PonyFans.com

From a Toad on the CUSA board below. If our AD said the things he is attributing, SMU needs a complete new administration right now. TCU better not get complacent. As down as we have been, I think SMU has a better coach and a better football facility than TCU right now. I'd take Bennett over Patterson any day. Stadiums are no comparison.

"Let me put it just like the A.D.'s from TCU and SMU put it on local radio in recent weeks.

1 -- The two schools have vastly different athletic goals.
SMU is just trying to get its football program back on its feet, which it hasn't been able to do since the death penalty. SMU football has been a laugh since then. Oh, they have a real nice on-campus stadium, but it's small, and unless Texas Tech comes to town they don't have a prayer of coming close to filling it up.
Meanwhile, TCU over the past five years has been one of the top football programs in the nation. Five bowls, four wins, and there are less than 20 teams that have gone to five bowls in the last five years. TCU has also put a lot of money into its athletic programs with the expressed goal of being accepted into the big-time conferences.

2 -- It's all about timing.
None of these changes are going to last 100 years. They'll last for the next round of TV packages. Then this will all start anew.
At this time, SMU football is in shambles. TCU football is hot. That means SMU has no appeal to any potential major conference while TCU does. Maybe next time around things will be different, but we're talking about today. And that's the way things are today. (Seven or eight years ago, you wouldn't even think about Marshall; but today, C-USA has to have some oogling eyes pointed at MU.) TCU has been told over the phone that if it were further east that it wouldn't have to worry about trying to find a home, that it would be taken care of. It's biggest problem at this point in time is its location.

3 -- SMU A.D. says pairing wouldn't make sense for either school.
SMU, for whatever its worth, at least had talks with the likes of Navy, Rice, etc., about forming a conference. SMU's A.D. also said a regional conference would make a lot of sense for SMU, but he expressly noted that TCU was not part of any of those conversations. As he put it, "TCU has more national goals." As he pointed out, TCU right now wouldn't and shouldn't be limiting itself to regional interests. TCU has to strike while the iron is hot.

4 -- History shows why SMU and TCU aren't necessarily linked at the hip.
TCU and UNLV were supposedly the two targets of interest for the original eight members of the WAC (now the MWC). But when they issued invitations, they invited every swining **** from west of the Mississippi and they're conference got weighed down by a load of dead weight.
When those eight broke away, they took UNLV with them (replacing UTEP). They wanted only eight. Now, they're talking expansion, but unlike what everybody is saying, they aren't looking for four teams to get to 12. Right now, they are focused on adding one school to get to nine teams (supposedly for ease of scheduling). TCU is right there on their list, right at the top. (And for what you hear about UH and Rice possibly being of interest to the MWC, you can forget all that bull. The only way they would ever be of interest to the MWC is if the Pac 10 came and stole BYU.)
But when C-USA was looking to add an 11th footballs school, you didn't see them jumping on an SMU bandwagon. Which, if you locked yourself into geographical thinking, that would have been a natural since they were so quick to bring in TCU. And it would have given them a 12th team, enough for a title game. But it didn't happen. Why? SMU has nothing to offer your conference. TCU did. TCU made commitments that SMU wouldn't make, and still won't. With the help of ESPN, TCU's made even more commitments, like putting on a bowl game. And TCU made commitments in other sports, building a state-of-the-art baseball stadium (SMU doesn't even play baseball), and making a huge upgrade in women's basketball (surpassing SMU) and showing that it was willing to spend to be a player in men's basketball (which is struggling, but far outdraws SMU's basketball in attendance).
Also, when a conference looks at the Metroplex, they know that neither school can promise to deliver the entire Metroplex via TV crowds. Only UT and A&M could do that. Together, TCU and SMU don't match either UT or A&M, but TCU can deliver more than SMU. But a conference still wants a presence in that media market -- and a door to recruiting Texas high schools. Taking one school from that media market opens that market. Taking two from that market doesn't do anymore than taking one. So you take one and open the door, and save that other spot in your conference to open a door somewhere else."

OH, yeah right.. we're not making a commitment. These Frogs are getting on my damn nerves. I'm starting to not want to be in the same conference as them based solely on their [deleted] poor attitudes.

Since when does playing baseball make you an athletic powerhouse anyway? Our men's and women's soccer programs wipe their arses with TCU's best efforts. Who has the new FB stadium anyway?

Sure, Moody could use some upgrading and that would help recruiting a lot. However, that's the only area in which I see we need to make more of a commitment. We'll see where TCU is in 5 years after the C-USA goes to ****.

Sounds like the letters to the editor in Sunday's Morning News - a few little frogs were talking like they're headed to BCS, and what an insult it would be to get in a conference with us. Amazing how a few good - not great - seasons can cloud their judgement, huh?

The biggest difference in commitment is TCU's ability to sign anyone who qualifies under NCAA standards and accept most JC hours for athlete majors. SMU desparately needs money for basketball but if I remember correctly we did win the last b'ball game against the Froggies. Frogs have about the same attendance problems that SMU has. In fact, if SMU football was as succesful, SMU would outdraw the Frogs. Not a very high step!!!

I work in Fort Worth and have for several years, but if you think the internet Frogs are not being friendly toward SMU, you ought to hear what the non internet Frogs attitude is that I do business with from time to time. And that attitude comes out if I bring up the subject on whether the Horned Frog faithful would like to be in any league with SMU again. The general consensus answer to that question almost every time is a resounding "not!"

