bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

I am no fan of A&M. They lost 5 games this year which makes them sound pretty ordinary. But when you look at their schedule, they lost to Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Clemson, and Georgia. That is an absolute gauntlet. I hate to say it, but if they had played our schedule, they are no worse than 11-2 and possibly better. They gave good games to Clemson, Auburn, and Georgia. That being said, I would still love to play them again.

---

Get out of here with that bull***** The only decent team A&M beat all season was missing its starting quarterback and best receiver. Playing a tough schedule doesn't make you a good team. Beating good teams does. And A&M got beat 50-7 by the last good team they played.

---

That was almost half their schedule. The best team we beat this year was OSU - the rankings would also appear to confirm that. A&M also beat them. Losing to Auburn by 6 and Georgia by 8 when the season was on the line was pretty respectable. I'm not saying they would beat us, but they would have beat everyone on our schedule other than perhaps OU (but I'm not sure about that). They beat Miss St by almost 3 TDs. Miss State lost 6 games, but one of their worst losses was to K State by only a TD.

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

I am no fan of A&M. They lost 5 games this year which makes them sound pretty ordinary. But when you look at their schedule, they lost to Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Clemson, and Georgia. That is an absolute gauntlet. I hate to say it, but if they had played our schedule, they are no worse than 11-2 and possibly better. They gave good games to Clemson, Auburn, and Georgia. That being said, I would still love to play them again.

---

Get out of here with that bull***** The only decent team A&M beat all season was missing its starting quarterback and best receiver. Playing a tough schedule doesn't make you a good team. Beating good teams does. And A&M got beat 50-7 by the last good team they played.

---

That was almost half their schedule. The best team we beat this year was OSU - the rankings would also appear to confirm that. A&M also beat them. Losing to Auburn by 6 and Georgia by 8 when the season was on the line was pretty respectable. I'm not saying they would beat us, but they would have beat everyone on our schedule other than perhaps OU (but I'm not sure about that). They beat Miss St by almost 3 TDs. Miss State lost 6 games, but their worst loss was to K State by only a TD.

---

So beating Oklahoma State by 18 at full strength in a true road game equals squeaking by that same team without Sanders or Wallace in a virtual home game at NRG? OK. And we're about to play Georgia. We probably ought to see how that one goes before declaring A&M our equal.

And Mississippi State didn't beat anyone either. Since when did playing and losing to good teams make you a good team? College football is the only sport in which that's perceived to be true, and it's really freaking stupid.

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

I am no fan of A&M. They lost 5 games this year which makes them sound pretty ordinary. But when you look at their schedule, they lost to Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Clemson, and Georgia. That is an absolute gauntlet. I hate to say it, but if they had played our schedule, they are no worse than 11-2 and possibly better. They gave good games to Clemson, Auburn, and Georgia. That being said, I would still love to play them again.

---

Get out of here with that bull***** The only decent team A&M beat all season was missing its starting quarterback and best receiver. Playing a tough schedule doesn't make you a good team. Beating good teams does. And A&M got beat 50-7 by the last good team they played.

---

That was almost half their schedule. The best team we beat this year was OSU - the rankings would also appear to confirm that. A&M also beat them. Losing to Auburn by 6 and Georgia by 8 when the season was on the line was pretty respectable. I'm not saying they would beat us, but they would have beat everyone on our schedule other than perhaps OU (but I'm not sure about that). They beat Miss St by almost 3 TDs. Miss State lost 6 games, but one of their worst losses was to K State by only a TD.

---

With their track record with Big 12 teams and barely beating a depleted Okie State, highly doubtful they would've beaten everyone on our schedule.

Bear8084 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

I am no fan of A&M. They lost 5 games this year which makes them sound pretty ordinary. But when you look at their schedule, they lost to Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Clemson, and Georgia. That is an absolute gauntlet. I hate to say it, but if they had played our schedule, they are no worse than 11-2 and possibly better. They gave good games to Clemson, Auburn, and Georgia. That being said, I would still love to play them again.

---

Get out of here with that bull***** The only decent team A&M beat all season was missing its starting quarterback and best receiver. Playing a tough schedule doesn't make you a good team. Beating good teams does. And A&M got beat 50-7 by the last good team they played.

---

That was almost half their schedule. The best team we beat this year was OSU - the rankings would also appear to confirm that. A&M also beat them. Losing to Auburn by 6 and Georgia by 8 when the season was on the line was pretty respectable. I'm not saying they would beat us, but they would have beat everyone on our schedule other than perhaps OU (but I'm not sure about that). They beat Miss St by almost 3 TDs. Miss State lost 6 games, but one of their worst losses was to K State by only a TD.

