To anyone planning to comment that this post is too long: feel free to skip it and move on. For those who enjoy a detailed read, continue below.

Many Aggie fans are frustrated with our recent history of 8-4 seasons. It's tough to watch, and it's hard to see the program stuck in this cycle. However, it's important to view Texas A&M football through the lens of our broader history and appreciate where we've come from, especially after joining the SEC.

A Perspective on Our History:
Our football history marked by sporadic brilliance surrounded by mediocrity. Older fans recall the challenges of being an all-male military school, a lopsided record against Texas, and struggles in the Southwest Conference. Yes, R.C. Slocum gave us dominance in the 1990s, but in the Big 12, we were often on the level of Texas Tech or Oklahoma Statenot Texas or Oklahoma. We were an afterthought in many respects.

That changed in 2012. By the grace of the SEC's expansion, we secured a spot in the most prestigious conference in college football. This was a turning point.

The Impact of the SEC Move:
Johnny Manziel undoubtedly revolutionized our football brand, but it's important to remember that he achieved greatness without the world-class facilities we have today. His documentary highlights how far behind our program was back then. Since joining the SEC, the university has invested heavily in the program, transforming it into one of the best-funded in the nation.
Despite two poor coaching hires, A&M's profile and recruiting have skyrocketed. We're now in national discussions year-round. Our recruiting efforts routinely bring in top talent, which was not always the case. In the Big 12, bad coaching meant seasons with eight losses. In the SEC, even in tough years, we hover around 8-4. That's progress.

Patience in the Process:
Fans need to see the long game. Programs like Georgia show us the blueprint. It took nearly two decades under Donnan, Richt, and finally Kirby Smart to reach the top of the SEC. Success takes time, especially in the hyper-competitive SEC. A&M has the resources and now the national profile to sustain this journey. With time and the right leadership, the investment will pay off.

Final Thoughts:
While 8-4 seasons are frustrating, the SEC has elevated Texas A&M football to a level we've never consistently seen before. We're no longer fighting for relevance; we're fighting for excellence. It's a long road, but with continued investment and patience, we'll get there.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

To anyone planning to comment that this post is too long: feel free to skip it and move on

---

Done

---

Thank you for your useless comment

recruiting has "skyrocketed" ?

George Washington was our first president and we landed on the moon. Any other historical tidbits everyone knows?

the most cool guy said:

---

If you're trying to sound insightful and smart, at least spell holistic right.

---

Nobody said I was. They can be used interchangeably lol

W said:

---

recruiting has "skyrocketed" ?

---

Go look at our top 25 recruits of all time and tell me how many came before 2012? Recruiting has significantly improved but we have nothing to show for it.

one thing the OP has right when looking back at the history of aggie football...

the Big 12 era (1996-2011) was a disaster -- was the disaster -- for the program

things were much better in the SWC (post-integration & scholarship limitations)

and things are better now in the SEC -- but not beyond the 8-4 plateau

roughtuff98 said:

---

We're now in national discussions year-round

---

when the discussion is about others receiving votes.

ChiefKiefton said:

---

W said:

---

recruiting has "skyrocketed" ?

---

Go look at our top 25 recruits of all time and tell me how many came before 2012? Recruiting has significantly improved but we have nothing to show for it.

---

That is true. Compared to the kind of recruiting classes we got from 2000-2011, we are lightyears ahead of caliber of players we would recruit. I believe we got 2 top ten recruiting classes during that time, and we'd be lucky to get 4 or 5 4 star players a class during that time. 8-4 sounds pedestrian, but relative to our competition it isn't that bad. Now, to break that mold, we would need to recruit number 1 or 2 within the SEC two or three consecutive seasons. We've only done that once, and to be honest we got burnt; many of the players were not as advertised even when they transferred to other programs. But that doesn't be we should give up on the top prospects.

the most cool guy said:

---

roughtuff98 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

If you're trying to sound insightful and smart, at least spell holistic right.

---

Nobody said I was. They can be used interchangeably lol

---

Anything can be used interchangeably with anything. That doesn't make it correct. Holistic is correct. Wholistic is not.

