the late 1960s changed the school forever - for the better! Rice & TCU fell by the wayside after years of being really good previously. A&M rose from the dead. Baylor under Grant Teaff had some very good teams. SMU started a renaissance which led to the Death Penalty in the late 1980s. This was not just a regional thing but nationally too. Best of luck.


Why is your reply condescending?

And that's why I'm asking for a link. I want you to provide me with a source that backs up what you say because I've yet to find one. Shouldn't it be easy for you to provide me substantial source that backs up what you say instead of just saying "it's there, you go find it"? I'm willing to believe you but I'll need you to do better than "the research says it, you go find it." Because the research I'm finding, doesn't say any of that.

So...provide with with a link, source, something that agrees with your argument. Not a generic statement.

[g$$]

Originally posted by KTJ
Why is your reply condescending?

And that's why I'm asking for a link. I want you to provide me with a source that backs up what you say because I've yet to find one. Shouldn't it be easy for you to provide me substantial source that backs up what you say instead of just saying "it's there, you go find it"? I'm willing to believe you but I'll need you to do better than "the research says it, you go find it." Because the research I'm finding, doesn't say any of that.

So...provide with with a link, source, something that agrees with your argument. Not a generic statement.

Not intended to be, just stating how it is.

You know good & well what I said is correct. Now if you care to admit that is an entirely other matter. I gave you many examples. Now research it if you desire.

And Big Papa: only posted facts, not spin. I leave that to others. Take it however you want.

[Big Papa]

Originally posted by g$$
Not intended to be, just stating how it is.

You know good & well what I said is correct. Now if you care to admit that is an entirely other matter. I gave you many examples. Now research it if you desire.

And Big Papa: only posted facts, not spin. I leave that to others. Take it however you want.

oh you know i will...and i take it as you spinning.... i used to not think so..but i have realized that a person can use facts to spin something...


oh and by the way..i dont know good and well if all that is correct...because frankly im one of those fans who was "ignorant to the history"....so links would be helpfull for me

[g$$]

Originally posted by Big Papa
oh you know i will...and i take it as you spinning.... i used to not think so..but i have realized that a person can use facts to spin something...


oh and by the way..i dont know good and well if all that is correct...because frankly im one of those fans who was "ignorant to the history"....so links would be helpfull for me

Then you would be dead wrong, again.

Look it up if you doubt me. Be my guest.

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by g$$
Correct, most on here only know the present & have no appreciation for the past. Some sure do but most do not. I appreciate the past and the history tells me that the record between the two opponents is 73-35

[g$$]

Originally posted by Go Blue
I appreciate the past and the history tells me that the record between the two opponents is 73-35

As I posted in the original thread page 1. Thanks for that nugget Blue. Keep it up! But 73-35-5 fyi

[KTJ]

Originally posted by g$$
Not intended to be, just stating how it is.

You know good & well what I said is correct. Now if you care to admit that is an entirely other matter. I gave you many examples. Now research it if you desire.

And Big Papa: only posted facts, not spin. I leave that to others. Take it however you want.


Right right...you've given me examples but have yet to prove where your examples are legit. No source, no anything.

Look, you (and most Aggies) have been touting this claim of 1975 being the modern age for years, and that's fine if that's what you believe. All I'm asking is that you provide me with a link or a source that backs up this claim because I haven't found it....at all.

What you're telling me is that many historians, broadcasters, etc consider the modern age to be in or around 1975 as well and I've yet to find any source that says that either. So exactly what broadcasters, football news sites, etc are saying this? That's ALL I'm asking...provide me with a link so I can see because I've yet to find one after doing my research like you so condescendingly asked me to do.

Moreover, I do remember Sports Illustrated mentioning the start of the modern era of college football in an article earlier this year and that start date was the late 1930's.

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by g$$
As I posted in the original thread page 1. Thanks for that nugget Blue. Keep it up! But 73-35-5 fyi Under your theory would a tie be modern era? haha

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by g$$
Many links. Go to any reputable college football site & do the research. So let me get this straight:

You say that "Modern Era" is fact. You say numerous site back that up. Yet you can't link to any and say it's OUR responsibility to go find it?

It's a good thing your writing a research paper, cause you'd fail big time.

[g$$]

Originally posted by KTJ
Right right...you've given me examples but have yet to prove where your examples are legit. No source, no anything.

Look, you (and most Aggies) have been touting this claim of 1975 being the modern age for years, and that's fine if that's what you believe. All I'm asking is that you provide me with a link or a source that backs up this claim because I haven't found it....at all.

What you're telling me is that many historians, broadcasters, etc consider the modern age to be in or around 1975 as well and I've yet to find any source that says that either. So exactly what broadcasters, football news sites, etc are saying this? That's ALL I'm asking...provide me with a link so I can see because I've yet to find one after doing my research like you so condescendingly asked me to do.

Moreover, I do remember Sports Illustrated mentioning the start of the modern era of college football in an article earlier this year and that start date was the late 1930's.

