(02-02-2019 08:50 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote: [ -> ]Seems so.
![[Image: DyPqZUpUUAAO9gO?format=jpg&name=small]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DyPqZUpUUAAO9gO?format=jpg&name=small)
The baseball one should be CWS participant; not finalist.
(02-02-2019 08:57 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ] (02-02-2019 08:50 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote: [ -> ]Seems so.
The baseball one should be CWS participant; not finalist.
But then the Aggies would be in. And a Longhorn obviously made the graphic.
The upside is someone bothered to include us here instead of leaving us off like UTEP.
(02-02-2019 09:25 AM)Antarius Wrote: [ -> ]The upside is someone bothered to include us here instead of leaving us off like UTEP.
UTEP is two above us. The missing ones are UTSA, TxSt, and UNT, who are more new to FBS.
Put an asterisk by SMU's numbers!
drawing a line at final 4 is one way to measure this, but that seems a bit selective to me for the definition of under-achieving. I am sure it was done to promote debate or draw clicks, but I would not put much stock in that definition.
Think of Rice; during our long run of baseball greatness, we hit their mark (for scoring purposes) once. I am not sure I would call our baseball program during that fantastic run under-achieving.
(02-02-2019 09:30 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote: [ -> ] (02-02-2019 09:25 AM)Antarius Wrote: [ -> ]The upside is someone bothered to include us here instead of leaving us off like UTEP.
UTEP is two above us. The missing ones are UTSA, TxSt, and UNT, who are more new to FBS.
Whoops, meant to type UTSA. Guess UTEP popped into mind when thinking about "underachieving"
Nobody notices Texas Tech even when they are included...
...what's wrong with this picture?
(02-02-2019 11:26 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Nobody notices Texas Tech even when they are included...
...what's wrong with this picture?
What's right is that, thankfully, we arent in Lubbock!