---

Kinda feels like you're shooting from the hip and not checking any sources on this take. While holistic is the preferred form in most writing, according to Merriam-Webster, wholistic is also acceptable.

Artorias said:

---

roughtuff98 said:

---

Patience in the Process:

---

Been waiting 40+ years and counting. How much more patience do I need to have?

---

several have waited wayyyyy longer.
1939 was a pretty good ways back.

Still looking for the right leadership...been a several decades problem without a solution.

Time to upgrade conferences and go to the Big Ten. Extra money will help buy a better roster plus we can play with the top programs.

Davidtheag said:

---

ChiefKiefton said:

---

W said:

---

recruiting has "skyrocketed" ?

---

Go look at our top 25 recruits of all time and tell me how many came before 2012? Recruiting has significantly improved but we have nothing to show for it.

---

That is true. Compared to the kind of recruiting classes we got from 2000-2011, we are lightyears ahead of caliber of players we would recruit. I believe we got 2 top ten recruiting classes during that time, and we'd be lucky to get 4 or 5 4 star players a class during that time. 8-4 sounds pedestrian, but relative to our competition it isn't that bad. Now, to break that mold, we would need to recruit number 1 or 2 within the SEC two or three consecutive seasons. We've only done that once, and to be honest we got burnt; many of the players were not as advertised even when they transferred to other programs. But that doesn't be we should give up on the top prospects.

---

A lot of that #1 class was just fools gold. Yeah yeah, hind-sight is 20/20, but gathering a high "star count" (especially in Jimbo's case) doesn't necessarily mean it's a good recruiting class.
Makes you wonder if they looked at anything at all beyond just "star" ratings.

The other side if it (which has been repeated x1000 thru here) is the lack of developing whoever we DO get.
If you look at how we've recruited, versus how that's translated into NFL draft picks (or lack thereof)....it's really bad.

The true Natty contenders typically have around 10-ish that get picked up in the NFL draft.
Comparatively, we'll typically have around 3-ish.

Until that starts to change, the whole Texas 8&4 thing won't be changing much either.

To me this glosses over the fact we're still losing to the same type of teams/schools that I firmly believe we should beat. We've out recruited them and have a bigger budget. So what's the deal? Seems like we're just happy to be included.

Big12: Tech, Okie St., Missouri
SEC: Ole Miss, Mississippi St., Missouri

texastexastexas said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

roughtuff98 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

If you're trying to sound insightful and smart, at least spell holistic right.

---

Nobody said I was. They can be used interchangeably lol

---

Anything can be used interchangeably with anything. That doesn't make it correct. Holistic is correct. Wholistic is not.

---

Kinda feels like you're shooting from the hip and not checking any sources on this take. While holistic is the preferred form in most writing, according to Merriam-Webster, wholistic is also acceptable.

---

Nah. I have a 1997 Merriam-Webster's dictionary in my office. It has holistic. It does not have wholistic, because wholistic is not a word. Merriam-Webster online has added a whole lot of slang and non-words over the years simply because people have gotten dumber and less literate and use non-words informally.

For example, Merriam-Webster online also now contains "irregardless" and claims it has the same meaning as "regardless," which is objectively false. The prefix "ir" denotes the negative of the word it is affixed to. Saying that "irregardless" means "regardless" is like saying that "irrelevant" means "relevant" or that "irregular" means "regular." It's false. To justify its inclusion of "irregardless" as a word, Merriam-Webster online references three other examples of words where "ir" is used to emphasize the word it follows rather than import a negative. The problem? None of the three examples are actually contained in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, because they aren't ****ing words. "Irregardless" was coined from people confusing and combining the words "regardless" and "irrespective" and then pretending they made up a new word.

Conclusions:

(1) The mere fact that people with low literacy skills say something incorrect over and over again does not magically make it correct.

(2) The mere fact that an online dictionary is updated to include a non-word to placate those with low literacy skills does not magically make it a real word.

the most cool guy said:

---

texastexastexas said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

roughtuff98 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

If you're trying to sound insightful and smart, at least spell holistic right.

---

Nobody said I was. They can be used interchangeably lol

---

Anything can be used interchangeably with anything. That doesn't make it correct. Holistic is correct. Wholistic is not.

