Lobo97

I may be among the few with this opinion, but I don’t believe Houston is as good as their record. They’ve played a very weak schedule, only 2 ranked opponents all season (going 1-1), and still aren’t a very high scoring team. They remind me a lot of Virginia; great defense, average offense. So long as the opposing team can move the ball efficiently and get some open shots, they’re in trouble. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised to see them lose to Miami.

Why do you have to assume on a guarantee?

I disagree. I don’t think they’re as bad as people are acting. They lost A LOT! That includes from last years team, as well as their recruiting class (to the draft). Even still, 4 of their 6 losses are by a combined 5 runs. 3 of the 6 were to Top 10 teams. One of those was to the #1 team, and they were tied at 0 in the 9th. So you’re talking about a young team, with a lot of new players, starting the season with a pretty tough schedule, and they’ve been right there in most of them. I don’t expect them to be a series contender by any means this year, but I do expect them to get better as the season progresses.

Gotcha. I thought you were including them in it.

The list is roster, not team. Coaching and culture aren’t part of it. This is solely referring to the talent of the players. At least, that’s the way I’m understanding it.

If the list is based on returning talent, then Texas and Texas A&M should both absolutely be on this list. As it is, it’s based on recruiting rankings, in which case, they should also be on this list.

Agree with you 100%. And again, from the time the last pitch was thrown, to the ump calling him out, was not that long.

Gotcha. Well it still wasn’t a lengthy amount of time.

Wait, so the team with the lead can stall and the penalty is to end the game? Why wasn’t the batter allowed to take the base? And I’ve seen time between pitches be much greater than this. This was absolutely ridiculous.

I’d put Georgia over Bama. OU shouldn’t even be on the list.

To be fair, I wasn't comparing anyone, lol. I was specifically talking about the games in which Texas had double digit leads, in the 3rd quarter, and blew them. That's not the same thing as single possession games. Had I included those, it would've been more than what I listed for Texas. That said, of those 5 games you mention for A&M, that's a bit misleading. In 3 of those 5 games, A&M scored with very little time left, giving the perception that it was just a one possession game. That's not the same thing as what I shared regarding Texas.

This is where it will determine any success for Texas moving forward. First let me just say, I'm still not convinced Sark is the right guy. I'm still holding out hope, but he hasn't proven that to me yet. One thing he is doing, however, is recruiting well, and building depth! That's the part that lacked tremendously under Herman and Strong. Depth. I agree with you that Texas has superior talent than most of their competition over the last 10 years, but what they did not have was depth. That's something that has improved a lot over the last two seasons. I also agree that you must have depth to compete weekly in the SEC. Again, I think Texas is steadily improving in that area. That takes me back to Sark. He's entering year 3. He has talent. He has depth. He has mostly his guys now. Now it's time for him to show he can make the necessary halftime adjustments to put teams away in the second half. Five of Texas' losses under Sark, they had a halftime lead. And in each of them, they held a double digit lead in the 3rd quarter. Learn to finish those games, and we're having a different discussion as it relates to Texas right now.

I was just getting ready to respond with, Bama won't be what they are now forever, then read this last comment, lol.

Very true. And for the most part, outside of Alabama, that's exactly what we've seen throughout the SEC over the last 15 years. No one else has had the run Bama has, but there have still been a handful of other SEC programs win it all...Florida, Georgia, Auburn, LSU, and others who were close.

And this gets us back on topic, lol. I have to disagree, while also wondering why you would think this? Texas has always recruited well, we all know that. I do believe the intrigue of playing in the SEC will be higher among recruits than it was in the B12. I also think that if Texas can have success early, and by success I mean 8+ wins, that will also go a long way in securing more of the players that have started going to the other SEC schools. We may not see them pop off 9 consecutive 10+ win seasons, but I don't think we'll see what we've seen the last 10 years on a regular basis either.

Fair enough. I just thought it was an interesting question, looking at where each may go moving forward.

Did you read what I said, at all? lol "it's true that Texas had more success in one stretch of time under MB than any other stretch of time in program history." - Pretty sure I acknowledged they had more success during that time than any other. You obviously then missed everything I said AFTER that statement as well. You act as if the lack of success in THIS decade is the 'norm'. I stated that since 1960, this has actually been the least successful decade for Texas...making it NOT the 'norm'. Avg wins, by decade: 60's - 8.6 70's - 8.8 80's - 7.3 90's - 7.4 00's - 11 10's - 7.1 ...the lowest of any decade, since the 60's, just as I stated.