---

With their track record with Big 12 teams and barely beating a depleted Okie State, highly doubtful they would've beaten everyone on our schedule.

---

Exactly. What the hell has A&M done this season -- or any without Johnny Manziel behind center -- to earn the benefit of doubt they're getting on this thread? That's a 7-5/8-4 team every damn year. But somehow this A&M team wins 11 games in the Big 12 because they lost to every good team on their schedule? Give me a break.

bear2be2 said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

I am no fan of A&M. They lost 5 games this year which makes them sound pretty ordinary. But when you look at their schedule, they lost to Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Clemson, and Georgia. That is an absolute gauntlet. I hate to say it, but if they had played our schedule, they are no worse than 11-2 and possibly better. They gave good games to Clemson, Auburn, and Georgia. That being said, I would still love to play them again.

---

Get out of here with that bull***** The only decent team A&M beat all season was missing its starting quarterback and best receiver. Playing a tough schedule doesn't make you a good team. Beating good teams does. And A&M got beat 50-7 by the last good team they played.

---

That was almost half their schedule. The best team we beat this year was OSU - the rankings would also appear to confirm that. A&M also beat them. Losing to Auburn by 6 and Georgia by 8 when the season was on the line was pretty respectable. I'm not saying they would beat us, but they would have beat everyone on our schedule other than perhaps OU (but I'm not sure about that). They beat Miss St by almost 3 TDs. Miss State lost 6 games, but one of their worst losses was to K State by only a TD.

---

With their track record with Big 12 teams and barely beating a depleted Okie State, highly doubtful they would've beaten everyone on our schedule.

---

Exactly. What the hell has A&M done this season -- or any without Johnny Manziel behind center -- to earn the benefit of doubt they're getting on this thread? That's a 7-5/8-4 team every damn year. But somehow this A&M team wins 11 games in the Big 12 because they lost to every good team on their schedule? Give me a break.

---

And that's not even taking into account it could be a 1-11 Texas team and they would STILL most likely play A&M close or even beat them because it is that big of a rivalry.

BUBear24 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

I am no fan of A&M. They lost 5 games this year which makes them sound pretty ordinary. But when you look at their schedule, they lost to Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Clemson, and Georgia. That is an absolute gauntlet. I hate to say it, but if they had played our schedule, they are no worse than 11-2 and possibly better. They gave good games to Clemson, Auburn, and Georgia. That being said, I would still love to play them again.

---

They barely beat OSU without their starting QB and leading WR... so a team we demolished they barely beat without the main pieces we faced. Would they be better than 7-5? Sure. Would they be 11-2? I'm not so sure, considering their Big12 track record.

---

I agree their Big 12 track record was nothing to write home about, and even though their current record may not show it, they have elevated their recruiting since moving to the SEC. They rank #11 over the past 5 years . . . just behind OU and TX. Absent a fluky great season or a Heisman QB, they are simply guaranteed to have 3-4 conference losses per year.

Chuckroast said:

---

BUBear24 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

I am no fan of A&M. They lost 5 games this year which makes them sound pretty ordinary. But when you look at their schedule, they lost to Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Clemson, and Georgia. That is an absolute gauntlet. I hate to say it, but if they had played our schedule, they are no worse than 11-2 and possibly better. They gave good games to Clemson, Auburn, and Georgia. That being said, I would still love to play them again.

---

They barely beat OSU without their starting QB and leading WR... so a team we demolished they barely beat without the main pieces we faced. Would they be better than 7-5? Sure. Would they be 11-2? I'm not so sure, considering their Big12 track record.

---

I agree their Big 12 track record was nothing to write home about, and even though their current record may not show it, they have elevated their recruiting since moving to the SEC. They rank #11 over the past 5 years . . . just behind OU and TX. Absent a fluky great season or a Heisman QB, they are simply guaranteed to have 3-4 conference losses per year.

---

They were apparently guaranteed the same number of losses in the Big 12 as well, given that their conference winning percentage is slightly higher in the SEC than it was in the Big 12. That's an average program and has been for decades now. Changing conferences has changed nothing but the perception of some misguided fans.

Playing and losing to good teams doesn't make one a good team. And this notion that the SEC's 6-6 and 7-5 teams are better than any other conference's is nonsense. They're just as average. They just get an extra cupcake on the schedule to all but guarantee bowl eligibility with a 3-5 conference mark.