---

Kinda feels like you're shooting from the hip and not checking any sources on this take. While holistic is the preferred form in most writing, according to Merriam-Webster, wholistic is also acceptable.

---

Nah. I have a 1997 Merriam-Webster's dictionary in my office. It has holistic. It does not have wholistic, because wholistic is not a word. Merriam-Webster online has added a whole lot of slang and non-words over the years simply because people have gotten dumber and less literate and use non-words informally.

For example, Merriam-Webster online also now contains "irregardless" and claims it has the same meaning as "regardless," which is objectively false. The prefix "ir" denotes the negative of the word it is affixed to. Saying that "irregardless" means "regardless" is like saying that "irrelevant" means "relevant" or that "irregular" means "regular." It's false. To justify its inclusion of "irregardless" as a word, Merriam-Webster online references three other examples of words where "ir" is used to emphasize the word it follows rather than import a negative. The problem? None of the three examples are actually contained in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, because they aren't ****ing words. "Irregardless" was coined from people confusing and combining the words "regardless" and "irrespective" and then pretending they made up a new word.

Conclusions:

(1) The mere fact that people with low literacy skills say something incorrect over and over again does not magically make it correct.

(2) The mere fact that an online dictionary is updated to include a non-word to placate those with low literacy skills does not magically make it a real word.

---

Username doesn't check out. Nerd.

long way to go to try to make a useless point

NorthTexasAg22 said:

---

To me this glosses over the fact we're still losing to the same type of teams/schools that I firmly believe we should beat. We've out recruited them and have a bigger budget. So what's the deal? Seems like we're just happy to be included.

Big12: Tech, Okie St., Missouri
SEC: Ole Miss, Mississippi St., Missouri

---

Our NFL Draft pick counts are actually pretty close to those kinds of teams.
And they're light years behind the Bama's, UGA's, OhSt's, Mich's....and now even the t.u.'s of the world.

Our recruiting has some "star count", but none of that matters if we're not building further on top of their high school abilities and making them into NFL draft picks, or at least fringe NFL prospects.

Some of it may just be recruiting the wrong kind of kid....but the rest of it, and it's undeniable, is a pretty severe lack of development with the prior regime(s) after they've arrived on campus.

the most cool guy said:

---

If you're trying to sound insightful and smart, at least spell holistic right.

---

And why not just use your normal user name?

JPK89 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

texastexastexas said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

roughtuff98 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

If you're trying to sound insightful and smart, at least spell holistic right.

---

Nobody said I was. They can be used interchangeably lol

---

Anything can be used interchangeably with anything. That doesn't make it correct. Holistic is correct. Wholistic is not.

---

Kinda feels like you're shooting from the hip and not checking any sources on this take. While holistic is the preferred form in most writing, according to Merriam-Webster, wholistic is also acceptable.

---

Nah. I have a 1997 Merriam-Webster's dictionary in my office. It has holistic. It does not have wholistic, because wholistic is not a word. Merriam-Webster online has added a whole lot of slang and non-words over the years simply because people have gotten dumber and less literate and use non-words informally.

For example, Merriam-Webster online also now contains "irregardless" and claims it has the same meaning as "regardless," which is objectively false. The prefix "ir" denotes the negative of the word it is affixed to. Saying that "irregardless" means "regardless" is like saying that "irrelevant" means "relevant" or that "irregular" means "regular." It's false. To justify its inclusion of "irregardless" as a word, Merriam-Webster online references three other examples of words where "ir" is used to emphasize the word it follows rather than import a negative. The problem? None of the three examples are actually contained in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, because they aren't ****ing words. "Irregardless" was coined from people confusing and combining the words "regardless" and "irrespective" and then pretending they made up a new word.

Conclusions:

(1) The mere fact that people with low literacy skills say something incorrect over and over again does not magically make it correct.

(2) The mere fact that an online dictionary is updated to include a non-word to placate those with low literacy skills does not magically make it a real word.

---

Username doesn't check out. Nerd.

---

Well my mom says I am cool, so hah!!

the most cool guy said:

---

JPK89 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

texastexastexas said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

roughtuff98 said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

If you're trying to sound insightful and smart, at least spell holistic right.

