(10-20-2014 10:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  IMO all A&M will need to compete regularly for the West title in the SEC is a staunch defense. Had Manziel had one they may well have won the SEC and a national championship in their first, and possibly second year. Sumlin has never coached at a level where enough talent was available to expend it on a defense.

One problem he will have is his type of offense make it hard for the defense to be really good unless you have a significant talent advantage on the competition. That is why defensive coaches often play a style of offense that mandates ball control (note that does not have to mean run all the time, just controlling the ball) because fatigue is the worst enemy of a defense, unless you have third string defenders better than the offense's first string.

(10-19-2014 10:47 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 08:13 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  here's another big word for you to go look up: Obtuse :)

An angle greater than 90° yet less than 180°.

At 180° is it a segment or a line?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(10-20-2014 10:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  A&M said they were making a 100 year decision. While that is hyperbole to an extent the comment was designed to say without question that the move was not for a short term goal. What has it accomplished in 3 years?

1. A&M has generated enough interest to upgrade facilities (especially Kyle Field) at a rate that has truly placed them among the nation's leaders in that regard.

2. They have separated their brand from Texas and blended it with a more successful one the SEC.

3. They have brought heightened exposure to their program which has assisted their recruiting endeavors.

4. They have changed a conference with limited footprint but good saturation for a larger one with the best saturation.

5. They have traded a conference which is dependent essentially upon two brands for one that has much greater breadth with which to maintain national interest and exposure. When Texas and OU lose early it has way too much impact on the Big 12.

6. They managed to change conferences and find one in which their games are still accessible for their fans. This will be an issue for Texas and Oklahoma should they ever desire a change.

7. They now have more marquee games coming into their venue (which also increases their brand and exposure) than they had in their former conference after the losses of Nebraska and Colorado.

Exactly!

Plus
--A&M moved out from underneath the "shadow" & bullying by the University of Texas

--Since entrance N2 the SEC, A&M has out recruited Texas

--SEC also tied them 2 natural rivals; LSU & Arkansas

--Much more $$$ received by being a mbr of the SEC vs. former Big 12

--And as we know, nationally, SEC TV ratings double Big 12 TV ratings on a weekly basis.

It was the right move for A&M, especially in the Long Term.

(10-20-2014 10:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Sumlin has never coached at a level where enough talent was available to expend it on a defense. He needs to hire a first rate D.C. and bring prowess to both sides of the ball. When he does that the marriage of A&M and the SEC will yield the on field success for which the Aggie faithful yearn.

Had A&M remained in the Big 12 for two more years they would not have attained the things enumerated at the pace with which they have come, nor would their situation have been improved significantly over what they have experienced in the first three years of a new head coach.

Sigh, I think I have an idea of where they might look.

(10-20-2014 10:19 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 10:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  IMO all A&M will need to compete regularly for the West title in the SEC is a staunch defense. Had Manziel had one they may well have won the SEC and a national championship in their first, and possibly second year. Sumlin has never coached at a level where enough talent was available to expend it on a defense.

One problem he will have is his type of offense make it hard for the defense to be really good unless you have a significant talent advantage on the competition. That is why defensive coaches often play a style of offense that mandates ball control (note that does not have to mean run all the time, just controlling the ball) because fatigue is the worst enemy of a defense, unless you have third string defenders better than the offense's first string.

And that's a valid point. The two are in conflict. Auburn and Mississippi State both have defenses this year that suit a hurry up spread. They are designed to stop the run and take their chances on man to man. They aren't shut out type defenses, but they are defenses that are designed to get drives stopped. For a good spread if you stop 2 drives a quarter you are very good. If you stop 10 a game you are great. But if you only stop 3 drives a half you will likely outscore your opponent. I think A&M needs to beef up the middle of the D Line and middle linebackers to stop the draw and pound and they need enough talent in the secondary to play an effective man, and one DE with speed rush capabilities. They have been gashed up the middle and burned deep all season.

(10-18-2014 11:56 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  Sure they make more money, but now that their once in a century QB is gone, they will sink back to the level they were at in the Big 12, and it's much harder to get out of the cellar in the SEC.

