PonyFans.com

July 7, 2005, 1:25AM



There's a method to TCU's madness
Eschewing rivals to join far-flung Mountain West serves to advance Frogs' ambitions
By TERRANCE HARRIS
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
ACROSS THE GREAT DIVIDE
Eight Conference USA schools are closer to TCU than the nearest one in the Mountain West. The approximate distances from TCU to schools in each league:
C-USA Miles Mountain West Miles
SMU 40 New Mexico 629
Houston 266 Air Force 720
Rice 266 Colorado State 932
Tulsa 310 Wyoming 1,014
Memphis 496 UNLV 1,195
Southern Miss. 525 BYU 1,203
Tulane 555 Utah 1,251
UTEP 609 San Diego State 1,321


Eric Hyman has little use for dispelling rumors.

But the former TCU athletic director wants it clear the decision to move the Horned Frogs to their fourth conference in a decade was not about SMU or the desire not be realigned with their Metroplex partner.

Instead, the jump from Conference USA to the Mountain West Conference had everything to do with the private school's desire to be a player on the national stage. The Horned Frogs officially made the leap Friday, the same day Hyman was breaking in his new office as athletic director at South Carolina.

"Not one time did we make a decision based on what SMU was doing," said Hyman, who spent nearly eight years as athletic director at TCU. "It had nothing to do with SMU.

"If you go back to the goals and objectives of what TCU laid out several years ago, they wanted to be a nationally prominent program. What we tried to do is build a road map to try to achieve those objectives."


Goodbye, C-USA
In the minds of the decision makers at TCU, that meant changing conferences for a third time since the Southwest Conference disbanded in 1996. That meant forging a partnership with eight universities that met secretly and decided to break away from TCU and the rest of the Western Athletic Conference in 1998.

That ultimately meant exiting C-USA, a league whose realignment would have placed TCU and its fans within driving distance of natural rivalries such as SMU, Rice, Houston, Tulsa and even Tulane in the new West Division.

Now, the Frogs will have to wait for rivalries to be born at a distance against New Mexico, BYU, Utah, UNLV, San Diego State, Colorado State, Wyoming and Air Force.

It's a scenario that has some puzzled.

"We wish the TCU people the best moving forward, though we are still scratching our heads a little bit over their decision making," C-USA commissioner Britton Bankowsky said. "But nevertheless we respect it."

Officials at TCU aren't looking back. Instead they are looking to the future and the possibility that one day the Mountain West will become a player in the exclusive club known as the Bowl Championship Series.

The league realized a mild breakthrough after last season when undefeated Utah became the first non-BCS school to earn a berth into a lucrative BCS game — the Fiesta Bowl — in January. Before then, BCS leagues Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-10, ACC, SEC and Big East along with Notre Dame had kept the invites to their four bowls to themselves.

TCU had its chance to be the groundbreaker on the non-BCS front in 2003, but an undefeated season and BCS hopes were derailed by a late-season loss to C-USA foe Southern Mississipi. The Frogs finished the campaign 11-2 after a loss to Boise State in the Fort Worth Bowl.

"This (the move to the Mountain West) places us with a conference that has made unbelievable progress in a short period of time," said new TCU athletic director Danny Morrison, who has been on the job for nearly three weeks after leaving his post as commissioner of the Southern Conference. "It has outstanding schools, both athletically and academically, and it's well-positioned nationally for a BCS berth.

"That is a credit to the institutions that make up the Mountain West Conference."


Doing the math
Still, there is no getting around how far TCU seems willing to go to achieve its goal of being a player in big-time college athletics. In addition to the absence of any natural rivalries, the Frogs likely will incur significant cost increases in travel to MWC schools for its 19 teams.

New Mexico will be the closest member school at an estimated distance of 629 miles from the TCU campus in Fort Worth, while the swings to schools such as San Diego State, Utah, BYU, UNLV and Wyoming will all exceed 1,000 miles.

