Where TCU & SMU parted ways

[PonySnob]

Interesting post by Deep Purple over on KillerFrogs.com
http://www.killerfrogs.com/msgboard/ind ... pic=100688
Since the TCU Turnaround in 1998, our football path and SMU's have diverged so much because the two programs are operating on very different philosophies. TCU chose a proactive path of planned, coordinated, and systemic change. It extends from the Chancellor's and AD's offices all the way down to facilities planning, ticket sales, and even the Frog Club.

SMU has operated more reactively, implementing change here and there, but usually only when absolutely forced to (such as upping the head coach salary) or when opportunity smacks them right in the face (such as the unplanned move from the WAC to C-USA). They have never thought through or planned, much less managed, anything approaching systemic or top-to-bottom change.

TCU's approach is long-term, predicated on strategic thinking and sustained effort. SMU operates on the shorter view, relying on the Reno craps table approach of roll the dice for a shot at an immediate big payoff, and hope Lady Luck smiles on you.

The evidence:
In every executive hire after Chancellor Tucker retired, TCU made it clear to all candidates that the university was committed to success at the highest levels of college football, and that any new Chancellor would be required to fully support that policy. After President Pye retired, SMU hired a new president who largely mirrored Pye in philosophy and priorities. He's not particularly concerned with football success unless it can be gained with little effort or commitment from the university. He has the same elitist attitude as Pye, and (in thoroughly Dallas-like fashion) is mainly focused on SMU's image and status in higher education. It's that Harvard-wannabe mentality that has permeated SMU for many decades.
TCU made the same strategic priorities clear to all AD candidates after Windeggar retired, and committed itself to ramping up the athletics budget to levels consistent with most top football programs. SMU's AD hires and budgeting have been targeted at very different priorities. At SMU, the AD is expected to manage the program with limited commitment of budget resources, yet boost revenue as much as possible through promotions and marketing. TCU leadership understands that in order for marketing to achieve anything but spot success, you first have to field a marketable product. SMU has focused less on product quality than on the marketing effort. In other words, the priority is style over substance.
At the coaching level, TCU has opted for consistency of leadership and philosophy. Patterson was one of the architects of the TCU Turnaround 11 years ago, and he has a home at TCU for as long as he desires. He's also committed to the institutional philosophy of running a squeaky-clean program that's also academically sound and is not merely a football factory. SMU is equally committed to running a squeaky-clean, academically sound program, but they made the mistake of focusing on this to the virtual exclusion of all other strategic priorities. It wound up hurting the program rather than helping it. Although the jury is still out on June Jones, SMU's previous coaching hires have been similarly mistargeted. Until now, they've brought in a new guy every few years with a different philosophy, a different set of priorities, and a different approach to the game. Those aren't bad things in themselves – Franchione and Patterson did the same when they came to TCU and engineered the Turnaround. But when you completely reshuffle the deck every few years, as SMU has, there's no continuity.
Facility-wise, TCU has remained way ahead of SMU in both strategic thinking and resource commitment. SMU opened Ford Stadium in 2000, but as a limited-seating facility with not many fan amenities. Of the $50-million budget for Ford, about as much went into the adjoining administrative and heritage center as into the stadium itself. The result was, they didn't get a $50-million stadium. They got a $25- to 30-million stadium. TCU also built a new administrative and heritage center, but as a separate project with its own budget and fundraising effort, not connected to stadium reconstruction. When Amon Carter Stadium is rebuilt, it will be a $120-million project, and all the money will go into the stadium itself, not ancillary facilities. It will contain team and fan amenities unheard-of at Ford. In building the Sam Baugh Indoor Practice Facility, TCU was also miles ahead of SMU in its thinking. SMU is now planning an indoor facility of its own, but as a behind-the-curve reaction to what TCU has done – not as a proactive, set-the-standard effort.
I could go on. There are so many other ways in which TCU simply outthinks SMU when it comes to football, though the above are the major ones. TCU's commitment to systemic, top-to-bottom change and sustained resources and effort has affected the entire football pipeline. Not just gameday success and end-of-season rankings and bowls, but recruiting, conference affiliation, and yes, even marketing.

Much as TCU's marketing effort has been justifiably criticized on this board, the fact remains that our marketing has been considerably leveraged by our program success. We've benefitted from a level of publicity and even acclaim that no amount of marketing money can buy. The irony is that it has benefitted TCU far more outside of Texas than within. It's become a truism: TCU gets more respect in the rest of the nation than in its home state.

For the most part, that's simply a liability of operating in a state where there are so many FBS football programs that experience so much periodic success. The nice thing about TCU success since the Turnaround is that it hasn't been periodic. For the most part, it's been consistent. The only other programs in the state with a similar record of consistency are UT-Austin and Texas Tech.