FROG Board: \"Forget the Merger\" ...

[NavyCrimson]

Forget a Merger
C-USA's commish was pretty clear

interesting...looks like the walls are closing in on the frogs ...

here's the link...

<A HREF="http://www.killerfrogs.com/forums2/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=8381&s=1ad5cf2be99ee5ba62f191239ac8c16c" TARGET=_blank>http://www.killerfrogs.com/forums2/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=8381&s=1ad5cf2be99e e5ba62f191239ac8c16c</A>



[This message has been edited by Navy&Crimson (edited 07-07-2003).]

[Nacho]

I think it goes:
denial
anger
bargaining
depression
acceptance
or something like that

[This message has been edited by Nacho (edited 07-07-2003).]

[FloridaMustang]

Ahh.. I love it.

[gostangs]

I'll love it when we win on the field - the rest of this is premature yapping.

[Pony Fan]

I agree with winning on the field but it is still fun for them to realize they are "the same old TCU."

[ponyte]

Ahhh. It is good to see that someone else has just as incompetent a commissioner as we have in the WAC.

I wish no team harm in all this chaos, including TCU. However, I also hope that we can make some gains in all the confusion.

[ReedFrawg]

I realize there are a small number of fans who come on this board and berate SMU, but keep in mind that a lot of TCU fans still pull for SMU to do well when they aren't playing us. If we could choose between one BCS conference that included SMU and one that didn't, I'm sure almost every TCU fan would prefer to have SMU in the conference. We are just in a better position at this time to try and make it into a BCS conference and I'm sure SMU would be trying to do the same thing if the roles were reversed. Most of us just want what is best for TCU. Time will tell if we make the right decision(s).

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Pony Fan:
<B>I agree with winning on the field but it is still fun for them to realize they are "the same old TCU."</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[hahaha]

you guys blast TCU, but they have it down. Their winning now, SMU isn't...bottom line. They don't pull off top 25 recruiting classes, but they still end up 10-2, 9-3...while every year SMU says that they have the "best recruiting class since the DP." My prediction: TCU continues to dominate SMU. And no, I don't go to TCU...

[JasonB]

You MUST have attended TCU. It looks like "their" still teaching "there" students well .

[SMU Blue]

ReedFrawg, I agree with you. You make some good points. I'd certainly like to see us in the same conference as TCU. It just makes the most sense.

It looks like your posts are as accurate as your foot.

[Diehard Pony]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by hahaha:
<B>you guys blast TCU, but they have it down. Their winning now, SMU isn't...bottom line. They don't pull off top 25 recruiting classes, but they still end up 10-2, 9-3...while every year SMU says that they have the "best recruiting class since the DP." My prediction: TCU continues to dominate SMU. And no, I don't go to TCU...</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You must have missed last years football game that was won by TCU but in anything but dominating fashion, and we won the basketball matchup.

Also, we don't rank the recruiting classes. People like Rivals do, and their numbers say we had among the best, if not the best class among non-BCS schools. Better then many BCS schools.

It seems to me your statement is pretty void of facts.



[This message has been edited by Diehard Pony (edited 07-08-2003).]

[bhop]

I refuse to gloat until its all said and done. SMU has played the conference game three times since the mid-1990s and lost big every time. (SWC, WAC-split up, C-USA). If we get invited to join CUSA or form a new regional conference, great. But its still very possible that we could not be invited to join another conference, the MWC could raid the western WAC, and then we'd be in deep ****.

With regard to TCU people, they have a higher opinion of their football program than does the rest of the world. Over the past five years TCU has won a lot of games. But TCU is hardly a traditional powerhouse. In addition, re-alignment is not about wins and losses so much as its about money, television, and attendence. The big boys aren't interested in adding 5,000 undergrad private schools that average 25,000 per home game, don't travel well, and don't have a lot of national TV appeal or tradition. It doesn't matter if the school is called TCU, SMU, or something else.

Say for example that TCU (or SMU for that matter) joins the Big-12, wins a bunch of games one year, and is invited to play in the Rose or Orange Bowl. There is no way in hell TCU could travel enough people to fill up even close to half of either stadium. The bowls just aren't interested in having those kinds of teams play in their games.

Plus, when TCU joined CUSA, its not like people didn't know it was an unwieldly, spread-out conference. Yet TCU folks act surprised that CUSA is now teetering on the edge of a major shift. Despite our desire to join CUSA, it remains, in its current form, a geographically unstable conference that is ripe for the picking by the Big East and others.

So, I don't wish TCU ill. But I do think they are deluding themselves. What did they think? That by winning the Mobile, Alabama bowl a couple of times they would waltz right into the Big-12. Unless the system changes then TCU will remain the best mid-major team in the country for the rest of time.

[ReedFrawg]

Thanks for the compliment!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SMU Blue:
<B>ReedFrawg, I agree with you. You make some good points. I'd certainly like to see us in the same conference as TCU. It just makes the most sense.

It looks like your posts are as accurate as your foot. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Southland]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by bhop:
<B> The big boys aren't interested in adding... ...schools that don't travel well, and don't have a lot of national TV appeal or tradition. It doesn't matter if the school is called TCU, SMU, or something else... ...The bowls just aren't interested in having those kinds of teams play in their games. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well put... You could say that about every non-BCS school and 10-15% of the current BCS schools. Really, there are only 40 or so schools that have real value in the Television world.

The speculation that CUSA or MWC might get BCS status is foolish under the current bylaws. In order for a conference to hold BCS status, their conference champion must average a top 12 BCS ranking over a four year period... not a single non-BCS school is even close.

This is why some are speculating that the Big East will eventually lose BCS status, because only Syracuse has appeared in the final Top 12 over the life of the BCS contract.

[Southland]

Non-BCS schools in final BCS Rankings

1998: Tulane (10) - CUSA
1999: Marshall (12) - MAC
2000: TCU (14) - WAC
2001: none
2002: none


2004 Big East schools in final BCS Rankings

1998: Syracuse (15)
1999: none
2000: none
2001: none
2002: West Virginia (15)