You are way smarter than that. I speak for myself, not others. College football as we know it changed in the mid 1970s. Anyone who knows history & has been around living & working in it (as I have done) knows that. That is fact, so either accept it or prove me wrong. You won't be able to do that. Why does it bother you so much? Because since 1975 A&M is ahead 17-15?

Scholarship limits changed, integration changed a few years before, funding changed, allowing women changed in late 1960s too, etc. Ask anyone knowledgeable on the subject. SI's article was good but also left a lot of open holes too. It was not the 1930s. It sure was not before WWII.

At one time, there were no scholarship limits. Then 110, then 95, then 90, now 85 (25 per year). Funding for state schools changed. You can't wrap it all up in a bow & say here it is. You have to understand & know history on many different levels. It is what it is.

[g$$]

Originally posted by Go Blue
Under your theory would a tie be modern era? haha

A tie is a stupid tie in any era. ;)

[g$$]

Originally posted by JasperDog94

It's a good thing your writing a research paper, cause you'd fail big time.

Huh?

No I would not & never did, but I want y'all to look it up & further prove the point. I never said it was me making these claims - historians & broadcasters who cover college football have repeatedly.

[Old Tiger]

Did a google search and there are many different dates that I see that are listed with the "modern era"

1939 when games were broadcasted
1916 Georgia Tech/Cumberland game is listed as the "modern era" record for most points scored against a college team
1946-present llisted as the "modern era"

[Bull Butter]

Title IX came into being in 1972. This took money away from many schools' football programs.

Scholarship limits were imposed in 1977. First it was 95, it has since dropped to 85. There was a time when schools (Texas was not the only one) signed players to scholarships simply to keep them from going to another school.

ESPN began broadcasting College Football in 1980. This brought many teams who rarely appeared on TV much needed exposure. CBS added to this in 1982 by doing weekly games. (Does anyone remember the days when ABC did only ONE game per week?)

All of these improved the competetive balance of College Football. I don't know if there is a "red-letter" day when College Football changed, but the NCAA landscape of the 1980's and beyond is vastly different from that of the 1960's.

[g$$]

Originally posted by Bull Butter
Title IX came into being in 1972. This took money away from many schools' football programs.

Scholarship limits were imposed in 1977. First it was 95, it has since dropped to 85. There was a time when schools (Texas was not the only one) signed players to scholarships simply to keep them from going to another school.

ESPN began broadcasting College Football in 1980. This brought many teams who rarely appeared on TV much needed exposure. CBS added to this in 1982 by doing weekly games. (Does anyone remember the days when ABC did only ONE game per week?)

All of these improved the competetive balance of College Football. I don't know if there is a "red-letter" day when College Football changed, but the NCAA landscape of the 1980's and beyond is vastly different from that of the 1960's.

Now there is a guy doing his research. And yes, I do remember 1 game on Sat. afternoons on ABC. Scholarship limits were 110 at one time too before being lowered (DKR used to sign up to 10 qbs in a given year just to keep them away from other schools). TV definitely changed everything. As did state funding, integration, women being allowed into universities, etc.

Those google searches are worthless unless they detail changes such as above.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by g$$
Huh?

No I would not & never did, but I want y'all to look it up & further prove the point. I never said it was me making these claims - historians & broadcasters who cover college football have repeatedly. That's crap and you know it. No reasonable person goes and starts spewing a bunch of garbage as fact and then tells everyone else to "go look it up yourself".:rolleyes:

[g$$]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
That's crap and you know it. No reasonable person goes and starts spewing a bunch of garbage as fact and then tells everyone else to "go look it up yourself".:rolleyes:

You can start by reading above & go from there. Those are all huge events that changed college football. And yes, they are facts you just don't like them.

[Txbroadcaster]

Most say the modern era of college football starts in 1946

Or that has always been what newspapers, brdcasters and such say when it comes to stats and such

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Bull Butter
Title IX came into being in 1972. This took money away from many schools' football programs.

Scholarship limits were imposed in 1977. First it was 95, it has since dropped to 85. There was a time when schools (Texas was not the only one) signed players to scholarships simply to keep them from going to another school.

ESPN began broadcasting College Football in 1980. This brought many teams who rarely appeared on TV much needed exposure. CBS added to this in 1982 by doing weekly games. (Does anyone remember the days when ABC did only ONE game per week?)

All of these improved the competetive balance of College Football. I don't know if there is a "red-letter" day when College Football changed, but the NCAA landscape of the 1980's and beyond is vastly different from that of the 1960's.


Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Most say the modern era of college football starts in 1946

Or that has always been what newspapers, brdcasters and such say when it comes to stats and such


Originally posted by g$$
You can start by reading above & go from there. Those are all huge events that changed college football. And yes, they are facts you just don't like them.

Which one should I start with?:doh: :doh: :doh:

[g$$]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Most say the modern era of college football starts in 1946

Or that has always been what newspapers, brdcasters and such say when it comes to stats and such

Disagree TXB - 1946 does not include integartion, tv, scholarships, women into schools, etc. Nothing of the sort.

