PonyFans.com

Could someone, Froggie or otherwise please explain how a move to the MWC benefits them? I am very curious and have asked this question numerous times, and still haven't figured this out. As it so happens, the company I work for is a major sponsor of college sports, and I do get all the numbers for advertising, and from what I'm hearing and what I'm seeing, this much is certain:

1) The CUSA's contracts will probably be negotiated down.

2) There is no way the MWC will get a BCS bid. In fact, despite all the hand-wringing about quality of Big East ball, the Big East won't lose it's bid. For one, without the northeast markets, my company wouldn't pay nearly as much money. Secondly, even if the Big East loses it's bid, there is no way it's going to the MWC, I'm looking at Neilson numbers and the WAC, a league I was never a fan of, is outdrawing it. If we're not paying top dollar to advertise on the WAC, there is little chance that the next MWC contract, even with Boise, Fresno, TCU and Hawaii added is going to be much better, if any better than the watered-down CUSA deal. So this realistically can't be a BCS or financial move.

3) Travel costs are going to be much higher. I hear the number $200,000 kicked around. Somebody's dreaming. Sending the women's tiddywinks and men's solo synchronized swimming teams (or whatever) to Utah every year adds up quickly; it is the primary reason cited by TCU for leaving the WAC.

4) The East Coast media, oh-so-influential in polls and bowls, the last time I checked, was on the east coast (hence the name- clever how that worked out). Playing games in the Mountain time zone, even if you pef a few mid-week games, isn't exactly going to provide more exposure to the media.

4) The recruiting footprint is weird. I know virtually nothing about the advantages of playing schools another time zone away will do for a program, so I'll just say it looks like this doesn't help.

5) TCU would be THE mover and shaker in the CUSA, a top level program that gets plenty of respect. The MWC is owned by BYU, AF and to a lesser degree CSU, with BYU being the driver. TCU isn't about to supplant BYU from the drivers seat, and BYU is the only MWC program who is a serious threat to join the BCS. Also these same MWC teams left TCU out to dry several years ago. Does TCU think that they'll be treated better this time?

6) SOS can't be it either. The new CUSA may have a few weak teams, but after all, TCU had Army on the Schedule and played nobody OOC. It seems to me that TCU would want four or five winnable games on the schedule in conference, and be free to schedule tougher OOC mathcups; plus the CUSA just added Marshall (tough program), Central Florida (up-and-coming), to USM (always tough) and ECU, (down now, but will be back). Memphis and Houston look improved as well.

I just don't see how a move helps TCU. I frankly couldn't care less if the Frogs stay or go- they haven't been in league with us for a few years, and the republic survived. Frankly, it isn't an enjoyable rivalry anymore, and not because we've been doing badly. It just doesn't matter anymore and has become bitter. However, thus far TCU has made impressive strides and has shown a commitment to it's athletics programs, and has made smart moves. Obviously, they have to look at everything. However, I don't see any angle where this deal would make sense. Somebody please explain it...

Great posts. I've asked the same questions and get "well they're better teams out there." Or "Maybe we'll get a BCS bid which we won't get in CUSA". I'll go out on a limb here, as I said on the CUSA board, the MWC will get a BCS bid when the angel Moronai brings the golden tablets to Salt Lake City. In other words, it will never happen.

ever wonder if those tcu suckas are playin' everyone, to assert their bargaining power in the new CUSA. They could be playing with the MWC so that CUSA will let thm only have to play 6 or 7 conference games - freeing up the schedule to play bigger non-conference opponents

If I was in tcu's shoes, that's how I would work this. Sort of take the anti-BCS approach, play soft conference scheldule and a tough OOC schedule (instead of loading up on KState v. Southwest New Mexico Nun's College type games for the first weeks of the season)

if you can't see the benefits to being in the MWC rather than being in the western division of CUSA with three of the worst, most apathetic and athletically non-competitive programs in Division 1A over a LONG period of time then you ain't looking very hard. Not denying there aren't negatives but there are clearly benefits. As Turner said SMU's goal was to get as many private schools together in one conference as possible. If those programs insists on their present academic mission then that is a suicide end game for those schools in Division 1A which will eventually result in a conference with no national TV contract, and no bowl affiliations. TCU does not want to be tied to the anchor that is the private schools who really don't care if they win or lose.

