Well all I know is this...

McGahee is fucked. Good thing he took out an insurance policy.
Roy Williams is a fucking idiot if he doesn't now turn pro.
Texas Tech has always been, and always will be, the whiny red-headed stepchild of college football.
My new girlfriend is hot.

And, I'm done.

How does OU stack up to UT and A&M? It seems to me (my biases not withstanding) that UT > A&M = OU > LCC.

From what I've seen, the big 12 isnt exactly an academically reputable conference in the first place -- in fact it may be the worst. The ACC is probably the best (Duke, Gatech, Wake, UNC, UVA etc.)

If you really knew who I was, you'd realize how ignorant your post was. And sorry, but I don't see the skill in hopping in a truck and driving into a thunderstorm.

Not a wise thing to say to a storm chaser is it? Don,t forget to get up early tormorro and go to college and learn something, perhaps learn about the weather and become a storm chaser like me, I have been one for two years now. Based on your post that I have seen you have proved to the internet service that you are a disgrace to the computer wrold today. Kind of watch your mouth not all storm chasers would be so nice as I to set your and take your rude cutt-downs on storm chasers.

Storm Chasers are one step below the garbageman. Go fuck yourself, Cates.

I have never seen a message with such dog do do. I think you all ought to become storm chasers, it would help you to learn alot.

1) School spirit is "brainwashing"?
2) The Sabre incident was the work of one Corps idiot over 20 years ago. Shoving a goalpost into the stands was the work of hundreds of Red Retards, a year ago.
3) Um, the only shit talking I remember was from the 'Tards, who wanted everyone to believe that a 1-point win in OT constituted an "ass kicking".

Sorry, keep trying.

Same goes for:
A = Brainwashing
B = Using sabres for a means other than decoration or war
C = Shit talking even when your team loses...

I hear that US News uses a sophisticated equation to calculate where comparable schools end up ranked.

As A, B, and C goes up, D goes down.

A = Number of goalposts torn down in the home stadium and thrust into the visitor's seating area.
B = Number of food products thrown from the stands.
C = Amount of shit-talking done by students after a win on the road.
D = Ranking.

Nope, I'm not trying to rationalize... just trying to explain the system.
I know that UT has much higher requirements than other public schools in the state, and then come A&M and Tech. I don't think A&M are as much different as most of you claim. I think the student bodies are very similar, made up of a lot of smart people and some stupid ones.

I do think that Tech doesn't get the credit it deserves in the ratings, which is due to historical alumni giving and stuff like that. But that is all changing, as alumni are becoming more aware of what has to happen to make Tech a better school. Tech has been moving up a lot, with average scores increasing EVERY year. And now the average SAT score is within one or two questions of A&M's average score. No matter how much better you claim A&M is, that's not much difference.

Rationalization at its finest. I guess by your rationalization, Austin Community College is "only a few" spots away from UT.

I'm sure that's not the *only* reason to drop so much...
And there is no *big* difference between tiers... tier 1 is just the top 50, number 51 is a tier 2, but could be right on the heels of tier 1... same between tier 2 and 3, there's just a breaking point, 2 schools can be in different tiers and be very similar.

In EE, labs at Tech are quite different than other schools. Our classes don't have a specific lab for each one, but we have 5 project lab classes, one each semester, starting your sophomore year. Each lab is based on material relevant to classes you should be taking at the time. Each of our 5 labs are comparable to a single senior lab at other universities. My projects have included building a fire-fighting robot, a voice-frequency compandor, work on a fuel-cell vehicle, etc... the list goes on.

Tech has some not so smart people... same as A&M and UT... trust me, I know some. Nobody can deny that idiots slip through the cracks.

OK, that's what it was. I couldn't quite remember.

At UT, it depends largely on the class. In advertising, the extra section is referred to as a "lab", but in reality, it's just a one hour a week smaller class meeting... you don't get credit for it anyway. I do know that science labs are separate classes from the lecture. Don't know if that would make a difference.

the A&M drop to 2nd tier status is because who ever does the ranking (U.S. News and world report or Newsweek, i cant remember which) stopped counting lab hours as credit earning classes or some shit, and i dont know about UT or Tech but at A&M any class with an even slightly technical subject is awarded a lab.

My friend at A&M had an explanation for the drop--apparently, there's something strange going on with the professor to student ratio in the engineering dept., and as everyone knows, that ratio can kill your ranking if you're borderline to begin with, which A&M and UT traditionally have been in the Tier 1 rankings. That said, I still don't forsee the "Vision 2020" crap A&M has been spouting being realistic at all. I could understand it if some of the schools currently ranked above were going to shit, but they all seem pretty likely to maintain their status in the rankings.

On the flip side, it'll take Tech a long time to recover from their Tier 3 status. By letting in anyone with a GED, high school diploma, or a 2.0 in their current college in the past, they've screwed themselves with a student body that is academically sub-par to schools such as A&M and UT. You can argue that Tech has smart students, but face it--those rankings aren't lying. Just like you could say that to some extent there is a large gap between Tier 1 and Tier 2 schools, there is the same gap between Tier 2 and Tier 3 schools. Whoever has actually seen the full rankings, I'd be interested to know where A&M ended up in the top public university rankings. That might be a better indication since they don't assign specific rankings to Tier 2 schools.

Academic quality is only going up at the other Texas public schools. UT is at the point that all being top 10% gets you is a major in Liberal Arts (exception: Psych) or Natural Sciences. All other colleges within the University are now exempt from the mandatory acceptance of the top 10% students.

>>I guess we know what's in store...

Yeah. Tech will still be a Tier 3 school.