That is stat related, not historically accurate in other areas that changed everything.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by g$$
Disagree TXB - 1946 does not include integartion, tv, scholarships, women into schools, etc. Nothing of the sort.

That is stat related, not historically accurate in other areas that changed everything.

Why? because u say so?

If u want to get technical, anytime something changes the game in a huge way then that begins the new Modern era, so when the BCS began is really the beginning of the modern era

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by g$$
Disagree TXB - 1946 does not include integartion, tv, scholarships, women into schools, etc. Nothing of the sort.

That is stat related, not historically accurate in other areas that changed everything. What do women have to do with football?:confused:

Games have been broadcasted since 1939.

We all know the forward pass is when the modern era of football began.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Why? because u say so? Well duh...:p :p

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Go Blue
We all know the forward pass is when the modern era of football began. :clap: :clap:

Greatness!!!:clap: :clap: :clap:

[Txbroadcaster]

If u want to get technical, anytime something changes the game in a huge way then that begins the new Modern era, so when the BCS began is really the beginning of the modern era

[g$$]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Why? because u say so?

Title IX was not around in 1946. Nor were scholarship limits. Nor were mainstream tv games. Integration had not occurred yet, & wome still were limited in college options. That is why, among others. 1970s & beyond changed everything.

[Bull Butter]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
If u want to get technical, anytime something changes the game in a huge way then that begins the new Modern era, so when the BCS began is really the beginning of the modern era

No, that's known as the Apocolypse:(

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
If u want to get technical, anytime something changes the game in a huge way then that begins the new Modern era, so when the BCS began is really the beginning of the modern era I can agree with that theory. TXBC, where you at this weekend?

[g$$]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
If u want to get technical, anytime something changes the game in a huge way then that begins the new Modern era, so when the BCS began is really the beginning of the modern era

That's a whole different deal, & I agree it's a new era. But that does not discount what happened in the 1970s.

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by g$$
That's a whole different deal, & I agree it's a new era. But that does not discount what happened in the 1970s. At the time of your "moder era" theory wasn't that a "whole different deal"?

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by g$$
That's a whole different deal, & I agree it's a new era. But that does not discount what happened in the 1970s.

No it does not..and it also does not discount what happened before 197 like you seem to try to do


Go, I wil be broadcasting everman game tomorrow night and at Texas Stadium broadcasting all 4 on Sat

[g$$]

Originally posted by Go Blue
What do women have to do with football?:confused:

Games have been broadcasted since 1939.

We all know the forward pass is when the modern era of football began.

You ever tried to recruit kids to play ball when WOMEN don't attend your school? Kinda tough.

1939 - yeah that really compares to ESPN in 1980 & beyond. When I was growing up, ABC had 1 game on Sat. afternoons. That was it.

1970s were landmark events, & that changed college football forever. A&M became a player again, as did others. That was the original point.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by g$$
women into schools Was this an A&M thing only?

[g$$]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
No it does not..and it also does not discount what happened before 197 like you seem to try to do


Go, I wil be broadcasting everman game tomorrow night and at Texas Stadium broadcasting all 4 on Sat

Things changed in 1970s, as was the point. I have no idea what you think I was trying to say. It's pretty simple. Landmark events brought on Title IX, integration, women into school, state funding, scholarship limits, etc. affected the whole landscape.

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by g$$
You ever tried to recruit kids to play ball when WOMEN don't attend your school? Kinda tough.

1939 - yeah that really compares to ESPN in 1980 & beyond. When I was growing up, ABC had 1 game on Sat. afternoons. That was it.

1970s were landmark events, & that changed college football forever. A&M became a player again, as did others. That was the original point. Well hell g$$

Teams have been doing this thing called recruiting long time before. Bear Bryant never had any problem recruitin kids did he?

Still they were broadcasting games prior to the 1970's. ESPN was huge for all sports just not college football so that argument doesn't really matter much.



1970s were landmark events, & that changed college football forever. A&M became a player again, as did others.That explains it all right there playa ;)

[g$$]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Was this an A&M thing only?

A&M was all male, all military before the late 1960s. Others also had this but since this was a Texas/Texas A&M thread, it has carried the discussion. But no, everyone did not have this restriction.

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by g$$
A&M was all male, all military before the late 1960s. Others also had this but since this was a Texas/Texas A&M thread, it has carried the discussion. But no, everyone did not have this restriction. Well that's A&M's fault.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by g$$
A&M was all male, all military before the late 1960s. Others also had this but since this was a Texas/Texas A&M thread, it has carried the discussion. But no, everyone did not have this restriction. Then why should this be considered in your "modern era"? Do all schools need to consider the fact that A&M didn't allow women until the late 60's in their determination of the "modern era"?

[g$$]

Originally posted by Go Blue
Well hell g$$

Teams have been doing this thing called recruiting long time before. Bear Bryant never had any problem recruitin kids did he?

Still they were broadcasting games prior to the 1970's. ESPN was huge for all sports just not college football so that argument doesn't really matter much.


