T.C.U. Move To Mountain West

[50's PONY]

Posted on Sun, Nov. 09, 2003

TCU needs to think better, not closer
By Gil LeBreton
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

If you could live in a better neighborhood, wouldn't you?

Better schools. Better roads. Better neighbors. A better future.

When you strip away the Dairy Queens and Phil Bennett threats, the decision that awaits TCU athletic administrators is no more complicated than that.

There is no Bekins van parked outside of the TCU athletic offices. Nobody has invited the Horned Frogs anywhere. Yet.

Rumor has it that there's a football season still going on -- for TCU, a possible season for the ages. University officials have had enough trouble keeping the civic focus on the football team without bumping it off the front page with talk of a new conference.

But the e-mail continues to come in bunches. The question of whether to stay in a restructured Conference USA or jump to the Mountain West Conference has divided Frogs fans like no issue before.

And I still don't get it. I don't understand the arguments in favor of old rivalries, old neighbors and the supposedly good, old, new C-USA.

Last week the conference exchanged, in part, Louisville, Cincinnati and South Florida for Tulsa, Rice and SMU.

A fine trade, if you're trying to cram for your calculus mid-term.

But once inside the stadium gates, what do these alleged "old rivals" have in common?

Let me suggest three things: Poor attendance, losing football games and an uncertain resolve to do anything about it.

Which is more or less where TCU was six years ago.

The university made a multimillion-dollar commitment to be the best athletically that it can be, a commitment that frankly was designed to separate itself from the Rices and SMUs.

Old rivalries? Yes, the road trip stops at the Dairy Queen might be fun. But the attendance figures from recent TCU-Rice games suggest a rivalry that doesn't really exist.

Psst, people. The Southwest Conference folded. It was in all the newspapers.

Both C-USA and the suddenly football-weakened Big East are likely to soon feel the swift sword of TV revenue cuts. A winning TCU team in C-USA might remain a viable television draw, but against whom?

If you're a TV network, would you rather pay for telecasting TCU-Colorado State or TCU-SMU?

Forget, in other words, the current TV mind-set. In the new TV thinking, post-2005, the Mountain West Conference is going to present better matchups, a broader audience and, more important, more BCS clout than the new C-USA.

None of the C-USA schools -- East Carolina, Alabama-Birmingham, Central Florida, Memphis, Tulane -- are even the No. 1 attractions in their home states.

An underlying theme of last week's bitter e-mail seemed to be that the Frogs would be better served by remaining in the diluted C-USA, winning with abandon, and then sitting by the telephone each December to await the call from a BCS bowl.

Says which BCS bowl? The power rating of the new C-USA is going to be so low, the Frogs would almost be forced to go undefeated, just on the odd chance that they would be considered. And there's no guarantee of that (see Tulane, 1998, which went 12-0 with a schedule that looked remarkably similar to TCU's current one).

In the stronger Mountain West, let me suggest that one loss might still merit major bowl attention.

No one can predict what the BCS power brokers will do when representatives of the conferences gather Nov. 16. The current BCS contract expires in 2005. The Big East is expected to lose its automatic berth. At least one additional bowl could be added to the future BCS mix. There could be as many as three at-large BCS bowl spots up for grabs every year.

TCU's chances of getting one of those spots one day are going to be a lot better if it is in the best league possible.

The best neighborhood. The best neighbors. The best future.

The university has come too far, committed too much money, and revived too many Horned Frog hearts to settle for anything less.

BCS watching

Three of the eight teams ranked ahead of TCU in the BCS standings -- Florida State, Miami (Fla.) and Virginia Tech -- lost Saturday.

1. Oklahoma Defeated Texas A&M 77-0
2. Southern Cal Did not play
3. Florida State Lost to Clemson 26-10
4. Miami (Fla.) Lost to Tennessee 10-6
5. Ohio State Defeated Michigan State 33-23
6. Virginia Tech Lost to Pittsburgh 31-28
7. LSU Did not play
8. Michigan Did not play
• TCU facing uphill battle to move up. 5CC


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gil LeBreton, (817) 390-7760

[Stallion]

Yes perhaps in Big Jim Copeland's next letter to the naive he can address the part about the alleged Rivals Rice, SMU, and Tulsa's common denominator "poor attendance, losing football and AN UNCERTAIN RESOLVE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT". That is why TCU is perfectly justified in leaving for the MWC and why SMU was a fool for implementing a strategy(Ken Pye's foolhearty Magnolia Conference suggestion) over 15 years ago to tie its fortunes to the Rices and Tulsas of the world. And to all of you who say perhaps we tied ourselves to Rice and Tulsa to avoid being by-passed by CUSA I got one question-who the Hell's fault is that-seriously we are talking about Rice and Tulsa-who is responsible for being concerned that a Rice or Tulsa would get a bid over SMU?

