If you're Kevin Sumlin and USC comes calling.....

[Hollywood Co]

What is Texas A&M without Sumlin though?

Yall acting like he hasn't been the catalyst for all the success A&M is having right now. He's refueled the program and him leaving can take all the steam you all say A&M currently has.

 

[Spade]

And I don't argue those points because they're true. Location? Who gives a fck when you make millions and can vacation anywhere you want anyway. CS is a small college town and so is every other school. Only difference is, it gets compared to(Texas) Austin. Tusculoosa vs Auburn? Clemson vs Columbia? Norman vs Stillwater? It isnt like every school can claim prime location. So its a bs argument imo.

History? I cant deny that either. Even if we were competitive during the ancient times of the 20s and 30s, A&M's isn't fair to be judged in the same way because until the 60's, it was a small all male military school. Imagine the Citadel today increasing enrollment, and going Co-Ed, and expecting to compete in football. A&M's football pedigree cant truly be judged until the 80s, the modern football era. And we shot shot ourselves with how many stupid decisions were made form that time. Extending Francione?The fck were they thinking?

I'm not saying USC isnt a big time program, but A&m is every bit the shark in the pond. LSU wasnt LSU until Saban and Miles came in. And I'll take LSU's history and record in the BCS era over USC's "consistency", which is pretty much Pete Carol.

Well I hear you on the location thing. But my point was not just solely focusing on location. But what they have in addition to location. Norman and Stillwater as towns suck, but OU also has the history, the brand, the tradition of winning, etc. OSU does not have that. Neither of the South carolina schools have that. Throughout history, only Alabama has that with Auburn being here and there. Location is more like the icing on the cake for many schools. It's not that be all. Look at University of Washington. Great location, great city, but a hit and miss program mostly because they aren't in a fertile recruiting area and they don't have the history. Currently, I won't deny A&M having a better program than USC. But to most coaches, USC is seen as one of the most opportune historic storied programs to coach at in college football. A&M is not.

 

[PortCityProphet]

Arguing with these A&M nikkas is pointless

 

[OH SOHH TRILL]

Arguing with these A&M nikkas is pointless

We can agree on this. Thanks and gig'em t-sip.

 

[Carlos Huerta]

Laughable. USC has 10 national championships to its name. These are spread out beginning in the 30s, on to the 60's and 70's and of course just the past decade. Also tied for most Heisman trophy winners. The only other school fukking with that is ND or Bama.
OSU/Mich? Between them they've won (2) championships in 50 years.

@jadillac
Dude didn't even reply to this but lingered around dapping people

 

[Yogi]

Kiffin came in making 4.2 mil, Sumlin JUST got a raise to 3.1 mil

Kiffin not $4 million man
May, 17, 2012
5/17/12
3:00
PM ET
By Ted Miller | ESPN.com

• RECOMMEND27
• TWEET7
• COMMENTS15
• EMAIL
• PRINT

Lane Kiffin's salary at USC has long been an issue. It's been widely reported as $4 million annually, and when reported as such, widely mocked.

But finding out the real number has been difficult, because USC is a private school and doesn't have to provide the media with his contract.

Ah, but USC does have to pay taxes! USA Today got a look at the school's returns and it turns out the Kiffins do make nearly $4 million.

Yeah, Kiffins. As in both of them. Combined. From USA Today: "The University of Southern California paid head football coach Lane Kiffin $2.4 million in 2010 and paid his father, assistant head coach Monte Kiffin, more than $1.5 million, according to the school's new federal tax return."

That likely does make Monte Kiffin, Lane's pop, the nation's highest paid assistant coach. But it also means that Lane Kiffin made in 2010 the same money new UCLA coach Jim Mora will make in 2012.

 

[jadillac]

@jadillac
Dude didn't even reply to this but lingered around dapping people

what's to reply to. Nobody counts those national titles in the 30's - 40's.

Schools like Princeton and Yale probably have severa from back then.

The fact is, in the 80's and 90s, USC didnt do anything. Those are both integral and arguably two of the most important decades in the history of cfb...and USC was damn near irrelevant.

 

[Carlos Huerta]

what's to reply to. Nobody counts those national titles in the 30's - 40's.

Schools like Princeton and Yale probably have severa from back then.

The fact is, in the 80's and 90s, USC didnt do anything. Those are both integral and arguably two of the most important decades in the history of cfb...and USC was damn near irrelevant.

I never heard this opinion before. Interesting. Rule out the last decade and the 70s and 60s for USC, but include teams like Michigan and Ohio state in your argument who won a combined one title in the 80s and 90s

 

[El Bombi]

I never heard this opinion before. Interesting. Rule out the last decade and the 70s and 60s for USC, but include teams like Michigan and Ohio state in your argument who won a combined one title in the 80s and 90s

In the 60's and 70's, most of the NFL talent was coming out of HBCU's.

The 80's and 90's is when all D1 PWI had fully intergrated football teams.

 

[Silkk]

Still going on?

 

[jadillac]

I never heard this opinion before. Interesting. Rule out the last decade and the 70s and 60s for USC, but include teams like Michigan and Ohio state in your argument who won a combined one title in the 80s and 90s

But I didn't rule out the 00's. I just ruled out the 80's and 90's.

And we're not just alking national titles....USC was losing like 5 games a year breh. That's just NOT good.

 

[El Bombi]

Still going on?

Yogi hit your ass with that ether.

 

[Silkk]

Yogi hit your ass with that ether.

Dont know who that is or what you're referring to but USC is still front page so

 

[Carlos Huerta]

But I didn't rule out the 00's. I just ruled out the 80's and 90's.

And we're not just alking national titles....USC was losing like 5 games a year breh. That's just NOT good.

Are you jaded about them kicking OU's ass or something? I've never seen you take such a terrible stance on something college football related.

It's already been established that every team has gone through a bad stretch. Just before Saban got there, Bama had years where they went 4-7, 3-8, 6-6. This takes nothing away from the big picture, that they are great recently and were great in the past. You and these other rugrats can ignore those facts all you want and keep selecting pockets of years that skew your flimsy argument. Fact is they have the history and the very recent success that 99% of other schools do not have. That's why USC will always be a better job than A&M.

 

[King Poetic]

i dont want sumlin here

so the defense become texas a&m

give me a former usc alum whos coaching in the nfl