What makes you say the next 15% will have better scores? I guess it's just a number you chose to make up...

Tech, along with other schools, has to say that the standards are flexible. Otherwise, half the sports teams wouldn't get in at most schools. You can't come right out and say that you'll let them in if they're good at football, but you can say "their interests are examined" yadda yadda yadda...
Sure, Tech is "flexible" along with A&M, UT, etc...

Anyway... A&M's scores have been dropping (explaining a now tier-2 status) while tech's average scores have been rising... I guess we know what's in store...

By the way Wheatables...how do you answer a question ignorantly? Just wondering.

Oh and to save you the trouble...I wasn't guessing.

In response to JD:
First of all, the top 10 percent are getting in wherever they want, so they don't really matter. Now the next 15 percent are going to have great scores anyway. Do you think these people would really choose Tech? Doubtful. Also, here is the big point that JD left out of his post. What happens when students who want to go to Tech can't meet the requirements? This is from the Lubbock Avalanche journal that JD posted from....

For students who fail to meet testing standards, Tech offers alternatives.

Texas Tech uses a variable admissions process, said Bill Carter, director of the Texas Tech Testing Center.

Students who do not attain Tech's standards for ACT and SAT scores still can attend if they have an above-average high school GPA, Carter said. A student's high school GPA is a good predictor of student performance in college.

"High school averages can predict future grades about 80 percent of the time," Carter said. "In terms of research, past performance best predicts future performance."

The Texas Tech Testing Center analyzes student admissions packets upon the student's request, Carter explained.

If a student does not meet admission requirements, the testing center will study the student's academic pattern, including the student's high school transcript, interest patterns and scores on the TAAS and TASP tests.

If students show success in these areas, the university will admit them.

"While we want them to succeed and graduate, we have alternate admissions options for students who don't meet our assured requirements," said Marie Alford, assistant director for admissions processing, "because we want them to meet their goals and their dreams of obtaining a higher education."

Over the past 15 years, Texas Tech has changed its admissions policy. Marlene Hernandez, associate director of admissions and school relations, explained that Tech once admitted any student who met the high school graduation requirements, Alford said.

"The whole premise for open admissions was to give an opportunity for education to all students," Alford said

Damn. Oh and P.S....just because the standard might be lower, a lot of people get denied. For instance, my friend's sister coming to A&M last fall got denied with a 1260 SAT, NHS, and yadda yadda yadda.

The 1999 A&M game was when Major had food poisoning and Simms got his first start as a true freshman. Texas was winning when Simms was replaced by Applewhite, but A&M pulled out the win. 2000 was the year Mack Brown tried to play a 2 QB system. Simms was a sophomore and Major was a redshirt junior. Texas won 9 games that year. 2001 was Major's senior season and the only game he started was the Holiday Bowl, which he won (barely) to give Texas it's 11th win of the season. Simms won 10 games that year before he decided to screw things up in the Big XII title game against Colorado. This season, Simms won 11 more games, bringing his record as a starter to something like 26-6. I will be the first to admit that the six games he lost were big. So what can you say about it? He lost 6 games to good teams. Had he gone out and sucked against an unranked and unworthy opponent, then I'd have issues with him. Now, I give the Sooners their credit for beating Texas 3 years in a row. Obviously, you have to be a good team to accomplish that. However, OU has the same habit Simms has, only they lose to teams they should have very little trouble beating. They've done it three times in the past 2 seasons alone, yet that doesn't keep people from calling them a great team. So isn't there just a little bit of a double standard there?

This is reaching, but I think that Simms' freshman year, Major had the flu and was out of commission, save maybe 5 minutes of time on the field.

Ashley,
In no way was I saying that UT had to be compared to OU. Just happen to be the other team in the Big 12 that had done what UT did this season.
My point on Simms and A&M. I didn't think Simms was QB for the entire game all 3 years in a row. Especially not as a freshman with Major on the sidelines. Also in 2001 Simms and Applewhite were playing "who's gonna be the QB?" That was Major's senior year wasn't it? Mack couldn't decide who to give the position to, and it was back and forth the whole season. So I doubt Simms gets credit for every win that season.
And yes you are correct far more mediocre players have gotten so much farther and done so much more with the team they have. You made my point that as top notch as Simms is in stats, he doesn't have much to show for it. Regardless of the teams win record the "greatness of Simms" isn't so great.

I just thought you aggies needed some interesting reading to put your "higher standards" claims to rest...

Monday, January 6, 2003
Last modified at 4:54 p.m. on Monday, January 6, 2003
© 2003 - The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

"Texas Tech's admission requirements for incoming freshmen are becoming more stringent, and Tech now demands higher SAT and ACT and scores than Texas A&M and North Texas University.
Tech has set its ACT score requirement for the top 25 percent of high school seniors at 25, compared with A&M's 19. North Texas requires high school seniors to show a composite score of 23 on their ACTs and to be ranked in the second quarter of their classes.
Tech will require freshmen entering in 2003 to receive an 1140 on the SAT1, while A&M students must receive 920,and North Texas students must score 1050." ...
So, Agsy... first try getting up to UNT standards, then maybe you can think about reaching Tech's standards.
Just goes to show the direction things are heading here at Tech... while A&M continues to get their same bloodline of recruits.

That's right Wheatables...I was 'winning'! Thanks for noticing bub. Anyway, all of y'all act like I'm retarded. What you don't know is that...(bon bon BON!!!)I talk to Betik often on IM and we have very nice conversations. I'm sure this will come as a shock to everyone, but puhhhhleaze. I am just as smart as you people. Don't get such high heads. Love all, serve all. Brad Arthur rules!

Ban ban ban.