<small>[ 11-09-2003, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Stallion ]</small>

[Charleston Pony]

well, if TCU really wants to play with the highest rated group possible, maybe they should contact representatives of the MAC to see if they can backfill that spot Marshall just vacated. NIU, BGSU & Miami-Ohio are all better teams than anything the MWC can put on the field this year and I doubt there would be anymore travel involved.

Seriously, though...the MWC with programs like BYU, Utah, CSU and AFA have been very competitive in recent years and show pretty decent attendance figures. I've still got to believe the additions of TCU, Boise, Fresno and Hawaii would put that group in serious contention for a BCS spot, should anyone go undefeated thru that lineup (including a championship game). That writer is out of his mind if he thinks that group is stong enough for a "one loss" team to get any consideration. One loss playing in that group is the equivalent of a 5-3 season in the SEC, Big 10, Big XII, etc...

[Cheesesteak]

Fifteen years ago SMU did the right thing by tying its fortunes to Rice and similar institutions.

SMU was a national joke having been given the NCAA's only DP. I clearly remember friends and acquaintances who knew nearly nothing about SMU...knew about the DP. SMU had a severly tarnished reputation. In almost any endeavor you are only as good as your reputation.

Only time and proven good behavior could move the university to higher ground.

Remember that SMU missed two football seasons. By the time football was reinstated SMU had new leadership including Board of Governors and fresh policies and controls in place.

Assuring that the university wasn't embarrased again was critical.

Passionate and loyal fans often forget that athletics is only a small part of any university.

Changing the culture of any institution (university, corporation, etc.) doesn't happen overnight or by proclamation. Everyone associated with SMU had to know (with certainty)from observation that SMU was committed to running clean athletic programs.

At that time, modeling SMU after Rice (especially academically) was appropriate.

SMU should have recognized seven to eight years later that the proper procedures were in place, respected and followed.

Although SMU has built sparkling new athletic facilities, athetically the university's mindset is still "lets emulate Rice", not USC.

Rice or USC is the real question and it should have answered seven to eight years ago.

SMU football can win again in the future, but I never want to see SMU damaged again by scandal.

With the possible exception of the University of Alabama, SMU has the narrowest margin for error.

[Water Pony]

I agree. Searching for the guilty is a waste of valuable time. Let's stop debating TCU and their apparent decision. They may come to regret such a move but it is their issue not ours.

Despite our recent record, we are in a better place after our recent investments and conference moves. Perhaps better than we earned or less than we deserve according to two schools of thought. Whatever the reason, . . .it is what it is.

Stating the obvious that we are the worst in Divison 1A is also a waste. Debate our play on the field, challenge the right steps to take and yell for improvement but be specific and constructive.

Go Mustangs, beat the Owls!

[EastStang]

They made their committment we've started ours. Sure, we overreacted to a situation that was horrible and did not change course for too long. I think the program has bottomed out (can't go anywhere but up, right)? If they leave, good riddance. I think it is a bad move on their part. Sure Tulsa, Rice and SMU aren't world beaters right now. Tulsa was added for one reason, basketball. They have made it to the Elite 8 recently and through at least one round of the tournament every year. Duke is doing fine just on its basketball reputation. I think that is what Pye was searching for, but never found due to his recruiting restrictions. Duke has provisional admissions, we did not. However, Tulsa beat Rice and us this year in football.

[Greenwich Pony]

Well, to be fair to the top posted article; as someone who does buy television ad time, two things: One, while the Big East revenues will be negotiated down, we also will negoatiate down any BCS fees substantially for the loss of the New York market, if the Big East loses it's bid. I couldn't give a rats plump butt about any team in that league, but without the New York market, college football becomes substantially less interesting to my client as an advertising outlet. Two, the TCU-CSU may be a better game than SMU-TCU now, but as far as Neilson numbers are concerned, the difference isn't that much, I would actually pay about the same amount from an advertisers point of view. Why? Because none of the teams mentioned, not TCU, not SMU and not CSU bring nearly enough numbers to make a serious dent. That has always been the problem with the MWC: it may be a better product on the field, but not drastically so, and from an advertiser's perspective, it really isn't even as solid as the old WAC and is about on par with the anticipated CUSA, and in fact, my client is looking quite hard at the CUSA numbers if they add Army and Navy for football. That would be very interesting from an advertisers point of view. Much more than any non-BCS conference, in fact.