College baseball insider drops ominous hint in wake of Earley retention decision

Fans are still reckoning with the controversial decision to retain Michael Earley, with the fanbase divided on whether it was the right move.
Texas A&M head coach Michael Earley talks to an official during the Lone Star Showdown against Texas at UFCU Disch-Falk Field on Friday, April 25, 2025.
Texas A&M head coach Michael Earley talks to an official during the Lone Star Showdown against Texas at UFCU Disch-Falk Field on Friday, April 25, 2025. | Aaron E. Martinez/American-Statesman / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images

Trev Alberts' announcement yesterday that Texas A&M baseball would be retaining Michael Earley as the head coach into next year send shockwaves throughout the fanbase and the sport. It wasn't only Aggies that expected A&M to make a move, and the fact that they are standing pat is something that caught a lot of fans off guard.

It's not just fans, either. Insiders had been predicting the Aggies to make a move for quite some time now, given that the Texas A&M brass had apparently been making some inquiries behind the scenes over the past couple of weeks— understandably so, given the Missouri debacle.

One of the foremost insiders in the sport is Kendall Rogers of D1Baseball, who has been following the situation in College Station quite closely. Even Rogers was taken aback at the announcement late yesterday afternoon from Alberts, and he dropped a hint that was unsettling to Texas A&M fans.

College baseball insider Kendall Rogers alludes ominously to background factors behind Earley retention

Here's what Rogers had to say in the wake of Alberts' announcement yesterday:

The natural question for Aggie fans is what those "things going on in the background" are. Is Rogers alluding to some kind of subterfuge in the process, or is he simply referring to the fact that there was a process at all?

Another tweet from Rogers not long after was revealing, not only of what kind of factors he meant, but of his evaluation of the Aggie AD's decision.

The relationship between Schloss and Alberts got a lot of run last summer, but it seemed clear that the issue was more on Schlossnagle's side than it was on A&M's. It's just as clear, though, that the optics here are pretty poor for the Aggies.

From this latter post, it seems that the background factors Rogers is referring to was the broad-ranging vetting of coaches behind the scenes. The question then is whether Alberts was roundly rejected by any candidate he talked to, or if the Aggies simply decided to be decisive in retaining Earley rather than continuing a search that may have ended up fruitl