Hyman said he hired an accountant to do the math on how much more travel would cost in the MWC than the old single-division version of C-USA, which could include trips to places such as South Florida, Charlotte, Louisville and East Carolina. The increased expense came to less than $200,000 annually.

"You would be surprised when you look at it," Hyman said. "The difference really wasn't that significant."

And MWC commissioner Craig Thompson vows that what difference there is should be more than made up for through increased revenues generated by conference members. This past year, Thompson said his league had a record-base distribution of $2.6 million to each member school.

TCU, which has had 10 wins or more in three of the last four seasons, opens fertile Texas recruiting ground for MWC schools and also brings in the lucrative Dallas-Fort Worth television market. MWC is wasting little time taking advantage, putting the Horned Frogs-Utah matchup in front of an ESPN viewing audience in their inaugural MWC game Sept. 15.

"Hopefully, we are going to be generating new revenues that are going to effectively eat up any travel cost," Thompson said. "It is going to be more expensive because there is no getting in a 15-passenger van and drive over here."


'West-oriented'
As far as the eroding of rivalries, Hyman simply shrugs off that notion.

"I'm not trying to be disrespectful to any schools, but nobody had ever heard of some of the schools like East Carolina and South Florida," Hyman said.

"But everybody is familiar with Utah, BYU and Air Force and all of the others."

He says that school officials studied home attendance records the past several years and found little difference when the MWC schools came to visit versus the C-USA programs and the Frogs' so-called natural rivals, including SMU.

"The mindset (at TCU) is West-oriented," Hyman said. "If you look at some of the attendance (of some C-USA opponents), it would surprise you. It's not what you thought it would be, and I've got 20 years of factual numbers.

"I know when we go to SMU, we sell a ton of tickets. But when they come to our place, they don't sell as much. It's great for the Metroplex and great visibility for both schools, so we always want to continue to play them."

And that TCU will do, keeping SMU on the schedule consistently for the next several years, with this season an exception.


Not like OU vs. UT
All those close to the situation seem to agree that TCU's shifts, while perhaps unorthodox, do not appear to have anything to do with distancing TCU from SMU. Both entered the WAC in 1996, and both were expected to jump to C-USA as a pair, but SMU did not receive the invitation.

"I don't sense that their decision was a function of them not wanting to be in the same configuration as a particular university," Banowsky said.

While Hyman certainly concurs, he also suggests that the rivalry isn't as heated as some might have been led to believe.

"It's a great game, but it's not like a rivalry like Texas versus Texas A&M or Texas versus Oklahoma," Hyman said. "I would have loved to see more passion in that rivalry. It's passionate but not the extent you would like to have."

[email protected]

that last paragraph tells it all...the SMU/TCU rivalry is just not what it should be...and that's because SMU isn't doing it's part. If SMU was competing at the same level TCU has in recent years in football...and if both programs step it up a notch and start reaching the post season in men's hoops, there's no reason the rivalry can't attract national attention. We'll never be Texas/OU or Texas/A$M, but no reason to think we wouldn't be an attractive Thursday night game to kick off "rivalry week"

charleston - your statement, "We'll never be Texas/OU or Texas/A$M, but no reason to think we wouldn't be an attractive Thursday night game to kick off "rivalry week"

you're right because neither school will ever allow it to happen plus we're not apart of the bcs-bs

It was interesting that TCU studied the old CUSA alignment for travel, not the new one. I am sure that women's tennis & soccer travel to CUSA is going to be much less than MWC. The gamble is that a Utah, BYU, or TCU continued success will force the hand of the BCS. Outside of TCU's success of a few years ago, only Boise State seems to have a run of years with 10 win seasons. With the changes in coaches on the non BCS teams, long term successful programs will be difficult to maintain. The Big East should have a re-birth with new leadership at Pitt and Louisville now in with the 'big boys'. I'm sorry to say, the TCU gamble is highly risky and very expensive.