They may end up being the Kentucky of the West, huge fanbase and little to show for it. I just wonder if all of these programs really thought out their expansion moves.

Sigh. Short-term on-the-field results are irrelevant here, as they virtually always are in conference realignment decisions.

Long-term, the SEC is a huge upgrade for Texas A&M on every single level. The only regret that A&M would have had is if it had passed up the SEC invitation. I can't believe that this is even a debate (and I'm not an SEC homer).

(10-20-2014 11:38 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-18-2014 11:56 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  Sure they make more money, but now that their once in a century QB is gone, they will sink back to the level they were at in the Big 12, and it's much harder to get out of the cellar in the SEC.

They may end up being the Kentucky of the West, huge fanbase and little to show for it. I just wonder if all of these programs really thought out their expansion moves.

Sigh. Short-term on-the-field results are irrelevant here, as they virtually always are in conference realignment decisions.

Long-term, the SEC is a huge upgrade for Texas A&M on every single level. The only regret that A&M would have had is if it had passed up the SEC invitation. I can't believe that this is even a debate (and I'm not an SEC homer).

Well, I think they are very glad they got two bites at the apple.

(10-20-2014 11:38 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-18-2014 11:56 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  Sure they make more money, but now that their once in a century QB is gone, they will sink back to the level they were at in the Big 12, and it's much harder to get out of the cellar in the SEC.

They may end up being the Kentucky of the West, huge fanbase and little to show for it. I just wonder if all of these programs really thought out their expansion moves.

Sigh. Short-term on-the-field results are irrelevant here, as they virtually always are in conference realignment decisions.

Long-term, the SEC is a huge upgrade for Texas A&M on every single level. The only regret that A&M would have had is if it had passed up the SEC invitation. I can't believe that this is even a debate (and I'm not an SEC homer).

They did in 1993 and possibly before that as well. And to think they'd have brought Houston with them.

(10-20-2014 11:17 AM)HHOOTter Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 10:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  A&M said they were making a 100 year decision. While that is hyperbole to an extent the comment was designed to say without question that the move was not for a short term goal. What has it accomplished in 3 years?

1. A&M has generated enough interest to upgrade facilities (especially Kyle Field) at a rate that has truly placed them among the nation's leaders in that regard.

2. They have separated their brand from Texas and blended it with a more successful one the SEC.

3. They have brought heightened exposure to their program which has assisted their recruiting endeavors.

4. They have changed a conference with limited footprint but good saturation for a larger one with the best saturation.

5. They have traded a conference which is dependent essentially upon two brands for one that has much greater breadth with which to maintain national interest and exposure. When Texas and OU lose early it has way too much impact on the Big 12.

6. They managed to change conferences and find one in which their games are still accessible for their fans. This will be an issue for Texas and Oklahoma should they ever desire a change.

7. They now have more marquee games coming into their venue (which also increases their brand and exposure) than they had in their former conference after the losses of Nebraska and Colorado.

Exactly!

Plus
--A&M moved out from underneath the "shadow" & bullying by the University of Texas

--Since entrance N2 the SEC, A&M has out recruited Texas

--SEC also tied them 2 natural rivals; LSU & Arkansas

--Much more $$$ received by being a mbr of the SEC vs. former Big 12

--And as we know, nationally, SEC TV ratings double Big 12 TV ratings on a weekly basis.

It was the right move for A&M, especially in the Long Term.

Actually, so far, they have received less money than if they were still a member of the Big 12. And that's not even counting the money they paid in exit fees. They may well move ahead in the next few years, but its not going to be "much more."

The "bullying" is only in their paranoid imagination. Unless they are talking scoreboard.

Also, while they get LSU and Arkansas, they lose Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor (battle of the Brazos) and Texas Tech.
Conference ratings don't matter unless a) you get more $ (which the SEC doesn't-its all pretty equal and will be for the next 10 years at least); or b) you benefit from those ratings. If you are good or unusually interesting (see JFF last year), you benefit. If its Alabama/Florida drawing the ratings, it doesn't help the other 12 schools while in this contract.

