Jump to content

YESSIR!!


PhatMack19

Recommended Posts

No, they did add Clemson, a southern school in their SEC footprint. They are not about to get smoked outside of the southern region.


It was a problem with the home dates with Oregon and they wouldn't switch years. They year A&M was supposed to be on the road would have left the Ags with a short number of home games. Clemson was a good add
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We Regret The SEC"

While the ass-whippen' that Alabama put on A&M was hard to watch.

There are very few Aggie's that regret the decision to go to the SEC in any way, shape or form - so far we are very happy there.

I agree. Ags would be middle of the pack in any conference. At least you can gravy train those other teams.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They wouldn't be at the bottom of the barrel in the big 12, I can assure u of that.
Big difference in sec west and anyone from big 12


Big difference between "bottom of the barrel" and "middle of the pack." That readin' thing failed you again.

And "big difference in sec west and anyone from big 12"? I can assure you that there are more than a few teams in the big 12 that wouldn't need a last second fg to beat Florida! 😂😂😂😂
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big difference between "bottom of the barrel" and "middle of the pack." That readin' thing failed you again.

And "big difference in sec west and anyone from big 12"? I can assure you that there are more than a few teams in the big 12 that wouldn't need a last second fg to beat Florida!

Yeah - middle of the pack you may well be right - However, they would still be better this year than that team that wears Orange and White.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah - middle of the pack you may well be right - However, they would still be better this year than that team that wears Orange and White.


I think you are correct. However, if Texas had played smu/rice/Lamar already, they would have 3 more wins on their schedule. Add la Monroe as a win as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are correct. However, if Texas had played smu/rice/Lamar already, they would have 3 more wins on their schedule. Add la Monroe as a win as well.

You may well be right - but which powerhouse programs would Texas have have to give up:  North Texas? (yeah they also beat SMU), Kansas? or perhaps Iowa State?

 

Sorry but in my opinion the teams that Texas has played are not that much stronger than the teams that A&M has played.  Rice and Lamar have won more games than Kansas, North Texas and Iowa State combined.  Notice I did leave SMU out since they have not won a game - but when they were scheduled they were not that bad a program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may well be right - but which powerhouse programs would Texas have have to give up:  North Texas? (yeah they also beat SMU), Kansas? or perhaps Iowa State?

 

Sorry but in my opinion the teams that Texas has played are not that much stronger than the teams that A&M has played.  Rice and Lamar have won more games than Kansas, North Texas and Iowa State combined.  Notice I did leave SMU out since they have not won a game - but when they were scheduled they were not that bad a program.

There a difference between conference and non confererence opponents. You control who your non conference opponents are!

Unfortunatley TAMU only gets to play USC once in a year.

 

Same goes for Ole Miss, Auburn, and Alabama.

 

 

 

[sharedmedia=core:attachments:152]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...