The move for TCU is rational from a narrow and wishful thinking point of view, including:

- TCU will compete successfully against these schools year after year. An undefeated season becomes critical, otherwise you are simply Baylor, Northwestern or Vanderbilt, who get big pay-offs for being in a BCS conference without earning the income.
- Football is king with BB a younger brother. Non-revenue sports are hurt with a terrible travel schedule and greater costs.
- Exposure for student-athletes with their family, friends and fans is not appealing.
- The assumption that the MWC will break into a permanent spot with the BCS conferences is a real stretch. I believe this can not happen. First, the new BE will be lucky to keep their spot and, if you want to really broaden access to the BCS bowls, the best and fastest way is to do it is to eliminate the new BE, not replace it with another non-BCS conference and then guarantee a spot in the BCS bowl system to the ONE school out of all the non-BCS conferences, who earns it by their record. That way the BCS can say they are inclusive. Any other spots will simply go to BCS schools anyway.

The result is fools gold for the Frogs. I understand their ambitions, but the logic doesn't work.

I don't believe TCU is near as dumb as some believe. TCU after 3 moves had to make a long term decision. Despite what some of you may believe there will likely be more changes in conference affiliations 5-6 years from now and they most likely will adversely affect CUSA in the East. I for one do not believe a conference made up of a nucleus of the CUSA West teams will get squat from national TV networks nor will its large concentration of non-competitive private schools be attractive to bowls. I also think there is a VERY REAL possibility SMU, Rice, Tulsa, Tulane et al get dumped in the future or we end up in some sort of Magnolia conference. That's the end of the road when that happens folks-TCU on the other hand is in a much more stable conference whose future will only get better. TCU's gamble is that over the long term the MWC will be the more stable competitive conference.

First, if CUSA has defections to the only candidate that I see would be the Big East, it would probably be Marshall ,UCF and ECU, and I rate that as highly unlikely for many reasons. I sincerely doubt that Marshall would be added because WVA and Pitt would veto it. UCF and ECU have a long way to go to prove they belong in a BCS football conference (as they are worse than even us). Memphis has been whoring themselves for an invite, but I don't see Syracuse, et al. wanting to add a team that far south. So, my view is that CUSA will probably remain about the same and if we lose Marshall, ECU or UCF it will not be the end of the world. The remaining 9 schools would be a decent conference, UAB, Memphis, USM, Tulane, Tulsa and the Texas schools. We would have teams in three major markets (SMU, Rice/UH, and Tulane) and two secondary markets (Memphis and UTEP). We might add Louisana Tech or not. If Tulsa, SMU, UH, UTEP, and Memphis can get their basketball game together, it would generate some interest.

Stallion wrote:I don't believe TCU is near as dumb as some believe. TCU after 3 moves had to make a long term decision. Despite what some of you may believe there will likely be more changes in conference affiliations 5-6 years from now and they most likely will adversely affect CUSA in the East. I for one do not believe a conference made up of a nucleus of the CUSA West teams will get squat from national TV networks nor will its large concentration of non-competitive private schools be attractive to bowls. I also think there is a VERY REAL possibility SMU, Rice, Tulsa, Tulane et al get dumped in the future or we end up in some sort of Magnolia conference. That's the end of the road when that happens folks-TCU on the other hand is in a much more stable conference whose future will only get better. TCU's gamble is that over the long term the MWC will be the more stable competitive conference.

At least someone gets it...

Stallion, explain to me why the BCS would ever choose to expand their conference affliliation, like MWC, unless forced to do so. Why would the PAC-10 ever expand, they are in the BCS now and not ever likely to fall out. Why split the pie further. Why would the Big East expand beyond one more team (for scheduling purposes) if they remain a BCS conference. And if they get the boot, which they might, which CUSA team would get them back in. None! It would take a Penn State or Notre Dame. I say lets focus on our current conference. which I like and support. and start winning. This could be exciting. Play our way into a BCS bowl like Utah. It's hell recruiting against the BCS and Big XII, but with work and luck we might do it. The future is not rosy, but it's not black either, and we have to try. So LIGHTEN up with the predictions of doom. Beat Baylor first!