As to whether overall it is a good move long term, that remains to be seen. It looks good at this point and probably will turn out well for them. But call back in 10 years. There's no doubt in my mind, Arkansas would have been better off if they had stayed in the SWC and ended up in the Big 12. Their move looked really good for the first 3 or 4 years.

Moving to the SEC was the best move we've ever made. There is simply no comparing the two conferences at all in terms of a quality experience. Our facilities are expanding, our exposure is growing and our recruiting is off the charts.

Anyone trying to imply we'd be in just as good or better a situation had we stayed in the Big 12 is either nuts or has an agenda.

(10-20-2014 01:59 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Moving to the SEC was the best move we've ever made. There is simply no comparing the two conferences at all in terms of a quality experience. Our facilities are expanding, our exposure is growing and our recruiting is off the charts.

Anyone trying to imply we'd be in just as good or better a situation had we stayed in the Big 12 is either nuts or has an agenda.

Same is true of Baylor. Applications are up, enrollment is up, quality of students is up. Top 10 finish and Heisman trophy winner will do that for you. Instead of working on the leftovers after Texas, OU and A&M were done, Baylor is getting some of the players those 3 are after. Whether that is sustained remains to be seen.

It's true...and both have A&M leaving the Big 12 to thank for it.

(10-20-2014 12:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  Also, while they get LSU and Arkansas, they lose Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor (battle of the Brazos) and Texas Tech.
Conference ratings don't matter unless a) you get more $ (which the SEC doesn't-its all pretty equal and will be for the next 10 years at least); or b) you benefit from those ratings. If you are good or unusually interesting (see JFF last year), you benefit. If its Alabama/Florida drawing the ratings, it doesn't help the other 12 schools while in this contract.

As to whether overall it is a good move long term, that remains to be seen. It looks good at this point and probably will turn out well for them. But call back in 10 years. There's no doubt in my mind, Arkansas would have been better off if they had stayed in the SWC and ended up in the Big 12. Their move looked really good for the first 3 or 4 years.

Johnny Manziel made it look a lot better than it is. This season is seeing the Aggies 'settle in.'

They'd have been better off in the last two years if they had played for a NC, which I think they would have. Still, being in the SEC is a strong positive. What's sad for the Aggies is the best chance at winning a NC they've ever had was squandered because the chance to jump to a better conference came at a time when even with Johnny they couldn't top the conference.

Two steps forward and three steps back.

(10-20-2014 01:59 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Moving to the SEC was the best move we've ever made. There is simply no comparing the two conferences at all in terms of a quality experience. Our facilities are expanding, our exposure is growing and our recruiting is off the charts.

Anyone trying to imply we'd be in just as good or better a situation had we stayed in the Big 12 is either nuts or has an agenda.

Couldn't agree more...

(10-20-2014 02:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-20-2014 12:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  Also, while they get LSU and Arkansas, they lose Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor (battle of the Brazos) and Texas Tech.
Conference ratings don't matter unless a) you get more $ (which the SEC doesn't-its all pretty equal and will be for the next 10 years at least); or b) you benefit from those ratings. If you are good or unusually interesting (see JFF last year), you benefit. If its Alabama/Florida drawing the ratings, it doesn't help the other 12 schools while in this contract.

As to whether overall it is a good move long term, that remains to be seen. It looks good at this point and probably will turn out well for them. But call back in 10 years. There's no doubt in my mind, Arkansas would have been better off if they had stayed in the SWC and ended up in the Big 12. Their move looked really good for the first 3 or 4 years.

Johnny Manziel made it look a lot better than it is. This season is seeing the Aggies 'settle in.'

They'd have been better off in the last two years if they had played for a NC, which I think they would have. Still, being in the SEC is a strong positive. What's sad for the Aggies is the best chance at winning a NC they've ever had was squandered because the chance to jump to a better conference came at a time when even with Johnny they couldn't top the conference.

Two steps forward and three steps back.

I'm sure Tulane feels the same way. After all, they left the SEC...and lookie now, they can compete. Horray!

I will admit that there is a legit comparison in Georgia Tech, who would be buried in the SEC if still there, whereas they have a hope of winning the ACC every now and then. Still, nothing tops trying to compete at the top level.