---

Nobody said I was. They can be used interchangeably lol

---

Anything can be used interchangeably with anything. That doesn't make it correct. Holistic is correct. Wholistic is not.

---

Kinda feels like you're shooting from the hip and not checking any sources on this take. While holistic is the preferred form in most writing, according to Merriam-Webster, wholistic is also acceptable.

---

Nah. I have a 1997 Merriam-Webster's dictionary in my office. It has holistic. It does not have wholistic, because wholistic is not a word. Merriam-Webster online has added a whole lot of slang and non-words over the years simply because people have gotten dumber and less literate and use non-words informally.

For example, Merriam-Webster online also now contains "irregardless" and claims it has the same meaning as "regardless," which is objectively false. The prefix "ir" denotes the negative of the word it is affixed to. Saying that "irregardless" means "regardless" is like saying that "irrelevant" means "relevant" or that "irregular" means "regular." It's false. To justify its inclusion of "irregardless" as a word, Merriam-Webster online references three other examples of words where "ir" is used to emphasize the word it follows rather than import a negative. The problem? None of the three examples are actually contained in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, because they aren't ****ing words. "Irregardless" was coined from people confusing and combining the words "regardless" and "irrespective" and then pretending they made up a new word.

Conclusions:

(1) The mere fact that people with low literacy skills say something incorrect over and over again does not magically make it correct.

(2) The mere fact that an online dictionary is updated to include a non-word to placate those with low literacy skills does not magically make it a real word.

---

Username doesn't check out. Nerd.

---

Well my mom says I am cool, so hah!!

---

yeah, well, you don't wanna know what your mom said about me last weekend....

Does any other program have as many embarrassing blowouts as A&M, or is that just bias perspective?

TxAg76 said:

---

Davidtheag said:

---

ChiefKiefton said:

---

W said:

---

recruiting has "skyrocketed" ?

---

Go look at our top 25 recruits of all time and tell me how many came before 2012? Recruiting has significantly improved but we have nothing to show for it.

---

That is true. Compared to the kind of recruiting classes we got from 2000-2011, we are lightyears ahead of caliber of players we would recruit. I believe we got 2 top ten recruiting classes during that time, and we'd be lucky to get 4 or 5 4 star players a class during that time. 8-4 sounds pedestrian, but relative to our competition it isn't that bad. Now, to break that mold, we would need to recruit number 1 or 2 within the SEC two or three consecutive seasons. We've only done that once, and to be honest we got burnt; many of the players were not as advertised even when they transferred to other programs. But that doesn't be we should give up on the top prospects.

---

A lot of that #1 class was just fools gold. Yeah yeah, hind-sight is 20/20, but gathering a high "star count" (especially in Jimbo's case) doesn't necessarily mean it's a good recruiting class.
Makes you wonder if they looked at anything at all beyond just "star" ratings.

The other side if it (which has been repeated x1000 thru here) is the lack of developing whoever we DO get.
If you look at how we've recruited, versus how that's translated into NFL draft picks (or lack thereof)....it's really bad.

The true Natty contenders typically have around 10-ish that get picked up in the NFL draft.
Comparatively, we'll typically have around 3-ish.

Until that starts to change, the whole Texas 8&4 thing won't be changing much either.

---

That's the question. How much faith do you put into the metrics of rating a high school player? Sure, NFL franchises can get in wrong with a player, and the use far more metrics in investing millions of dollars with their prospects. As far as College Football is concerned, all the evidence shows programs that are winning championships and are putting their players into the NFL have top 10 talent composites. Since they've been doing talent composites, no team under 10th has ever won a national championship. Doesn't it seem like it's always the same programs winning those national championships? How long has it been since a program won their first national championship? Florida in 1996 was the last time a team won their first national championship. And we've been fortunate, since the poll era (1936), only 33 teams have won a national championship including Texas A&M.

TxAg76 said:

---

Davidtheag said:

---

ChiefKiefton said:

---

W said:

---

recruiting has "skyrocketed" ?

---

Go look at our top 25 recruits of all time and tell me how many came before 2012? Recruiting has significantly improved but we have nothing to show for it.