That explains it all right there playa ;)

You're wrong about tv. That was a huge deal. It gave exposure to teams who had never been on tv much before. ESPN & A&M were linked in the 1980s. Other schools were too.

And yes Bear did have trouble - without paying them to come! NCAA was breathing down A&M's neck too around this time, long before Compliance Depts. Then Bear went to Bama & they would not touch him. Bear was not scared to cheat!

Whole different era.

[Bull Butter]

Originally posted by Go Blue


Still they were broadcasting games prior to the 1970's. ESPN was huge for all sports just not college football so that argument doesn't really matter much.




I can tell you were not around in the 1960's. There was ONE college football game on TV every weekend. That was it. The schedules were set in stone before the season began. Many schools NEVER appaered on television. Lot easier to recruit kids to a school when they can actually see your team on TV. Also lots easier for mom & pop to watch their kids play.

There was even a time when A&M-Texas was not televised:eek:

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by g$$
You're wrong about tv. That was a huge deal. It gave exposure to teams who had never been on tv much before. ESPN & A&M were linked in the 1980s. Other schools were too.

And yes Bear did have trouble - without paying them to come! NCAA was breathing down A&M's neck too around this time, long before Compliance Depts. Then Bear went to Bama & they would not touch him. Bear was not scared to cheat!

Whole different era. So what I'm getting from all your post is that the "modern era" began when A&M finally got a "fair advantage." You're a funny fella.

[g$$]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Then why should this be considered in your "modern era"? Do all schools need to consider the fact that A&M didn't allow women until the late 60's in their determination of the "modern era"?

It is how it relates to college football, not just A&M genius.

Title IX
Integration
Women into Universities
State Funding for Universities
Scholarship Limits
TV exposure / ESPN
Stadium Expansions
Alumni Donations / separate entities like 12th MF, Longhorn Foundation (privately funded athletic depts.)
Conferences / realignments later
etc.

There, if you can't figure it out from here, you have no chance.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by g$$
Things changed in 1970s, as was the point. I have no idea what you think I was trying to say. It's pretty simple. Landmark events brought on Title IX, integration, women into school, state funding, scholarship limits, etc. affected the whole landscape. Integration took place in the 60s as did A&M's CHOICE to allow women. Title IX didn't take place until the mid to late 70's and ESPN didn't start until 79 and had little impact until 80. How can you lump over a decade of changes into one year that's "convenient" for you?

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by g$$
And yes Bear did have trouble - without paying them to come! NCAA was breathing down A&M's neck too around this time, long before Compliance Depts. Then Bear went to Bama & they would not touch him. Bear was not scared to cheat!

Whole different era.

So basically the two biggest coaches in A&M history had to cheat while there to be succesful?

[g$$]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
So basically the two biggest coaches in A&M history had to cheat while there to be succesful?

Yeah, only A&M ever cheated. Give me a break. You having a bad day? You're too smart to act like that.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by g$$
It is how it relates to college football, not just A&M genius.

Title IX
Integration
Women into Universities
State Funding for Universities
Scholarship Limits
TV exposure / ESPN
Stadium Expansions
Alumni Donations / separate entities like 12th MF, Longhorn Foundation (privately funded athletic depts.)
Conferences / realignments later
etc.

There, if you can't figure it out from here, you have no chance.
Title IX - mid to late 70's
Integration - late 60's
State Funding for Universities - mid 70's
Scholarship limits (included with Title IX)
TV exposure - early 80's
Stadium expansions - A&M choice
Alumni Dontations - A&M choice
Conferences - na

You're all over the map. You can't lump changes that happened over almost 2 decades and pick a year and say that this is the new "modern era". Well, I guess YOU can, but don't expect the rest of us to buy into it.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by g$$
Yeah, only A&M ever cheated. Give me a break. You having a bad day? You're too smart to act like that.

Or maybe it was a simple dig and nothing more

[g$$]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Integration took place in the 60s as did A&M's CHOICE to allow women. Title IX didn't take place until the mid to late 70's and ESPN didn't start until 79 and had little impact until 80. How can you lump over a decade of changes into one year that's "convenient" for you?

Integration was gradual, not all in one year (mid to late 1960s & beyond). Title IX was 1972. ESPN was around 1979-1980. That is why many refer to the mid 1970s as when things changed. Other stuff happened later, & changes are occurring now too. Not convenient, just facts.

There has to be a starting point, then you build from there. It took years for the changes to take true effect. Scholarships & funding were both huge, as were integration & women into schools. Then more TV games came along & leveled the playing field even more.

[Bull Butter]

While the changes g$$ has alluded to helped A&M's competitive balance, IMO the thing that turned A&M's program around was the 1972 hiring of Emory Bellard as head coach. At the time of his hiring, A&M had one winning season since the Bear left in 1957. For whatever reason, Bellard started getting recruits to come to College Station.

As his recruits began to fill up A&M's roster, the Aggies fortunes improved dramatically. From 3-8 in '72 to 5-6 in '73 to 8-3 in '74 to 10-2 in '75. The Aggies continued their winning ways through the rest of the 1970's.