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

I am no fan of A&M. They lost 5 games this year which makes them sound pretty ordinary. But when you look at their schedule, they lost to Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Clemson, and Georgia. That is an absolute gauntlet. I hate to say it, but if they had played our schedule, they are no worse than 11-2 and possibly better. They gave good games to Clemson, Auburn, and Georgia. That being said, I would still love to play them again.

---

Get out of here with that bull***** The only decent team A&M beat all season was missing its starting quarterback and best receiver. Playing a tough schedule doesn't make you a good team. Beating good teams does. And A&M got beat 50-7 by the last good team they played.

---

That was almost half their schedule. The best team we beat this year was OSU - the rankings would also appear to confirm that. A&M also beat them. Losing to Auburn by 6 and Georgia by 8 when the season was on the line was pretty respectable. I'm not saying they would beat us, but they would have beat everyone on our schedule other than perhaps OU (but I'm not sure about that). They beat Miss St by almost 3 TDs. Miss State lost 6 games, but their worst loss was to K State by only a TD.

---

So beating Oklahoma State by 18 at full strength in a true road game equals squeaking by that same team without Sanders or Wallace in a virtual home game at NRG? OK. And we're about to play Georgia. We probably ought to see how that one goes before declaring A&M our equal.

And Mississippi State didn't beat anyone either. Since when did playing and losing to good teams make you a good team? College football is the only sport in which that's perceived to be true, and it's really freaking stupid.

---

OU didn't belong on the same field as LSU, but most teams haven't over the last half of the season. The only teams that demolished A&M were Bama and LSU. Win or lose, you can at least tell if teams are evenly matched during the course of a game. There's no team we beat that was very good . . . that's all I'm saying.

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

BUBear24 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

I am no fan of A&M. They lost 5 games this year which makes them sound pretty ordinary. But when you look at their schedule, they lost to Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Clemson, and Georgia. That is an absolute gauntlet. I hate to say it, but if they had played our schedule, they are no worse than 11-2 and possibly better. They gave good games to Clemson, Auburn, and Georgia. That being said, I would still love to play them again.

---

They barely beat OSU without their starting QB and leading WR... so a team we demolished they barely beat without the main pieces we faced. Would they be better than 7-5? Sure. Would they be 11-2? I'm not so sure, considering their Big12 track record.

---

I agree their Big 12 track record was nothing to write home about, and even though their current record may not show it, they have elevated their recruiting since moving to the SEC. They rank #11 over the past 5 years . . . just behind OU and TX. Absent a fluky great season or a Heisman QB, they are simply guaranteed to have 3-4 conference losses per year.

---

They were apparently guaranteed the same number losses in the Big 12 as well, given that their conference winning percentage is slightly higher in the SEC than it was in the Big 12. That's an average program and has been for decades now. Changing conferences has changed nothing but the perception of some misguided fans.

Playing and losing to good teams doesn't make one a good team. And this notion that the SEC's 6-6 and 7-5 teams are better than any other conference's is nonsense. They're just as average. They just get an extra cupcake on the schedule to all but guarantee bowl eligibility with a 3-5 conference mark.

---

OK -never mind recruiting rankings and the NFL draft. 6-6 is the same in the SEC as it is in the ACC or the Pac 12 too.

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

BUBear24 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

I am no fan of A&M. They lost 5 games this year which makes them sound pretty ordinary. But when you look at their schedule, they lost to Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Clemson, and Georgia. That is an absolute gauntlet. I hate to say it, but if they had played our schedule, they are no worse than 11-2 and possibly better. They gave good games to Clemson, Auburn, and Georgia. That being said, I would still love to play them again.

---

They barely beat OSU without their starting QB and leading WR... so a team we demolished they barely beat without the main pieces we faced. Would they be better than 7-5? Sure. Would they be 11-2? I'm not so sure, considering their Big12 track record.

---

I agree their Big 12 track record was nothing to write home about, and even though their current record may not show it, they have elevated their recruiting since moving to the SEC. They rank #11 over the past 5 years . . . just behind OU and TX. Absent a fluky great season or a Heisman QB, they are simply guaranteed to have 3-4 conference losses per year.

---

They were apparently guaranteed the same number losses in the Big 12 as well, given that their conference winning percentage is slightly higher in the SEC than it was in the Big 12. That's an average program and has been for decades now. Changing conferences has changed nothing but the perception of some misguided fans.

