ESPN labels Texas A&M football a top underachiever; Do Aggies belong on this list?

ESPN calls Texas A&M football one of the biggest underachievers in the sport; Is this a fair label for the Aggies?

On its face, I don’t think many Texas A&M football fans would have much of an argument against the idea that the Aggies have been underachievers recently. As a matter of fact, it was this notion, in large part, that led to Jimbo Fisher’s firing—despite the huge amounts of talent that he was able to bring in, the Ags managed only a 12-13 record over the last two years.

In that vein, it should be no surprise that Texas A&M football was included on ESPN’s recent list of the biggest underachievers in the sport. Their inclusion, through the lens of wins and losses, is justified.

However, there’s more to this story.

Robert Behrens points out something interesting about this list: out of every team included, the Aggies are the only program to actually outperform expectations as regards their advanced statistical profile. So, can you really be called an underperformer if you’re exceeding expectations?

Here’s the reality of things—and this may sound strange—even though wins and losses are the point of playing the games, they are really not actually the best measure of team quality. This is mostly because of the disparity in schedules between different teams—SEC and MAC schedules are not the same, after all (and nor are all SEC schedules even created equal)—but it also has to do with some of the nature of the sport. 

Those exciting, seemingly random moments—a fumble through the end zone, a blocked kick, etc.—are part of why we all love football. It’s part of what makes the sport so great. It’s how upsets happen.

So, should we really say the Aggies are underachievers, or just unlucky? I think an argument can be made for the fact that it’s kind of split down the middle. Think about how many games the Ags have lost on the margins over the last two years. If a fourth down stop was called correctly in the 2022 Ole Miss game, for example, what kind of impact could that have had on the eventual outcome?

Jimbo Fisher played a brand of extremely low margin for error football. He tried to reduce randomness as much as possible in his style. That means, though, that small mistakes by the Aggies would be magnified in the outcomes of the games. And as those mistakes began to pile up—as the discipline in the program reportedly began to spiral over the last two years—the wins became leaner.

Yet, the factors that lead to winning were still very present in the Aggies’ play. They were remarkably efficient on both offense and defense against a tough schedule, especially for a five and then seven win team. In some areas, they were even outstanding. But they lost on the margins.

Look, wins and losses are ultimately what matters. At the end of the day, “good at the things that lead to winning” means squat if you don’t actually win. But an encouraging thing that we can take from this is that the x-factor that is causing the former to fail to translate to the latter—namely, coaching—looks to have taken a big step up.