It doesn't have anything to do with the BCS -and everything to do with SMU ending up in a Magnolia Conference type situation with little national TV prodpects or bowl opportunities. TCU has sheltered itself from that possibility.

Stallion

TCU 'Protecting' themselves by going to the MWC but at what cost - Does TCU with large costs & budget losses with no local rivals do better in the MWC than a SMU with a 'lesser image' conference (that assumes that the MWC is an image conference, which is debatable). Or does a Baylor (with limited success) by being in the BCS have better prospects than a successful non BCS program, no matter what the conference. The key as AusTX Pony points out is to be successful, no matter where you are and something as fans we should focus on...TCU in moving to the MWC does not improve their ability to succeed on the field, but gambles on a possible higher image (which being in the West is difficult, see Pac 10).

Aw, come on, the Frogs'll be fine in the MWC. All they have to do is go 10-2 every year.

The MWC is a stronger conference than the C-USA, and the new C-USA is stronger than the old WAC that SMU left. Thus, TCU did improve itself and so has SMU. IF, and I repeat IF, the BCS is ever forced to expand, the MWC has the best chance of joining their club. Having said all of that, I don't look for any changes soon unless one of the BCS conference realigns. Whatever happens to the C-USA will be initiated somewhere else, just like this latest set of changes. So tell me, what BCS conferecne changes does anyone expect in the next five years. If the C-USA loses a school, La Tech will join us. As for being a Magnolia Conference, the
C-USA West is nearly there now with four private schools. Our BIG problem is home game attendance at Tulsa, Tulane, Rice and SMU. No matter how much you stir the pot, the porrage tastes the same.

Here's what I don't get. You can talk all you want about TCU "protecting themselves from a Magnolia Conference scenario." That's fine, it's a legitimate theory, it just means Eric Hyman is a bold faced liar. But I'd like someone to explain to me what SDSU, Wyoming and UNLV bring to the table, in terms of travelling fans, tradition, or anything else, that SMU, Rice and Tulsa don't. Mr. Hyman says we don't travel well. Yes, that's been well-documented. But how many thousands are they expecting from SDSU, Wyoming and UNLV? Must be expecting a lot. Air Force & BYU are the only schools that MIGHT show their faces in that sh*tbag frog stadium. And that's it.

College football is cyclical. With very rare exceptions, teams just don't win 10 games every single year. Another 5-win season (which is a distinct possibility with their new OOC and altitude), and watch their attendance go straight down the commode, and all the work they've done to get where they are with it.

Personally, I think UTEP is a better addition to the conference, so I'm happier with them anyway. But just think. TCU, in the short term, could have stayed in CUSA. They could have annually run the table against some local, traditional opponents. Could have played in the CUSA championship game every year (and if they're as great as they say they are, they would have won it every year--right?). And the only thing people would talk about is "what a great coach ol' Gary Patterson is!" Because you know what? Apparently, nobody cares who you beat! your W-L record is the only thing that counts (Frogs of all people should know that, after what they did in 2003). But they'd rather chase goats. Oh well, good luck frogs.

Seriously, somebody please extoll the virtues of SDSU and UNLV. I am eager to hear what's so great about these schools. Then I'll understand why this was not a lateral move.

I could have predicted TCUs move 6 months before it happened. In fact, I did. It was a no brainer. The reason is that if there is another round of shifts as speculated above, as there probably will be at some point, TCU will be welcomed back with open arms. We (CUSA West) are their backup plan. The reason is they win, and they know we would take them back. ADs change, presidents changes, commissioners change. The only risk to TCUs move is a few hundred thousand more in travel per year than old CUSA. Big deal. The risk-reward makes sense. Its always funny when we sit around and count beans and worry about somebody else's money without any real facts.