There is another angle to add to the "it does not make sense" equation. How much will it cost TCU to leave CUSA in exit fees and entrance fees for MWC?

Add to that all the negotiating going on right now by CUSA to sweeten the pot for TCU to stay. There is no telling what may be done. Like increase the share a team can keep from bowl proceeds or when their team is broadcast or forgiving some of their original entry fee if they stay. It could become a deal they can not refuse and I am sure they are negotiating the heck out of it by dangling an MWC bid.

Assume TCU is as perpetually good as they think they are and assume TCU stays:

TCU's future nonconference schedule includes Stanford (2007-8), Oklahoma (2005), Texas Tech (2004, 2006), Arkansas (2009). Oh and they have Baylor (2006-7 and 2010-11).

Add to that, they can free up the SMU nonconference game and add whoever they want. As long as they don't schedule Vandy or Navy again, they'll improve their strength of schedule.

Add to that, TCU playing in a C-USA championship game (if they don't go to a conference championship game, they ain't getting a BCS bid anyway) against Marshall, UCF or whoever.

From where I stand, I don't see what they are complaining about schedule wise. That schedule is tougher than the one they have this year.

Originally posted by Stallion:
if you can't see the benefits to being in the MWC rather than being in the western division of CUSA with three of the worst, most apathetic and athletically non-competitive programs in Division 1A over a LONG period of time then you ain't looking very hard. Not denying there aren't negatives but there are clearly benefits. As Turner said SMU's goal was to get as many private schools together in one conference as possible. If those programs insists on their present academic mission then that is a suicide end game for those schools in Division 1A which will eventually result in a conference with no national TV contract, and no bowl affiliations. TCU does not want to be tied to the anchor that is the private schools who really don't care if they win or lose.

Stallion... we all know your agruement. I agree that it is foo'ish for our powers that be to follow thier lofty ideals and build the "great private school" league. But I was throwing out the idea that tcu may be using its percetived power and playing both sides to get a best deal.

You might get these suckas to listen to you more, if you mix up your takes a little (or at least respond directly to the post instead of changing the subject to SMU anticipated failures if it continues with any form of the Ken Pye model

I was talking about the first poster who said he had searched and searched and couldn't find a single reason to join MWC. I mean C'mon.

Hyman has stated that he wants to compete at the highest levels, so you can’t blame him for being more than a little concerned about pairing up with perennial losers Rice, SMU and Tulsa, plus those 2 stable schools, Houston and Tulane. Oh, I forgot…both Houston and Tulane threatened their alumni with shutting down their programs in the past 9 MONTHS!!

You really think he’s going to embrace this without looking at other options?

MWC may not be perfect, but take a hard, honest look at the alternative.

We can only hope that they stay.

Originally posted by Stallion:
I was talking about the first poster who said he had searched and searched and couldn't find a single reason to join MWC. I mean C'mon.

<img src="http://www.brown.edu/Athletics/Fencing/songs/touche.jpg" alt=" - " />

very interesting point!

Some might call me an uninformed idiot, but the MWC makes no sense to me either. No one from either of these conferences is getting a BCS invite. Ever. Given that, it makes more sense to stay home, and quit trying to play pro football. You can call that giving up, or you can call it realistic. I choose the latter.

If the BCS is broken up (unlikely), then that changes things. But spending money to chase money, though definitely their right, is just amazingly dumb in my opinion.

guess you got your answer then-they have decided not to give up and right now they are undefeated, 9-0, with a shot at a BCS Bowl and their 6th straight bowl game. Boy this giving up BS ain't the SMU I went to.

I don't care if TCU is 90-0, over the last eight years. They will never, ever be a BCS team. Niether would we be, with the same record. If you're an SMU fan cause you think we're going to get invited to the Big 12 someday, you need to find another reason you want to play football, because that ain't it.

I remember talk a couple of years ago that the PAC 10 might try to raid MWC for Colorado State and/or Brigham Young and Big 12 for Colorado. Also, that Big 10 is interested in Mizzou. Has anyone heard anymore about this? It might make the MWC less attractive to TCU.