Playing and losing to good teams doesn't make one a good team. And this notion that the SEC's 6-6 and 7-5 teams are better than any other conference's is nonsense. They're just as average. They just get an extra cupcake on the schedule to all but guarantee bowl eligibility with a 3-5 conference mark.

---

OK -never mind recruiting rankings and the NFL draft. 6-6 is the same in the SEC as it is in the ACC or the Pac 12 too.

---

You're impressed by some pretty silly ***** Good teams win games. Period. They don't talk about all the games they would win if wasn't for (insert excuse here).

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

BUBear24 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

I am no fan of A&M. They lost 5 games this year which makes them sound pretty ordinary. But when you look at their schedule, they lost to Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Clemson, and Georgia. That is an absolute gauntlet. I hate to say it, but if they had played our schedule, they are no worse than 11-2 and possibly better. They gave good games to Clemson, Auburn, and Georgia. That being said, I would still love to play them again.

---

They barely beat OSU without their starting QB and leading WR... so a team we demolished they barely beat without the main pieces we faced. Would they be better than 7-5? Sure. Would they be 11-2? I'm not so sure, considering their Big12 track record.

---

I agree their Big 12 track record was nothing to write home about, and even though their current record may not show it, they have elevated their recruiting since moving to the SEC. They rank #11 over the past 5 years . . . just behind OU and TX. Absent a fluky great season or a Heisman QB, they are simply guaranteed to have 3-4 conference losses per year.

---

They were apparently guaranteed the same number losses in the Big 12 as well, given that their conference winning percentage is slightly higher in the SEC than it was in the Big 12. That's an average program and has been for decades now. Changing conferences has changed nothing but the perception of some misguided fans.

Playing and losing to good teams doesn't make one a good team. And this notion that the SEC's 6-6 and 7-5 teams are better than any other conference's is nonsense. They're just as average. They just get an extra cupcake on the schedule to all but guarantee bowl eligibility with a 3-5 conference mark.

---

OK -never mind recruiting rankings and the NFL draft. 6-6 is the same in the SEC as it is in the ACC or the Pac 12 too.

---

And just for the record, yes, the SEC's 7-5 and 6-6 teams are just as flawed as everyone else's. Mississippi State lost at home to K-State. Missouri lost to Wyoming. Tennessee lost to Georgia State and BYU.

The only 7-5 SEC teams without major warts out of conference were Kentucky and A&M and both were .500 or worse in league play. These are all thoroughly average football teams getting undue credit by association.

We need to shut up until we can actually beat the SEC and anybody else at this point. Big 12 took a beat down last night. At this point, I'm not sure we could beat the PAC! Baylor has to beat Georgia! Texas needs to beat Utah. Pretty hard to take listening to how awful the Big 12 is and shouldn't even be considered to be in the Power5. Just mad right now. We need to win the rest of these bowl games!

This was a ****ty year for the Big12 in bowl picks. When your the dog in 5 of 6 and the lone favorite is missing their QB and WR, that is not going to be a good look. Add the fact several other conferences pick and choose which teams goes to what bowl to help their odds. and it was an uphill battle.

The Big12 needs Texas good again unfortunately for people to take the Big12 seriously again. We can be absolutely great, but with only two "marque" blue bloods in Big12, if one is down, it brings down the whole conference.

PAC has been looking weak lately with their main blue blood USC down. If Clemson is down a year, the whole ACC would look G5. But since they're actually using their top 5 recruiting classes properly- looking at you UT- ACC continually gets a pass.

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

BUBear24 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

I am no fan of A&M. They lost 5 games this year which makes them sound pretty ordinary. But when you look at their schedule, they lost to Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Clemson, and Georgia. That is an absolute gauntlet. I hate to say it, but if they had played our schedule, they are no worse than 11-2 and possibly better. They gave good games to Clemson, Auburn, and Georgia. That being said, I would still love to play them again.

---

They barely beat OSU without their starting QB and leading WR... so a team we demolished they barely beat without the main pieces we faced. Would they be better than 7-5? Sure. Would they be 11-2? I'm not so sure, considering their Big12 track record.

---

I agree their Big 12 track record was nothing to write home about, and even though their current record may not show it, they have elevated their recruiting since moving to the SEC. They rank #11 over the past 5 years . . . just behind OU and TX. Absent a fluky great season or a Heisman QB, they are simply guaranteed to have 3-4 conference losses per year.

---

They were apparently guaranteed the same number losses in the Big 12 as well, given that their conference winning percentage is slightly higher in the SEC than it was in the Big 12. That's an average program and has been for decades now. Changing conferences has changed nothing but the perception of some misguided fans.

