Talk:Texas A&M Aggies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Media cover 2 12th Man TV 3 Requested move 3.1 Survey 3.1.1 Survey - Support votes 3.1.2 Survey - Oppose votes 3.2 Discussion 4 Survey 4.1 Oppose 4.2 Support 5 Images and commons 6 Rivals 7 2006 football article 8 Aggie players from the 2005 and 2006 football teams

[edit] Media cover

I think Ed was correct to question the use of the media guide cover in this article because the media guide was not discussed. If the cover is combined with commentary (E.g. a source saying why they went with the cover design they chose, or a quote from the guide about making the cover, etc) then the cover image would be usable. Johntex\^talk 21:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 12th Man TV

Please add info about the 12th man TV, which is the second largest in the US.Blueag9 02:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Survey

[edit] Oppose

1. I for one oppose it. Pat Stuart's comments are indicative of a recent move amongst students at that overglorified junior college in Austin (hey, at least I provided a link) to lay claim to anything with "Texas" in it. For years (especially in the SWC), we were the Texas Aggies. "Texas" refers to the state, not the school. In the oft quoted phrase by Patton, "Give me an Army of West Point graduates and I'll win a battle. Give me a handful of Texas Aggies and I'll win a war," even Patton uses the term. It is historical and has its context. Aggies refer to themselves as Texas Aggies to distinguish themselves from other Aggies. This was especially true when there were many other A&M schools (almost all "XXX State" schools were once "XXX A&M" and were Aggies including Kansas State, Oklahoma State, New Mexico State, etc. We had it emblazoned on our endzones for decades. All I'm saying is that the above opinion is incredibly biased, uninformed, and devoid of a factual basis. BQZip01 03:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I requested the move, and I am an Aggie. I also created the original article, "Texas Aggie Athletics." My reasoning for the move was that the article name should be in line with the general template used by other college athletics programs - the name of the school, then the nickname of the supporters. I am fully aware of the historical context of "Texas Aggies" but to be more specific, we are the Aggies of Texas A&M University. I simply felt that the title caused confusion among wikipedia readers (as you can see from Patstuart who supported my move request above). Feel free to rally support for a move to "Texas Aggies." Please don't act like this was all done behind your back though. Everyone had an opportunity to voice their opinion before the article was moved. -Texink 03:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Who said it was done behind my back? I recieved a notice to vote on it and did so (though apparently it looks like it was too late. I said "All I'm saying is that the above opinion is incredibly biased, uninformed, and devoid of a factual basis." Anything to the contrary is misleading. BQZip01 05:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support

(crickets chirping here)

[edit] Images and commons

Hello, I added a photo from a football game to this article. I also created a page on the Commons to collect free images related to Texas A&M University. Please contribute your photos (must be freely licensed) to this page. As the collection grows, it will be a great resource for all articles pertaining to the school and its traditions and history. Thanks! Johntex\^talk 03:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rivals

First off, sorry for not, one being signed in, or two posting reasons for my removal of the statement the otherday, my computer died then...it wasn't pretty... Anyways, the reason I removed that statement is because I object to the inclusion of them as "serious" rivals, I suppose that they could be called rivals, but as there was a debate in The Batt this season [1] most students don't recognize Baylor as a rival at all (to be fair, there was a support peice in the Batt at the same time, but there were alot of interviews with students that did not make the online version almost all denying the existance of Baylor as a rival) As for your claim of me not remembering the 80s, well there is probably a good reason for that, I wasn't born at that time, I'm class of 2010. And LSU, what have they done recently to maintain status as a Quote: "Significant" rival? Ok, besides outscoring us by 3 points last year in the second round of the NCAA tourney? Theturtlehermit 21:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The section on other rivals should not only stay, it needs to be expanded. Baylor has historically been our second biggest rival. I don't think anyone can deny the hate between A&M and Tech, either. I agree LSU isn't really a rival any longer, at least not a significant one. We had a strong football rivalry with them through the 80s and 90s, which resulted in a lot of bad blood between the schools. -Texink 21:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Outside view here for what it is worth: If anyone were to ask me who I believed Texas A&M's big rivals to be, I would say: (1) Texas (2) Tech. I am not denying the thought that there may be others, I'm just giving you one outside view as a (non-citable) data point. There has been an analogous discussion to this over at Longhorn-Land. You may find it useful or at least amusing.[2] Johntex\^talk 21:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As another data point, I did some Googling:

"Battle of the Brazos" - 5,240 hits. Our newly created article Battle of the Brazos (thank you Bluag9) is the second hit.

Aggie+Baylor+rivalry =16,000 hits

Texas A&M + Baylor + rivalry =168,000 hits

Bears + Aggie + rivalry =28,000 hits

Aggie + LSU + rivalry = 11,700 hits

"Texas A&M" + LSU + rivalry =175,000

Raiders + Aggie + rivalry =15,200 hits

A&M + Tech + rivalry = 294,000 hits

"Texas A&M" + "Texas Tech" + rivalry = 185,000 hits

I am sure I left out some interesting combinations and I didn't try to do anything fancy like take the union of any of these searches or discard duplicates or exclude Wikipedia mirrors or any thing like that. Of course, Google searching is not very scientific and I don't mean this to be conclusive in any way. For one thing, this only means that the words were all found on the same page. That could happen by chance - for example in a listing of 10 games happening on the same week-end. This is just food for thought. Johntex\^talk 22:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

To simplify this, I think we should define rivalry. I think by the common definition, Texas Tech, Baylor, and Texas all fall in to this category and LSU is a historical rivalry that ended with the SWC dissolusion (sp?). Tech may not deserve a rivalry in many Aggies' eyes, but that is a POV, not reality. There are fights, vandalism, etc. If Tech isn't a rival, then I don't know what is. Baylor is a historical rival. While the record wasn't always as skewed as it has been recently, it is still significant within many Aggie/Baylor families across Texas and with fans old enough to appreciate the historical SWC ties. As for that overglorified junior college in Austin, I think the fact that we have actually had multiple barbecues where we ate their mascot should end that argument. Just my 2¢. BQZip01 02:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the new wording alot better, thanks to Blueag9 and BQzip01. Theturtlehermit 05:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 football article

Hello - I noticed that the 2006 Texas A&M Aggies football team article does not contain much besides the schedule and the quarter-by-quarter score of the game. What should be done with this article? I don't want to see it deleted because I think a little information is better than none, but I think it needs to be improved somehow. Is there interest in making it into a full article? Should we reduce it down to just the schedule info to get rid of all that empty white space? Johntex\^talk 04:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I did find a guy on Flickr who has all his TAMU vs Citadel (2006) photos licensed under CC-by-2.0.[3] They could be good sources for either expanding the above article or for Aggie football in general. I have not put any of them on Commons yet because I am out of steam for the night. Johntex\^talk 04:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aggie players from the 2005 and 2006 football teams

The following Aggie football players are mentioned or redlinked from the 2005 and/or 2006 UT football articles:

• Jorvorskie Lane
• Courtney Lewis
• Mobley DeQawn
• Justin Brantly
• Todd Pegram
• Brandon Leone
• Kellen Heard
• Michael Bennett

Are any of them notable enough for an article? It seems to me that at a minimum Lane and Lewis probably are. Does anyone want to help me write at article on any of them? Johntex\^talk 04:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Started Jorvorskie Lane. I don't think the rest of the players are notable, let's see who gets drafted by the NFL.--Blueag9 (Talk | contribs) 05:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And a redirect for my typo to boot - thanks! Johntex\^talk 05:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I was about to add - I fixed two misspelled names in the '05 article - Jorvorskie Lane and DeQwan Mobley. I haven't looked into other CFB programs on wikipedia to see how in-depth they get with specific players, but my first reaction is that Lane is the only notable one for now. -Texink 05:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)