It's easy to claim top classes when you can't pull the numbers to back it up. When I'm talking recruiting rankings from the early '00's to the mid '10's, those can be pulled up and validated. There's nothing to validate the late 80's, so let's concentrate on what we can, lol. Here's what gets me about people like you WET; you make these claims, such as, 'Texas fans trying to get back to the Mack days. That’s impossible as it was the best decade from a wins standpoint in their history. That’s the peak not the normal. Texas will likely not get “back” to that in our lifetimes'. For starters, that's just not accurate. Secondly, you then literally do that very same thing within your own argument. Let me explain, from Texas' standpoint first. Yes, it's true that Texas had more success in one stretch of time under MB than any other stretch of time in program history. To add to that, however, that 'it's not the norm. They'll never get back to that in our lifetimes', is not only ridiculous, it's flat out stupid. You could take 90 wins away from Texas during their 9 year run of 10+ wins, not take ANY wins from anyone else, and do you know where Texas would rank in All Time wins? Still in the Top 15!! (Still ahead of A&M, by the way). 3 of their 4 NC's also occurred under coaches NOT named Mack Brown. EVERY program goes through down years. Even Alabama has. So to say that the success they had under MB was 'not the norm', simply isn't accurate. Now let's go to A&M. "A&M recruited top 10 caliber classes all throughout the late 80s and 90s."...where's the proof in that? It certainly wasn't success on the field. Do you know how many 10+ win seasons A&M had in the 80's? 2. Coincidentally, the same number of bowl wins they enjoyed. They saw a little more success in the 90's, with 5 double digit win seasons (although 4 of those came in the early 90's, not late 90's), but once again, they saw 2 bowl victories. And that leads me to how you're doing the very thing you're accusing Texas fans of doing...taking ONE decade and acting like it's the 'norm'. Half of A&M's 10+ win seasons came in ONE decade...the 90's. Hell, outside the 90's, they've never had more than 2 double digit win seasons in ANY decade. Since 1960, Texas has had multiple double digit win seasons in every decade, except the last one. So if you want to talk 'norm', I'd counter your argument by stating that the last decade for Texas is NOT their norm.

Getting another transfer QB? HAHA

I'm not talking about the kids that started going to schools like Ohio State, FSU, Oregon, etc. I'm talking strictly the other SEC schools, and how much their recruiting stock went up after. Yes, more Texas kids started going to other out of state schools as well....eventually. That was not immediate however. As such, you can start attributing other things, such as Texas' fall, to that. But schools like Ole Miss, LSU, Alabama, Arkansas, etc, saw their recruiting stock go up immediately, as did A&M, which is the key focus here. Again, when looking at just the first few years, A&M's recruiting stock did rise, as did other schools in the SEC. You can argue all day that it's 'delusional to believe one game every 2-4 years, yada yada yada', but you still can't argue against the fact that recruiting in the state of Texas DID shift those first few years. That is a fact, and again one that I don't see as coincidence. Now, in time, you saw an even bigger shift. You started seeing more kids from Texas go out of state, to other conferences. You started seeing A&M recruit better on the national scale. etc etc etc. But I'm only focusing on those first few years (literally the first 2-3). And while you can come up with any other theory you want, ie coach, Texas failure, etc, the one thing that had never happened before, was what happened when A&M moved to the SEC. To think THAT didn't create more excitement amongst recruits than anything else is what's delusional...and one that I don't understand; again, it wasn't a bad thing. It was a very awesome, exciting thing. So I still don't understand the pushback.

First year, right?

If A&M was the only program impacted with a recruiting boost, then sure. They weren't, however. And again, I don't believe it was coincidence. Here's the thing though, you're approaching this as if you're taking offense. There was absolutely nothing wrong with A&M's recruiting stock improving after moving to the SEC. It was an exciting thing. So I'm not sure what the problem is.

That comment sounds as if you think A&M changed conferences beyond 2015, lol. And I'm not saying that's the case, lol, simply that it's the way it comes across. The fact of the matter is, when it was announced that A&M was leaving the B12 (2011), Texas was only 2 years removed from a NC appearance, and 9 consecutive 10+ win seasons. They had one horrible year in '10, but then bounced back with 8 and 9 wins the following two. Point being, I don't think anyone saw coming (YET) that it would be another 9 years before they won double digit games again. I think that was proven by the fact they still closed Top 4 recruiting classes in '11 and '12. A&M, on the other hand, hadn't had a Top 15 class in several years. The moment they made the announcement about going to the SEC, they had two top 10. I don't believe that's coincidence. Same can be said of the other schools whose Texas recruiting improved, after A&M joined the SEC. Again, I don't believe that was coincidence.

This wasn't an attempt to set anyone up to 'roast' them. I truly think it's an interesting conversation. I like all your points, especially the coaching. And between the three, if I had to choose which one is set up with the better coach, I'd say OU. I believe many people wanted to crucify him last season for things beyond his control. He was left with absolutely nothing! If given another 2-3 years, he'll have them turned back around. Recruiting is where I think makes the difference. When A&M moved to the SEC, it opened the door not only to a handful more top players from Texas going to A&M rather than Texas, but other schools as well. With them being back in the same conference again, I think that has big potential to hurt A&M; especially if Texas has a big year this season, and then again their first in the SEC.

With Texas and OU set to join the SEC in '24, who do you think wins the SEC first....Texas, OU, or Texas A&M? I'm aware the answers could change after next season, but it's still an interesting question. I think there are two big factors that will go into it... How close is A&M to winning the SEC today? How much will Texas and OU joining the conference affect all 3 teams in recruiting?