Playing and losing to good teams doesn't make one a good team. And this notion that the SEC's 6-6 and 7-5 teams are better than any other conference's is nonsense. They're just as average. They just get an extra cupcake on the schedule to all but guarantee bowl eligibility with a 3-5 conference mark.

---

OK -never mind recruiting rankings and the NFL draft. 6-6 is the same in the SEC as it is in the ACC or the Pac 12 too.

---

And just for the record, yes, the SEC's 7-5 and 6-6 teams are just as flawed as everyone else's. Mississippi State lost at home to K-State. Missouri lost to Wyoming. Tennessee lost to Georgia State and BYU.

The only 7-5 SEC teams without major warts out of conference were Kentucky and A&M and both were .500 or worse in league play. These are all thoroughly average football teams getting undue credit by association.

---

It would seem that you have disdain for the SEC, and that's fine. Conference strengths ebb and flow, and while I believe the Big 12 has earned its reputation as a historically strong conference, I think it is overrated this year as a result. The American Athletic Conference may give us a run for our money.

Not sure where that leaves Baylor. We may be really good, or we may simply be better than OSU, ISU, K State, and TCU (none of whom have beaten anybody). I wish we were getting UGA at full strength in a regular season matchup, but the Sugar Bowl should still be plenty meaningful for the players on the field. UGA has recruited so well over the years, they will at least have plenty of talent on the field.

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

BUBear24 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

I am no fan of A&M. They lost 5 games this year which makes them sound pretty ordinary. But when you look at their schedule, they lost to Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Clemson, and Georgia. That is an absolute gauntlet. I hate to say it, but if they had played our schedule, they are no worse than 11-2 and possibly better. They gave good games to Clemson, Auburn, and Georgia. That being said, I would still love to play them again.

---

They barely beat OSU without their starting QB and leading WR... so a team we demolished they barely beat without the main pieces we faced. Would they be better than 7-5? Sure. Would they be 11-2? I'm not so sure, considering their Big12 track record.

---

I agree their Big 12 track record was nothing to write home about, and even though their current record may not show it, they have elevated their recruiting since moving to the SEC. They rank #11 over the past 5 years . . . just behind OU and TX. Absent a fluky great season or a Heisman QB, they are simply guaranteed to have 3-4 conference losses per year.

---

They were apparently guaranteed the same number losses in the Big 12 as well, given that their conference winning percentage is slightly higher in the SEC than it was in the Big 12. That's an average program and has been for decades now. Changing conferences has changed nothing but the perception of some misguided fans.

Playing and losing to good teams doesn't make one a good team. And this notion that the SEC's 6-6 and 7-5 teams are better than any other conference's is nonsense. They're just as average. They just get an extra cupcake on the schedule to all but guarantee bowl eligibility with a 3-5 conference mark.

---

OK -never mind recruiting rankings and the NFL draft. 6-6 is the same in the SEC as it is in the ACC or the Pac 12 too.

---

And just for the record, yes, the SEC's 7-5 and 6-6 teams are just as flawed as everyone else's. Mississippi State lost at home to K-State. Missouri lost to Wyoming. Tennessee lost to Georgia State and BYU.

The only 7-5 SEC teams without major warts out of conference were Kentucky and A&M and both were .500 or worse in league play. These are all thoroughly average football teams getting undue credit by association.

---

It would seem that you have disdain for the SEC, and that's fine. Conference strengths ebb and flow, and while I believe the Big 12 has earned its reputation as a historically strong conference, I think it is overrated this year as a result. The American Athletic Conference may give us a run for our money.

Not sure where that leaves Baylor. We may be really good, or we may simply be better than OSU, ISU, K State, and TCU (none of whom have beaten anybody). I wish we were getting UGA at full strength in a regular season matchup, but the Sugar Bowl should still be plenty meaningful for the players on the field. UGA has recruited so well over the years, they will at least have plenty of talent on the field.

---

I don't have a disdain for the SEC. I respect the strength at the top of that league and readily acknowledge that it is stronger and deeper at the top than any other. I just think it's stupid that the thoroughly average bottom half gets an undeserved bump by association.

I also don't think the Big 12 is any great shakes. I think it's deep with good, solid teams and consistently lacking in elite ones.

I also don't give a **** about conference reputation. If Baylor wins its games, the rest of the league can go 0-fer as far as I'm concerned. Teams win games and championships, conferences don't. Win the games on your schedule and let everyone else worry about where that leaves you. At the end of the day, college football is a pointless beauty pageant anyhow, designed and geared to benefit the 20 or so programs with built-in advantages the other 110-plus don't enjoy. Our success will always be judged within that context and limited by that reality.