Sadly, Bellard resigned under pressure from influentual alumni after 6 games of the 1978 season. A season which the Aggies got off to a 4-0 start, then dropped 2 in a row to Baylor and Houston.

[g$$]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Title IX - mid to late 70's
Integration - late 60's
State Funding for Universities - mid 70's
Scholarship limits (included with Title IX)
TV exposure - early 80's
Stadium expansions - A&M choice
Alumni Dontations - A&M choice
Conferences - na

You're all over the map. You can't lump changes that happened over almost 2 decades and pick a year and say that this is the new "modern era". Well, I guess YOU can, but don't expect the rest of us to buy into it.

You are missing the point - those were not simply A&M things - they were college football things. Scholarships limits cannot be lumped with Title IX then - moreso now of course. The limits were huge for other schools trying to move up & recruiting. Your years are skewed too.

Not all over the map, just trying my best to give someone an overview of all that went on during this time. They all did not happen together. It was a cumulative effect over time.

The playing field leveled for MANY schools. And that brought about major changes in the college football landscape still being felt today. No longer were the major players only about 8-10 schools.

[g$$]

Originally posted by Bull Butter
While the changes g$$ has alluded to helped A&M's competitive balance, IMO the thing that turned A&M's program around was the 1972 hiring of Emory Bellard as head coach. At the time of his hiring, A&M had one winning season since the Bear left in 1957. For whatever reason, Bellard started getting recruits to come to College Station.

As his recruits began to fill up A&M's roster, the Aggies fortunes improved dramatically. From 3-8 in '72 to 5-6 in '73 to 8-3 in '74 to 10-2 in '75. The Aggies continued their winning ways through the rest of the 1970's.

Sadly, Bellard resigned under pressure from influentual alumni after 6 games of the 1978 season. A season which the Aggies got off to a 4-0 start, then dropped 2 in a row to Baylor and Houston.

Great point Bull - & Emory Bellard was hired from Texas too (father of the wishbone). DKR called A&M a sleeping giant. All the pieces were starting to come together after many horrid years.

1975 was A&M's best team ever. Cover of SI & the whole deal. Ranked #1 & then lost to ARK after game date was changed, etc. Alumni got involved later & screwed up what Emory had started. It took years to recover - then Jackie got it going (yes he cheated) & A&M became a national power again. You know the rest.

[g$$]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Title IX - mid to late 70's
Integration - late 60's
State Funding for Universities - mid 70's
Scholarship limits (included with Title IX)
TV exposure - early 80's
Stadium expansions - A&M choice
Alumni Dontations - A&M choice
Conferences - na

You're all over the map. You can't lump changes that happened over almost 2 decades and pick a year and say that this is the new "modern era". Well, I guess YOU can, but don't expect the rest of us to buy into it.

Sadly, you don't get it. Check your years too. Expansions were necessary. A&M went to turf, Texas went to turf. Later Texas went to grass, A&M went to grass. Keeping up with the Joneses.

[Bull Butter]

Originally posted by g$$

1975 was A&M's best team ever. Cover of SI & the whole deal. Ranked #1 & then lost to ARK after game date was changed, etc. Alumni got involved later & screwed up what Emory had started. It took years to recover - then Jackie got it going (yes he cheated) & A&M became a national power again. You know the rest.

I think this is the cover you are speaking of( love the A&M unis of the Bellard era!)

http://connhome.com/75beanlb.JPG

[g$$]

Me too, good stuff Bull.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by g$$
Sadly, you don't get it. Check your years too. Expansions were necessary. A&M went to turf, Texas went to turf. Later Texas went to grass, A&M went to grass. Keeping up with the Joneses. All true, but had nothing to do with your "modern era".

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by g$$
You are missing the point - those were not simply A&M things - they were college football things. So allowing women into school, expansion of facilities, and alumni donations were "college football things"?

Nice try...keep spinning.:cool:

[g$$]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
All true, but had nothing to do with your "modern era".

Then you obviously have no idea when A&M went to turf, followed by Texas (early 1970s). It was huge in recruiting - Astroturf was new & in vogue - & any edge that could be gained was tried.

1970s changed everything, as I have shown. Landmark events.

[Big Papa]

Originally posted by g$$
Then you obviously have no idea when A&M went to turf, followed by Texas. It was huge in recruiting - Astroturf was new & in vogue - & any edge that could be gained was tried.

1970s changed everything, as I have shown. Landmark events.

no actually you havent really shown...youve just said....like the other posters have said...how bout some links or something more than just what you say...

[g$$]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
So allowing women into school, expansion of facilities, and alumni donations were "college football things"?

Nice try...keep spinning.:cool:

Of course they were. The playing field leveled due to what I have posted earlier. Stadiums expansions began to attract recruits (big-time ball) & keep up with rivals, more $$ was available thru alumni & state funding, & having women at your school finally was a recruiting & lifestyle boon. These & other things helped transform college football & helped A&M turn the corner. It helped others too. Florida State finally got good under Bobby Bowden & they faced many of the same problems building their program.

