Carlos Huerta
Just keep my rep red
Of course the system is a joke. So is the BCS. How is any of that relevant to this discussion?
Are you insinuating that because the system was flawed that there is no way to rank teams?
If you're Kevin Sumlin and USC comes calling.....
- Thread starter jadillac
- Start date
Are you insinuating that because the system was flawed that there is no way to rank teams?
Spade
Superstar
I think this is the only place where I've seen anyone say that Texas A&M is as good a job as USC.
You must not visit Texags.
How do you rank teams at the end of the year, when it wasn't proven on the field?
How would the NFL look with that system?
2008 Giants wouldn't be the champions, because they was a wild card team. Which if translated to college football rankings. They would have been ranked below the Top 4 and would not had a chance to play in the championship game.
So yes the system has always been a joke.
Last edited:
Spade
Superstar
I do but not lately.
Scientific
Bacdafucup
The biggest thing USC has going for it is their location. Their stadium barley fills up.
A&M avgs 80K strong even when we suck. Record donations, record renovations to Kyle Field, deep ass pockets, and 50K student body strong. USC is a more storied version of The U.
The NFL is who the Ags are more afraid of.
A&M avgs 80K strong even when we suck. Record donations, record renovations to Kyle Field, deep ass pockets, and 50K student body strong. USC is a more storied version of The U.
The NFL is who the Ags are more afraid of.
Hollywood Co
Primetime Reppin
USC Football>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Texas A&M football
There's no argument for that. Nobody cares how long A&M boosters money is and the fact that its in Texas. It hasn't netted the university even a national championship. They lose Sumlin and they look just as common as they always have.
USC is a national power that pulls in the best recruits from across the U.S. Bring in Sumlin and they instantly go back to top 5 recruiting classes and championship contention. Sumlin wouldn't even have to put in much legwork either. His name and USC tied together will bring in talent.
The two jobs aren't even comparable.
There's no argument for that. Nobody cares how long A&M boosters money is and the fact that its in Texas. It hasn't netted the university even a national championship. They lose Sumlin and they look just as common as they always have.
USC is a national power that pulls in the best recruits from across the U.S. Bring in Sumlin and they instantly go back to top 5 recruiting classes and championship contention. Sumlin wouldn't even have to put in much legwork either. His name and USC tied together will bring in talent.
The two jobs aren't even comparable.
Scientific
Bacdafucup
History? It took tOSU to bring in on a local boy to bring them back on top. Sumlin knows Texas. OU may as well be located in Dallas, that's how much Sumlin has been in Texas between A&M, OU, and Houston. And that's not even including how much more we get from Lousiana.
USC can claim history, and brand. But that was then. All things equal NOW, we have the money too. the better fan base, and all the recruits in TX/LA to pick from. I hated College Station, but its no different than Tusculoosa or Knoxville.
Trojans can look no further to Nebraska or Miami. Tides change, and its A&M's now.
USC can claim history, and brand. But that was then. All things equal NOW, we have the money too. the better fan base, and all the recruits in TX/LA to pick from. I hated College Station, but its no different than Tusculoosa or Knoxville.
Trojans can look no further to Nebraska or Miami. Tides change, and its A&M's now.
Spade
Superstar
Every historic program doesn't hit on all coaches. Before Saban got to Alabama, they were average at best with several different coaches since Stalling. Before Mack Brown got to Texas, they were average for damn near 20 years. Look at OU between Switzer and Stoops.People said the same thing about Lane Kiffen.
Spade
Superstar
I can see your point with comparing USC to Miami. Not Nebraska. Nebraska is in the middle of the country in a non attractive location. USC is not. USC has the facilities, history, location (LA shyts on college station), and brand. Both history and brand goes a long way. Not many all time programs are better than USC. A&M has the stadium and conference. USC has shown consistency in the BCS era. A&M up until 2012 has pretty much been a mediocre program in the BCS era.
Unlike Tusculoosa or Knoxville. College Station is only an hour away from Houston. There isn't shyt in Alabama or East Tennessee.
Last edited:
ur also a Texas fan though
Scientific
Bacdafucup
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.
Spade
Superstar
I know that.ur also a Texas fan though