I don't know why the TCU attitude has turned that direction, either, and I say that as an unbiased bystander on all of this. I know they say some things publicly and other things privately on this matter, though, that is for sure.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by OlePony:
<B>The biggest difference in commitment is TCU's ability to sign anyone who qualifies under NCAA standards and accept most JC hours for athlete majors. SMU desparately needs money for basketball but if I remember correctly we did win the last b'ball game against the Froggies. Frogs have about the same attendance problems that SMU has. In fact, if SMU football was as succesful, SMU would outdraw the Frogs. Not a very high step!!!</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



[This message has been edited by MeanGreenGem (edited 06-29-2003).]

Their attitude is especially hard to figure, when you consider that the margin of recent football games has gotten closer and closer in recent years, and that the all-time series between the schools is tied -- you can't get closer than that. But to hear the TCU types out here, you'd think the froggies were going to battle for a national title soon.
Ridiculous.

We should probably wash our hands of them. If everything works out right, we will be on the upswing when they are on the downswing. I'm sure their attitude will be a lot different then but we should say 'remember the way you treated us in 2003?' Sorry guys.

I can assure you that if the roles were reversed, then you all would be acting the same way. Truth of the matter is, we would like to have you all in the same conference, no questions asked. But you also can't expect us to take a step back to make that happen. Who knows what is going to happen when this conference realignment happens, but we have to work to get as close to BCS inclusion as possible, and right now a regional/private school conference is no where close to that. An amped up CUSA or MWC is more ideal, and if SMU would be included in one of those scenarios, we'd be all for it.

I think the internet minds see the past 5 years and our separation from you all in football and basketball as a reason not to be conference mates. But I think good things are in place at SMU and hopefully the committment has been made. The gap has narrowed in basketball, and I think Bennett is doing the right thing over there. By the way, I think Dement needs to be replaced. You all have had far too much talent in Moody not to win more. And yes, you did beat us this past season, for the first time in quite a while, but I think our season record speaks for itself on that one.

As for the facilities:
Ford is an awesome stadium and with the luxury boxes is a great place to see a game. Amon Carter on the other hand is piece of history, and with the recent renovations is continually improving. I'll give you guys the edge here, but we both need to start filling them.

Moody vs Daniel Meyer. Both are eye soars, but we've just resurfaced the court, added a new sound system, and put in a basketball training facility that makes our basketball facilities a bit nicer.

Baseball, well come to a game some time, the park is something else.

Soccer, well, you gotta us there. But our stadium is a great soccer stadium. It's tough to compete and keep a men's program going with no scholarships.

Track is tough to compare considering we run and you throw. Our facilities are newer and nicer.

Weight Room, though I haven't seen your new weight room, I know that we have made several renovations over the past few years that make our's something else, with a great view over the stadium. Toss up, I figure yours being brand new and all.

Other differences, Sears Cup SMU 41, TCU 64. By the way, although it was only a one point victory, we did beat the Frogs in basketball last year. Swimming, Golf = SMU (won NCAA qualification). Cross Country = SMU. Tennis TCU. Last but not least, why play an out of conference date with each other, when we could use up a conference date. Would you rather play a paycheck game or play us and vice versa? And would you rather play a conference date against East Carolina or us? Be careful how you answer that one it means a $100,000 per year.

[This message has been edited by EastStang (edited 06-30-2003).]

I would agree that TCU has earned the "right" to feel better. But, we are talking about a very unusual set of circumstances for SMU.

Our DP did set us back, but the disparity during the last decade is not a perpetual condition. There is nothing environmental or otherwise which guarantees TCU a permanent advantage.

As a matter of fact, we are more motivated to correct this current condition than they are. We are the hunter and committed to improvement. The very best they can reasonably expect to achieve is maintaining their current performance.

We are the underdog and wish we didn't have to go so far "Blazing Trails to New Traditions." But we will; sooner than they imagine. Therefore, partnering makes much more sense than cashing your BCS checks before they are cut.

And once again congrats on the Sears Cup, but the majority of the fans on these boards and those making the conference decisions are concerned with the revenue producing sports. And like I said in my post, SMU seems to have things headed in the right direction for football. But I don't see our situation as "no place to go" scenario. Yeah, you can't go much higher than 10 win seasons, but we can only hope to continue at this pace, and gain conference inclusion somewhere that merits bigger bowl payouts than the Liberty Bowl.

As for a conference game vs. East Carolina or SMU, sure we'd love to play someone across the metroplex versus across the country, especially expense wise. But right now, with the exception of last year, beating ECU garners more respect than beating SMU. Sometimes you have to spend a little extra cash to get where you want to go.

Yeah, but if SMU was in the same conference you could use that date for an OOC game against UCLA. Wouldn't beating them be worth more than beating East Carolina?

Definitely, but we haven't been too successful getting the UCLA's of the world to schedule us lately.

Great point, EastStang.

To move up, Mid-majors must use their OOC games to play challenging games. BCS schools trying to improve often use their OOC to beef up their record such as Kansas State did years ago.

Now that KSU is a consistent performer, they play a tougher schedule to get into the Top Ten. Your scheduling strategies evolve. For us, we want the Big XII games to up attendance and improve against BCS schools. You would think that TCU would want to do the same.

[This message has been edited by Water Pony (edited 06-30-2003).]