Mountain West is not a step up

by **LakeHighlandsPony** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:29 am

Have you looked at the Mountain West standings. Only 2 teams have a winning record and 1 of those winning teams has been beaten by the Ponies. I just want to hear somebody from Tarrant County Univ. to admit it was a mistake.

by **Billy Joe** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:10 am

TCU joined the Mountain West with hope it can obtain BCS status in the next few years. TCU obviously did not feel C-USA had as good of a chance.

by **Frog2003** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:24 am

LakeHighlandsPony wrote:Have you looked at the Mountain West standings. Only 2 teams have a winning record and 1 of those winning teams has been beaten by the Ponies. I just want to hear somebody from Tarrant County Univ. to admit it was a mistake.

Did you look at C-DOA lately? What did CUSA West average last week? 12,000 fans was probably a little generous.

And you think that we regret it for one second? :lol:

by **that's great raplh** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:32 am

i'd rather be in CUSA than Mountain West anyday - the east side is where its at

by **HixsontoLeVias** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:33 am

...there ya go, true SMUness...we stink..joke of D-1..we go NOTHING!!!! Players, fans, hope...but, by George, we going to rag arse on tcu..how pitiful, man...5-1..going to a bowl game..playing with BYU, Air Force, Utah...yeah, they stink.....what a foolish post.

by **LakeHighlandsPony** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:08 am

That's the basis of my post. We stink bigtime and we beat the MWC Champs. I have not forgotten how they were too good for the GMAC bowl and too good for C-USA. Hixson don't beleive the poo-poo that they did this for strategic reasons. They did not want to be in a conference with SMU. I also was making the point that the WAC and CUSA may be metter than the MWC this year.

by **ReedFrawg** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:34 am

LakeHighlandsPony wrote:That's the basis of my post. We stink bigtime and we beat the MWC Champs. I have not forgotten how they were too good for the GMAC bowl and too good for C-USA. Hixson don't beleive the poo-poo that they did this for strategic reasons. They did not want to be in a conference with SMU. I also was making the point that the WAC and CUSA may be metter than the MWC this year.

Compare attendance numbers from this weekend and then talk about a conference being a joke. I think this is the primary reason that we moved to the MWC - and this goes hand-in-hand with someday gaining BCS access. No, I am not saying this will happen (at least not any time soon) but the BCS is about money and that comes from fans who will spend money and go to games. I really hope SMU can turn things around...you guys have a lot more loyalty than I do as I would have given up on the SMU admin a long time ago.

by **Stallion** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:42 am

Yeah I bet TCU had more butts in the seat than SMU, Rice, Houston and Tulane COMBINED. I've considered TCU's decision to go to the MWC an interesting 5 year experiment. Really the experiment looking pretty good right now. I have always been fearful of being in a conference stuck with these schools but we'll see how it turns out. SMU fans that criticize TCU's decision out of hand really don't have too much on the ball-they don't understand college football or where its going. I hope CUSA suceeds and surpasses the MWC but I'm not sure I'd bet on it.

by **ReedFrawg** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:52 am

I agree and I still have my doubts. It was a risky move but I think it was worth taking as we still have options if things were to not work out.

Stallion wrote:Yeah I bet TCU had more butts in the seat than SMU, Rice, Houston and Tulane COMBINED. I've considered TCU's decision to go to the MWC an interesting 5 year experiment. Really the experiment looking pretty good right now. I have always been fearful of being in a conference stuck with these schools but we'll see how it turns out. SMU fans that criticize TCU's decision out of hand really don't have too much on the ball-they don't understand college football or where its going. I hope CUSA suceeds and surpasses the MWC but I'm not sure I'd bet on it.

by **2112** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 10:08 am

How President Turner could have that big "Commitment" announcement, and then walk down the dwindling boulevard, and look at all of the empty seats in Moody and Ford, and expect us to keep quiet is insane.

by **SMU Football Blog** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:30 pm

http://www.bcsfootball.org/files/2005-long1.pdf

TCU is 21st in the BCS standings. Wow. Inagine if they hadn't lost that one game.

by **Billy Joe** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:40 pm

The Comitment was a big lie. What a joke. It is a sad day when SMU cannot even pull 15K to a football game. Years of losing will do that to attendance. Remember, we are bad for a reason. It is not by accident. I also do not understand why the people on this board complain about TCU. TCU is a great example of how to compete in Division 1-A sports. TCU has made the most of their situation when they were not invited to the Big 12. TCU has commited to Division 1-A sports. SMU has not. Compare the records. The proof is in the pudding.

by **EastStang** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:55 pm

I think this year the Frogs haven't felt the full love of the MWC. I don't think they get Wyoming, UNLV and SDS at home until next year. Last week they of course played Army who is always a great draw attendance wise (which has nothing to do with their conference affiliation). They got Utah (coming off a BCS bid), BYU and I think either AFA or CSU at home this season. I'm sure they'll still do better at the gate than SMU even with some of the other teams. Their problem (BCS wise) is that the MWC is a regional conference with few large markets in it. Ft. Collins, Colorado Springs, Laramie, and Provo are hardly top 10 markets. Just like Boise is not a top 10 market (despite strings of sellouts). Las Vegas, San Diego, Ft. Worth, and Salt Lake are at best secondary markets. I think in the long run, it will be a mistake for them. CUSA has at least Orlando, Dallas, Houston and the city formerly known as New Orleans. It also has El Paso, Memphis and Birmingham in the tier 2 variety. In the MWC class of city there are of course: Starksville, Huntington and Wilmington. At least they're in the eastern division. Unless there is another major realignment (which could of course hurt the MWC), I don't see any room for them in CUSA.

by **LakeHighlandsPony** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 3:08 pm

Even TCU homer Newy Scruggs admits it was a bad decision.

by **Metropolis777** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 3:24 pm

Shouldn't y'all (LakeHighlandsPony in particular) be more concerned with the fact that your own team finds a new way to lose a game that they should have won every week (Baylor, @Marshall, ECU) rather than being concerned about our move. Y'all beat us and had everything going for y'all and didn't capitalize one bit on it.

Yes, we moved because we didn't want to be in the same conference as SMU. We also didn't want to be in the same conference as Houston, Rice, or Tulane either. What do all of these schools have in common? They refuse to make a commitment to winning. So, they continually lose to bad teams in front of crowds of 15,000 or less. Then they make excuses about it and their fans send back tickets and refuse to go to games anymore. That's really the kind of company we want to be with!!!! Go over to the CUSA board and look. The East schools are getting fed up with it very quickly too. Instead of worrying about us, you should be worrying about your own team.

Mountain West is not a step up

Mountain West is not a step up

Re: Mountain West is not a step up

Mtn West

RE

Who is online