Look that up too. FSU was all male too. I'm starting to think you're a lost cause.

[g$$]

Originally posted by g$$
It is how it relates to college football, not just A&M genius.

Title IX
Integration
Women into Universities
State Funding for Universities
Scholarship Limits
TV exposure / ESPN
Stadium Expansions /Astroturf
Alumni Donations / separate entities like 12th MF, Longhorn Foundation (privately funded athletic depts.)
Conferences / realignments later
etc.

There, if you can't figure it out from here, you have no chance.

Here you go Big Papa. Good luck learning something other than last week's scores.

[Big Papa]

Originally posted by g$$
Here you go Big Papa. Good luck learning something other than last week's scores.

hmm..no that doesnt help...i mean i was wanting actual dates...and perhaps links to verify those dates...but i dont see either of those in that post... so im outta luck actually learning something...but hey espn does provide a lot of scores...but i think ill focus on this weeks scores maybe

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by g$$
Here you go Big Papa. Good luck learning something other than last week's scores.


You claim your all for debate, yet slide in these snide little remarks that are boderline personal when someone does not agree with you..Not sure why, people are debating back, and it is all pretty interesting stuff, yet you seem to get mad we all dont agree

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by g$$
I'm starting to think you're a lost cause.

:thinking: :thinking: :thinking:

[g$$]

Originally posted by Big Papa
hmm..no that doesnt help...i mean i was wanting actual dates...and perhaps links to verify those dates...but i dont see either of those in that post... so im outta luck actually learning something...but hey espn does provide a lot of scores...but i think ill focus on this weeks scores maybe

Years/dates are all throughout this thread. I am not spoon feeding you. Read & learn something. It can be very enlightening.

[Big Papa]

Originally posted by g$$
Years/dates are all throughout this thread. I am not spoon feeding you. Read & learn something. It can be very enlightening.

yeah i think ive read the whole thread...now your just spouting off at the mouth...and most of the threads are ones that you have "discredited" by saying there scewed(sp?...oh i think im gonna hear about that one)...but i guess you dont have actual dates...otherwise it wouldnt have been too hard to give them in ONE of your posts

[g$$]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
You claim your all for debate, yet slide in these snide little remarks that are boderline personal when someone does not agree with you..Not sure why, people are debating back, and it is all pretty interesting stuff, yet you seem to get mad we all dont agree

Only when my integrity & accuracy are questioned. I enjoy good discussion.

[g$$]

Originally posted by Big Papa
yeah i think ive read the whole thread...now your just spouting off at the mouth...and most of the threads are ones that you have "discredited" by saying there scewed(sp?...oh i think im gonna hear about that one)...but i guess you dont have actual dates...otherwise it wouldnt have been too hard to give them in ONE of your posts

What part of say Title IX 1972 confuses you?

Word is "skewed", as in off base & inaccurate.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by g$$
Only when my integrity & accuracy are questioned. I enjoy good discussion.

U said the modern era began in 75..Some asked to show where that is stated, because you made it seem like that is the universial Modern Era of College Football began, we disagree, yet u tell us to look it up

I do agree that was possibly when the A&M Modern era begin, or 72 when Bellard was hired, but that does not mean it applies to all College Football

[Big Papa]

Originally posted by g$$
What part of say Title IX 1972 confuses you?

Word is "skewed", as in off base & inaccurate.

oh ok...theres one....but i thought you had a pretty long lists of things..that you were putting into your argument...but ya nothing about that confuses me...but if thats your only date you have...and that happens to be the correct date....
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm
(that wasnt hard)...but im still waitng for more

[JR2004]

The Modern Era began November 24th, 2006. A&M is 1-0 in the Modern Era. This is the universal date selected by 100 percent of college football historians in and around Aggieland.

[g$$]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
U said the modern era began in 75..Some asked to show where that is stated, because you made it seem like that is the universial Modern Era of College Football began, we disagree, yet u tell us to look it up

I do agree that was possibly when the A&M Modern era begin, or 72 when Bellard was hired, but that does not mean it applies to all College Football

We disagree, & that's fine. I presented objective facts & reasons, however school bias may not allow everyone to accept it. Of course many of those were not even alive & have no clue. So be it.

How about this: maybe not universally accepted, but commonly accepted as such due to landmark legislation & events at the time such as Title IX, integration, women into universities, scholarship limit changes, state funding, private $$ more plentiful, stadium expansions, games on television, etc.

Since 1975, A&M has 17 wins over Texas. Texas has 15 wins over Texas A&M. Deal with it.

The landscape of college football for ALL teams changed in the 1970s. It leveled the playing field somewhat. All the reasons why are listed previously in black & white. If you are still confused, believe whatever you want.

Everyone enjoy the game tomorrow.

[g$$]

Originally posted by JR2004
The Modern Era began November 24th, 2006. A&M is 1-0 in the Modern Era. This is the universal date selected by 100 percent of college football historians in and around Aggieland.

Funny guy. I thought it started at Texas when VY invented football causing all Horns to now drink his bathwater?