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

I am no fan of A&M. They lost 5 games this year which makes them sound pretty ordinary. But when you look at their schedule, they lost to Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Clemson, and Georgia. That is an absolute gauntlet. I hate to say it, but if they had played our schedule, they are no worse than 11-2 and possibly better. They gave good games to Clemson, Auburn, and Georgia. That being said, I would still love to play them again.

---

Get out of here with that bull***** The only decent team A&M beat all season was missing its starting quarterback and best receiver. Playing a tough schedule doesn't make you a good team. Beating good teams does. And A&M got beat 50-7 by the last good team they played.

---

That was almost half their schedule. The best team we beat this year was OSU - the rankings would also appear to confirm that. A&M also beat them. Losing to Auburn by 6 and Georgia by 8 when the season was on the line was pretty respectable. I'm not saying they would beat us, but they would have beat everyone on our schedule other than perhaps OU (but I'm not sure about that). They beat Miss St by almost 3 TDs. Miss State lost 6 games, but their worst loss was to K State by only a TD.

---

So beating Oklahoma State by 18 at full strength in a true road game equals squeaking by that same team without Sanders or Wallace in a virtual home game at NRG? OK. And we're about to play Georgia. We probably ought to see how that one goes before declaring A&M our equal.

And Mississippi State didn't beat anyone either. Since when did playing and losing to good teams make you a good team? College football is the only sport in which that's perceived to be true, and it's really freaking stupid.

---

Who did we beat that's any good?

---

To be fair, Kansas State should have been ranked in the most recent rankings, as it was 8-4 with a win over a top #10 team and there was at least one 8-4 team ranked and that program did not have as strong as a resume as Kansas State.

Oklahoma State at full strength was a top 25 team, but that 5th loss will push them out.

One of the issues in the Big 12 is that (1) almost all of the programs recruit at the same level (while most other conferences have several tiers to recruiting) and (2) the Big 12 generally has the best collection coaches, and, while that it great, it prevents many programs that recruit at the same level to consistently defeat other teams that recruit at the same level. (2) is what causes there to be a 4 way tie at #3 in conference play.

Another issue is the 10 team/9 conference game format since it limits out of conference wins and passes more conference losses to each team on average than any other conference.

I guess that's how Clemson looks at it bear2!

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

I am no fan of A&M. They lost 5 games this year which makes them sound pretty ordinary. But when you look at their schedule, they lost to Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Clemson, and Georgia. That is an absolute gauntlet. I hate to say it, but if they had played our schedule, they are no worse than 11-2 and possibly better. They gave good games to Clemson, Auburn, and Georgia. That being said, I would still love to play them again.

---

Get out of here with that bull***** The only decent team A&M beat all season was missing its starting quarterback and best receiver. Playing a tough schedule doesn't make you a good team. Beating good teams does. And A&M got beat 50-7 by the last good team they played.

---

That was almost half their schedule. The best team we beat this year was OSU - the rankings would also appear to confirm that. A&M also beat them. Losing to Auburn by 6 and Georgia by 8 when the season was on the line was pretty respectable. I'm not saying they would beat us, but they would have beat everyone on our schedule other than perhaps OU (but I'm not sure about that). They beat Miss St by almost 3 TDs. Miss State lost 6 games, but their worst loss was to K State by only a TD.

---

So beating Oklahoma State by 18 at full strength in a true road game equals squeaking by that same team without Sanders or Wallace in a virtual home game at NRG? OK. And we're about to play Georgia. We probably ought to see how that one goes before declaring A&M our equal.

And Mississippi State didn't beat anyone either. Since when did playing and losing to good teams make you a good team? College football is the only sport in which that's perceived to be true, and it's really freaking stupid.

---

Who did we beat that's any good?

---

When you win 11 games in a power conference, you don't have to justify your strength of record -- particularly when you've played a schedule ranked in the top 40 by every metric. When you win six or seven, you do. I'm amazed that some of you can't see the difference here.

Wichitabear said:

---

I guess that's how Clemson looks at it bear2!

---

That's how everyone should look at it. But the SEC ... SEC ... SEC and stupid current playoff system have convinced fans that rooting for your recruiting and on-field rivals is somehow cool.