---

That is true. Compared to the kind of recruiting classes we got from 2000-2011, we are lightyears ahead of caliber of players we would recruit. I believe we got 2 top ten recruiting classes during that time, and we'd be lucky to get 4 or 5 4 star players a class during that time. 8-4 sounds pedestrian, but relative to our competition it isn't that bad. Now, to break that mold, we would need to recruit number 1 or 2 within the SEC two or three consecutive seasons. We've only done that once, and to be honest we got burnt; many of the players were not as advertised even when they transferred to other programs. But that doesn't be we should give up on the top prospects.

---

A lot of that #1 class was just fools gold. Yeah yeah, hind-sight is 20/20, but gathering a high "star count" (especially in Jimbo's case) doesn't necessarily mean it's a good recruiting class.
Makes you wonder if they looked at anything at all beyond just "star" ratings.

The other side if it (which has been repeated x1000 thru here) is the lack of developing whoever we DO get.
If you look at how we've recruited, versus how that's translated into NFL draft picks (or lack thereof)....it's really bad.

The true Natty contenders typically have around 10-ish that get picked up in the NFL draft.
Comparatively, we'll typically have around 3-ish.

Until that starts to change, the whole Texas 8&4 thing won't be changing much either.

---

I agree with your assessment of us having poor recruiting evaluations and poor player development. I think Elko is in the process of correcting both of these important issues in our program. I just hope he has assembled the right staff to develop the talent we're getting, as I love the talent acquisitions we've made in our recent recruiting class and transfers under Elko.

Davidtheag said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Davidtheag said:

---

ChiefKiefton said:

---

W said:

---

recruiting has "skyrocketed" ?

---

Go look at our top 25 recruits of all time and tell me how many came before 2012? Recruiting has significantly improved but we have nothing to show for it.

---

That is true. Compared to the kind of recruiting classes we got from 2000-2011, we are lightyears ahead of caliber of players we would recruit. I believe we got 2 top ten recruiting classes during that time, and we'd be lucky to get 4 or 5 4 star players a class during that time. 8-4 sounds pedestrian, but relative to our competition it isn't that bad. Now, to break that mold, we would need to recruit number 1 or 2 within the SEC two or three consecutive seasons. We've only done that once, and to be honest we got burnt; many of the players were not as advertised even when they transferred to other programs. But that doesn't be we should give up on the top prospects.

---

A lot of that #1 class was just fools gold. Yeah yeah, hind-sight is 20/20, but gathering a high "star count" (especially in Jimbo's case) doesn't necessarily mean it's a good recruiting class.
Makes you wonder if they looked at anything at all beyond just "star" ratings.

The other side if it (which has been repeated x1000 thru here) is the lack of developing whoever we DO get.
If you look at how we've recruited, versus how that's translated into NFL draft picks (or lack thereof)....it's really bad.

The true Natty contenders typically have around 10-ish that get picked up in the NFL draft.
Comparatively, we'll typically have around 3-ish.

Until that starts to change, the whole Texas 8&4 thing won't be changing much either.

---

That's the question. How much faith do you put into the metrics of rating a high school player?

---

Very little.
They're fun for some to speculate with, relative to what any given player COULD become.
But until they've played some college downs, against collegiate level competition, some of which are 4 years older and could be NFL bound....you don't really know how the newbies are going to pan out thru their college careers. And that holds true for the 5-stars all the way down to the walk-ons.

sincereag said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Davidtheag said:

---

ChiefKiefton said:

---

W said:

---

recruiting has "skyrocketed" ?

---

Go look at our top 25 recruits of all time and tell me how many came before 2012? Recruiting has significantly improved but we have nothing to show for it.

---

That is true. Compared to the kind of recruiting classes we got from 2000-2011, we are lightyears ahead of caliber of players we would recruit. I believe we got 2 top ten recruiting classes during that time, and we'd be lucky to get 4 or 5 4 star players a class during that time. 8-4 sounds pedestrian, but relative to our competition it isn't that bad. Now, to break that mold, we would need to recruit number 1 or 2 within the SEC two or three consecutive seasons. We've only done that once, and to be honest we got burnt; many of the players were not as advertised even when they transferred to other programs. But that doesn't be we should give up on the top prospects.