[g$$]

Originally posted by Big Papa
oh ok...theres one....but i thought you had a pretty long lists of things..that you were putting into your argument...but ya nothing about that confuses me...but if thats your only date you have...and that happens to be the correct date....
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm
(that wasnt hard)...but im still waitng for more

They are all in there hoss. READ carefully. Funny how I took upteen classes (Foundations of Sport, etc.) on this stuff & you did not...nevermind!

Here's the deal: I have not referenced a single website all night. I studied this stuff in college & have researched it in the past. I also read a lot & listen to old historians & broadcasters when they talk about how things have changed & the reasons why. I do not have www.howtohelpyouunderstand.com at my fingertips. But those topic headings I gave can help you get started. Have fun.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by g$$
We disagree, & that's fine. I presented objective facts & reasons, however school bias may not allow everyone to accept it. Of course many of those were not even alive & have no clue. So be it.

How about this: maybe not universally accepted, but commonly accepted as such due to landmark legislation & events at the time such as Title IX, integration, women into universities, scholarship limit changes, state funding, private $$ more plentiful, stadium expansions, games on television, etc.

Since 1975, A&M has 17 wins over Texas. Texas has 15 wins over Texas A&M. Deal with it.

The landscape of college football for ALL teams changed in the 1970s. It leveled the playing field somewhat. All the reasons why are listed previously in black & white. If you are still confused, believe whatever you want.

Everyone enjoy the game tomorrow.


Yep because if we dont agree with the high and almighty G$$ we are the confused and he is the enlightened one

Get off ur high horse, would not want you to fall and hut yourself

You say u like to debate, but you dont when someone disagrees, you turn to snide remarks, deal with it

[g$$]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Yep because if we dont agree with the high and almighty G$$ we are the confused and he is the enlightened one

Get off ur high horse, would not want you to fall and hut yourself

You say u like to debate, but you dont when someone disagrees, you turn to snide remarks, deal with it

Stick to stats TXB & defending TO. Tom Jackson & Terry Bradshaw may blast him, but you sure won't. He plays for the Cowboys & scores TDs! The heck with everything else he may do now & in the past. More up your alley.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by g$$
Stick to stats TXB & defending TO. Tom Jackson & Terry Bradshaw may blast him, but you sure won't. He plays for the Cowboys & scores TDs! The heck with everything else he may do now & in the past. More up your alley.

yep that is relevant to this discussion, once again you just cant simpley debate a topic and stick to the issue at hand, you try to deflect, which is sad because u always have good points in a debate but cant seem to see another side to the issue

And yep way to try to paint me something i am not..What am I suppsed to blast him for? Helping Dallas win? Or do you want to play the Well he will blow up one day game..Easy to sit back and say that, does not mean it will happen

Wow so Tom Jackson and Terry Bradshaw dont agree, well crap i better change my whole thinking about TO and life because i want to fall lock in step with them

You Stay Classy San Diego

[navscanmaster]

You Stay Classy San Diego

HAHA. I love Anchorman! You guys are making me laugh almost as much as that movie did too.

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by g$$
We disagree, & that's fine. I presented objective facts & reasons, however school bias may not allow everyone to accept it. Of course many of those were not even alive & have no clue. So be it.

How about this: maybe not universally accepted, but commonly accepted as such due to landmark legislation & events at the time such as Title IX, integration, women into universities, scholarship limit changes, state funding, private $$ more plentiful, stadium expansions, games on television, etc.

Since 1975, A&M has 17 wins over Texas. Texas has 15 wins over Texas A&M. Deal with it.

The landscape of college football for ALL teams changed in the 1970s. It leveled the playing field somewhat. All the reasons why are listed previously in black & white. If you are still confused, believe whatever you want.

Everyone enjoy the game tomorrow. Your bias toward A&M and that's why you think the "modern era" started because they finally got halfway decent.:rolleyes:

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by g$$

Since 1975, A&M has 17 wins over Texas. Texas has 15 wins over Texas A&M. Deal with it.

Okay but since the beginning of this so called "rivalry"

Texas 73
A&M 35
and 5 ties

You still have 38 years to even things up.

Deal with it

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by g$$


The landscape of college football for ALL teams changed in the 1970s. It leveled the playing field somewhat. All the reasons why are listed previously in black & white. If you are still confused, believe whatever you want.

The playing field for college football is not even leveled now. Teams such as Texas, ND, and Alabama can boost so much money it's not even funny. Teams such as Florida Atlantic, San Jose State, and Hawaii struggle to gain as much money.

To completely level things the NCAA would have to put a limit on booster donations and so on.


Those same 3 historical programs also have better facilities due to the money that the 3 others just simply can't.