I get what you are saying but we do belong to the Big 12. As long as we can beat the outside competition like Clemson then screw it! I'm trying to get a mind set like this but it is hard taking the criticism of my conference. I don't know. I need basketball to start. That is when conference doesn't matter to me as much! All that matters is Baylor getting into the championship game!

bear2be2 said:

---

Wichitabear said:

---

I guess that's how Clemson looks at it bear2!

---

That's how everyone should look at it. But the SEC ... SEC ... SEC and stupid current playoff system have convinced fans that rooting for your recruiting and on-field rivals is somehow cool.

---

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. Conference reputation is very important for all of the teams in the conference seeking recognition. The SEC has four different teams that have won nine national championships since 2006. As a result, their recruiting at the top and from top to bottom is overwhelmingly better than any other conference's. Success breeds success. If the big 12 had that kind of reputation, Baylor May have had a better chance of getting in the playoffs a few years ago and had more credibility this year. I know it may be hard to root for your rivals, but there is nothing wrong with conference pride.

Georgia is number two nationally in recruiting over the last five years, but due to The teams they have to play, they still haven't sniffed the playoffs. If they were in the big 12, they May or may not have more success because their recruiting would likely begin to fall off. It's just reality in college football right now. I'm not saying recruiting is the end-all be-all, but it's pretty dang important, and from top to bottom, the SEC blows everyone away.

Why are we not in here?

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2789707-ranking-the-best-college-football-programs-since-2010#slide0

If Our rivals had had more conference pride and not been gunning to bring Baylor down off the field when we were on the rise a few years ago, I think it would've been better for the big 12 as a whole. That's what makes the whole situation at Baylor so hard for me to stomach. We were making a change on the college landscape and definitely improving our conference, and we threw it all away. Now that may have been justified, but I'm still waiting to see the evidence that it was.

The nation looks to stats like this to measure conference power. It was not long ago that the SWC and the state of Texas bragged about how many NFL players were born and raised in Texas.

Face the facts boys..........we've dropped back a few notches.

From SBNation

For at least the seventh year in a row the SEC had the most NFL Draft picks. The conference churned out 53 in 2018, which isn't quite a record it had 54 in 2015, for one thing but still way up there.

Alabama broke its own conference record for picks, with 12. That's not tops all time two years ago, Ohio State had the greatest class ever but still five more than any other school this year.

Tying for second with seven picks each were SEC mate LSU, Ohio State, and ... NC State! The Wolfpack just turned in their best draft class ever, topped by first-round DE Bradley Chubb and the entire rest of his starting defensive line.

Here's the count:

• SEC 53
• ACC 45
• Big Ten 33
• Pac-12 30
• Big 12 20
• FCS 19 (not technically a conference)
• AAC 18
• Conference USA 10
• Mountain West 9
• Independent 6
• MAC 5
• Division II 4 (a collective made up of several conferences)
• Sun Belt 3
• Australia! 1

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Wichitabear said:

---

I guess that's how Clemson looks at it bear2!

---

That's how everyone should look at it. But the SEC ... SEC ... SEC and stupid current playoff system have convinced fans that rooting for your recruiting and on-field rivals is somehow cool.

---

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. Conference reputation is very important for all of the teams in the conference seeking recognition. The SEC has four different teams that have won nine national championships since 2006. As a result, their recruiting at the top and from top to bottom is overwhelmingly better than any other conference's. Success breeds success. If the big 12 had that kind of reputation, Baylor May have had a better chance of getting in the playoffs a few years ago and had more credibility this year. I know it may be hard to root for your rivals, but there is nothing wrong with conference pride.

Georgia is number two nationally in recruiting over the last five years, but due to The teams they have to play, they still haven't sniffed the playoffs. If they were in the big 12, they May or may not have more success because their recruiting would likely begin to fall off. It's just reality in college football right now. I'm not saying recruiting is the end-all be-all, but it's pretty dang important, and from top to bottom, the SEC blows everyone away.

---

Perceived conference weakness didn't hurt Oregon during the Chip Kelly era its not hurting Clemson now. If you have a good team and win the games on your own schedule, none of the rest of that nonsense matters.

And the SEC and Big Ten are strong because they have more blue-blood programs than everyone else. It's really that simple. College football is a wildly uneven playing field that favors traditional powers. It's been that way forever and will continue to be as long as certain logos ensure a top-15 recruiting class every year.

Recruiting great classes and winning games at Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, etc. isn't impressive. You're a terrible coach if you can't do those things.

We have to win! Rhule is off to a good start. He has restored our reputation. He just needs a little more time for us to be more competitive. If we beat Georgia this week, that will go a long way. We must at least be competitive. The nation is taking notice. This game is going to give us a lot of experience if nothing else. But, I believe we can win.