---

A lot of that #1 class was just fools gold. Yeah yeah, hind-sight is 20/20, but gathering a high "star count" (especially in Jimbo's case) doesn't necessarily mean it's a good recruiting class.
Makes you wonder if they looked at anything at all beyond just "star" ratings.

The other side if it (which has been repeated x1000 thru here) is the lack of developing whoever we DO get.
If you look at how we've recruited, versus how that's translated into NFL draft picks (or lack thereof)....it's really bad.

The true Natty contenders typically have around 10-ish that get picked up in the NFL draft.
Comparatively, we'll typically have around 3-ish.

Until that starts to change, the whole Texas 8&4 thing won't be changing much either.

---

I agree with your assessment of us having poor recruiting evaluations and poor player development. I think Elko is in the process of correcting both of these important issues in our program. I just hope he has assembled the right staff to develop the talent we're getting, as I love the talent acquisitions we've made in our recent recruiting class and transfers under Elko.

---

Don't disagree at all.

We saw zero meaningful change from Elko's presence so far. His defense wasn't up to snuff and he is defensive minded as a former DC of ours. The OC hire created exactly what Klein's playing history and coaching history suggested he would do. Not a terrible choice on a Snyder-led Kansas State team that has to get by with lesser talent (like air raid avd Tech.)

There has to be a lot more there "there" this fall for me to really believe the hire wasn't like Brian Schottenheimer…

roughtuff98 said:

---

To anyone planning to comment that this post is too long: feel free to skip it and move on. For those who enjoy a detailed read, continue below.

Many Aggie fans are frustrated with our recent history of 8-4 seasons. It's tough to watch, and it's hard to see the program stuck in this cycle. However, it's important to view Texas A&M football through the lens of our broader history and appreciate where we've come from, especially after joining the SEC.

A Perspective on Our History:
Our football history marked by sporadic brilliance surrounded by mediocrity. Older fans recall the challenges of being an all-male military school, a lopsided record against Texas, and struggles in the Southwest Conference. Yes, R.C. Slocum gave us dominance in the 1990s, but in the Big 12, we were often on the level of Texas Tech or Oklahoma Statenot Texas or Oklahoma. We were an afterthought in many respects.

That changed in 2012. By the grace of the SEC's expansion, we secured a spot in the most prestigious conference in college football. This was a turning point.

The Impact of the SEC Move:
Johnny Manziel undoubtedly revolutionized our football brand, but it's important to remember that he achieved greatness without the world-class facilities we have today. His documentary highlights how far behind our program was back then. Since joining the SEC, the university has invested heavily in the program, transforming it into one of the best-funded in the nation.
Despite two poor coaching hires, A&M's profile and recruiting have skyrocketed. We're now in national discussions year-round. Our recruiting efforts routinely bring in top talent, which was not always the case. In the Big 12, bad coaching meant seasons with eight losses. In the SEC, even in tough years, we hover around 8-4. That's progress.

Patience in the Process:
Fans need to see the long game. Programs like Georgia show us the blueprint. It took nearly two decades under Donnan, Richt, and finally Kirby Smart to reach the top of the SEC. Success takes time, especially in the hyper-competitive SEC. A&M has the resources and now the national profile to sustain this journey. With time and the right leadership, the investment will pay off.

Final Thoughts:
While 8-4 seasons are frustrating, the SEC has elevated Texas A&M football to a level we've never consistently seen before. We're no longer fighting for relevance; we're fighting for excellence. It's a long road, but with continued investment and patience, we'll get there.

---

This is well thought out and I appreciate your point of view. I simply differ with your opinion. We are no where closer to national relevance than we were pre-SEC. If some want to argue that we are more relevant because of our conference and who we play, then I could by that. We may have everything that the power schools have, but we don't know what to do with it. Jimbo Fisher was our Kirby Smart. Mike Elko is our Mike Sherman. Maybe he gets us to a point where we are more attractive to coaches, but he isn't the coach. You simply can't have a DC background and put that defense on the field. I'm sure he will provide some Aggies highs but that's because our bar is so low. All I care about is winning the national title. Anything short of that for a coach is a failure. We have a lot of failures in our history.