College football will never be leveled and to name a specific date that things got leveled out is absurd.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by g$$
Of course they were. The playing field leveled due to what I have posted earlier. Stadiums expansions began to attract recruits (big-time ball) & keep up with rivals, more $$ was available thru alumni & state funding, & having women at your school finally was a recruiting & lifestyle boon. These & other things helped transform college football & helped A&M turn the corner. But again all of these things were A&M CHOICES!!!! Why should the rest of the college world revolve their "modern era" around things that only apply to A&M?:crazy:

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
But again all of these things were A&M CHOICES!!!! Why should the rest of the college world revolve their "modern era" around things that only apply to A&M?:crazy:



Why? Because if you say and believe that, then ATM has the lead over Texas.

[KTJ]

I emailed a few Aggie friends of mine (alums and current students) and asked them if anyone else uses the "modern era" excuse when it comes to Athletics. And some of my Aggie friends are the biggest homers you'll ever meet--some of them are quite sane too, in which others would call the "2%ers". :D

They all said "no, and anyone who does isn't really an Aggie." Basically, they all agreed that to dismiss history pre-1975 was dismissing their school entirely, not to mention, the schools only MNC.

So, just thought I'd bring that up...



ou sucks.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Why? Because if you say and believe that, then ATM has the lead over Texas. simple facts people:cool: :clap: lol

[KTJ]

Originally posted by g$$
You are way smarter than that. I speak for myself, not others. College football as we know it changed in the mid 1970s. Anyone who knows history & has been around living & working in it (as I have done) knows that. That is fact, so either accept it or prove me wrong. You won't be able to do that. Why does it bother you so much? Because since 1975 A&M is ahead 17-15?

Scholarship limits changed, integration changed a few years before, funding changed, allowing women changed in late 1960s too, etc. Ask anyone knowledgeable on the subject. SI's article was good but also left a lot of open holes too. It was not the 1930s. It sure was not before WWII.

At one time, there were no scholarship limits. Then 110, then 95, then 90, now 85 (25 per year). Funding for state schools changed. You can't wrap it all up in a bow & say here it is. You have to understand & know history on many different levels. It is what it is.

A&M is ahead 17-15, lol. Thanks, I really needed that laugh.

If it's fact, show me a link/source that says it. The fact that you've yet to show me one speaks volumes. You can't just keep saying "it's fact, it's fact, it's fact" but not provide anything to validate that it's fact. Just because you say it, believe it, and tell others about it doesn't make it fact.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by KTJ
A&M is ahead 17-15, lol. Thanks, I really needed that laugh.

If it's fact, show me a link/source that says it. The fact that you've yet to show me one speaks volumes. You can't just keep saying "it's fact, it's fact, it's fact" but not provide anything to validate that it's fact. Just because you say it, believe it, and tell others about it doesn't make it fact.


KTJ are you crazy? Of course it does.....

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by KTJ
A&M is ahead 17-15, lol. Thanks, I really needed that laugh.

If it's fact, show me a link/source that says it. The fact that you've yet to show me one speaks volumes. You can't just keep saying "it's fact, it's fact, it's fact" but not provide anything to validate that it's fact. Just because you say it, believe it, and tell others about it doesn't make it fact. no where near a fact, its an opinion from a variety of sources based on circumstantial events which are facts. the closest thing to a fact that this can be labeled is "commonly accepted". no static line just a skewed moment in time that as someone else mentioned crosses two decades...

[Old Tiger]

*spews pepsi cola all over the computer screen*


hahaha!

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by DDBooger
no where near a fact, its an opinion from a variety of sources based on circumstantial events which are facts. the closest thing to a fact that this can be labeled is "commonly accepted". no static line just a skewed moment in time that as someone else mentioned crosses two decades...


Actually in researching this topic, I found that there is even strong evidence for the 1930's. That is a fact. Research it if you dont believe me. There is also some pretty sound reasoning for the 1950's. Others claim that it was the advent of the forward pass....
Some even claim the BCS era.



I think that is a reasonably and realistically it is safe to say that the modern era of football began....

well pick a date. It can be justified with someone else's opinion somewhere.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Actually in researching this topic, I found that there is even strong evidence for the 1930's. That is a fact. Research it if you dont believe me. There is also some pretty sound reasoning for the 1950's. Others claim that it was the advent of the forward pass....
Some even claim the BCS ers.



I think that is a reasonably and realistically it is safe to say that the modern era of football began....

well pick a date. It can be justified with someone else's opinion somewhere. forward pass, exactly what i found as well!

BCS should be considered a era on its own! thats quite evident!

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by DDBooger
forward pass, exactly what i found as well!

BCS should be considered a era on its own! thats quite evident! also my thinking of 1975 as the beginning of the modern era only pertained to that, i acknowledge there are other periods that should be looked at as modern era. NFL has lots of books that consider it 1960 or the superbowl, free agency etc

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by DDBooger
also my thinking of 1975 as the beginning of the modern era only pertained to that, i acknowledge there are other periods that should be looked at as modern era. NFL has lots of books that consider it 1960 or the superbowl, free agency etc


Maybe he was talking about ATM specifically. If so, I believe that. It was right around that time that ATM finally started to modernize itself. But to say that it was 1975 across the board is absurd. I expected more out of G$$. Of course that isnt the first time we have all expected more out of him.