Wichitabear said:

---

We have to win! Rhule is off to a good start. He has restored our reputation. He just needs a little more time for us to be more competitive. If we beat Georgia this week, that will go a long way. We must at least be competitive. The nation is taking notice. This game is going to give us a lot of experience if nothing else. But, I believe we can win.

---

We'll be competitive. The weak Georgia offense is going to struggle just like everyone else has against our defense. The question is, can we put up enough points on their defense to win the game?

This will be a competitive, low-scoring game. Hopefully we can score one more point than the Dawgs.

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

I am no fan of A&M. They lost 5 games this year which makes them sound pretty ordinary. But when you look at their schedule, they lost to Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Clemson, and Georgia. That is an absolute gauntlet. I hate to say it, but if they had played our schedule, they are no worse than 11-2 and possibly better. They gave good games to Clemson, Auburn, and Georgia. That being said, I would still love to play them again.

---

Get out of here with that bull***** The only decent team A&M beat all season was missing its starting quarterback and best receiver. Playing a tough schedule doesn't make you a good team. Beating good teams does. And A&M got beat 50-7 by the last good team they played.

A&M was a thoroughly average team in the Big 12 and remains so in the SEC. They just get to claim their conference mates' wins now apparently.

---

How many times did bu finish ahead of the aggies in the b12?
Don't know if bu would beat them today

bear2be2 said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

I am no fan of A&M. They lost 5 games this year which makes them sound pretty ordinary. But when you look at their schedule, they lost to Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Clemson, and Georgia. That is an absolute gauntlet. I hate to say it, but if they had played our schedule, they are no worse than 11-2 and possibly better. They gave good games to Clemson, Auburn, and Georgia. That being said, I would still love to play them again.

---

Get out of here with that bull***** The only decent team A&M beat all season was missing its starting quarterback and best receiver. Playing a tough schedule doesn't make you a good team. Beating good teams does. And A&M got beat 50-7 by the last good team they played.

---

That was almost half their schedule. The best team we beat this year was OSU - the rankings would also appear to confirm that. A&M also beat them. Losing to Auburn by 6 and Georgia by 8 when the season was on the line was pretty respectable. I'm not saying they would beat us, but they would have beat everyone on our schedule other than perhaps OU (but I'm not sure about that). They beat Miss St by almost 3 TDs. Miss State lost 6 games, but their worst loss was to K State by only a TD.

---

So beating Oklahoma State by 18 at full strength in a true road game equals squeaking by that same team without Sanders or Wallace in a virtual home game at NRG? OK. And we're about to play Georgia. We probably ought to see how that one goes before declaring A&M our equal.

And Mississippi State didn't beat anyone either. Since when did playing and losing to good teams make you a good team? College football is the only sport in which that's perceived to be true, and it's really freaking stupid.

---

Who did we beat that's any good?

---

When you win 11 games in a power conference, you don't have to justify your strength of record -- particularly when you've played a schedule ranked in the top 40 by every metric. When you win six or seven, you do. I'm amazed that some of you can't see the difference here.

---

If this applies to Baylor then it applies to Oregon, Utah, Georgia. I've seen post after post of people saying neither team has beaten or played anyone.

Wichitabear said:

---

We have to win! Rhule is off to a good start. He has restored our reputation. He just needs a little more time for us to be more competitive. If we beat Georgia this week, that will go a long way. We must at least be competitive. The nation is taking notice. This game is going to give us a lot of experience if nothing else. But, I believe we can win.

---

Georgia will be without it's starting left tackle, it's staring right tackle, a starting guard, a starting defensive tackle, it's backup running back, and a safety.

Baylor should be able to take advantage of that.

We have too! We will! No excuses!

Yes we would beat The Aggies! Today and next year. I didn't believe that until I watched them play.

Wichitabear said:

---

We need to shut up until we can actually beat the SEC and anybody else at this point. Big 12 took a beat down last night. At this point, I'm not sure we could beat the PAC! Baylor has to beat Georgia! Texas needs to beat Utah. Pretty hard to take listening to how awful the Big 12 is and shouldn't even be considered to be in the Power5. Just mad right now. We need to win the rest of these bowl games!

---

why are you going all aggy with worries about the conference. We need to worry about our game, and our game only.

I'm entitled to my opinion. Which can swayback and forth by the hour. Lol Don't disrespect me with the going all Aggie thing. I do look at Baylor but Baylor is in the Big 12. It's pride.