Texas A&M Football: Rewriting the History Books over the Summer
We have all heard about the billboard that went up in Gainesville, Florida just a few days before Texas A&M opened their season, and play, in their new conference with the Florida Gators. We also saw other billboards in Austin and Waco, Texas earlier this year and last year as the Aggies left for the Southeastern Conference.
Here's one I bet you didn't expect: Texas A&M added conference and national championships to the side of their stadium this past summer.
What do I mean? Well, take a look at what the side of the stadium looked like last year. You see the one national championship in 1939 and their conference championships, most recently their thrilling win over No. 2 Kansas State in the 1998 Big 12 Championship.
This is where it starts to get bizarre. If you're in College Station this weekend, you'll notice something a little different about the stadium.
Where the Aggies had their one national championship last year, they have now added two others.
Each additional national championship was added retroactively, and all the players from both teams are deceased.
It doesn't end there, though. They added conference championships in 1997 and 2010. There's a huge problem there.
In 1997, Texas A&M advanced to the Big 12 Championship game and were utterly destroyed, 54-15, by eventual national champion Nebraska.
In 2010, the Aggies tied for first place in the Big 12 South with both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State but did not advance to the championship game. That honor went to the Sooners, who won the tiebreaker over both teams.
I guess it's just me here, but I don't get it. Why add those years to the side of the stadium? You can't say 2010 because you didn't represent your division in the conference championship game, and you sure as heck can't claim 1997 after that horrid loss.
Did they win or tie their division in 1997 and 2010? Yes. Did they win the conference championship? No. You can put numbers on your stadium wall all day, but you can't change history. Unless you're Doc Brown. Which you're not.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?