What's wrong with the TCU athletic model?

by **PonySnob** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 6:53 pm

Is it too late for SMU to adopt the "TCU model" with regards to competing in D-1 sports? Wouldn't it be more positive to have athletic programs that win more games than they lose, go to bowl games/post season tournaments, and beat teams ranked in the top 10 on national television? It is time for SMU fans to demand more out of SMU athletic programs than what we have been given for the past 15 years!!!!!

by **crazy horse** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 7:13 pm

PonySnob wrote:Is it too late for SMU to adopt the "TCU model" with regards to competing in D-1 sports? Wouldn't it be more positive to have athletic programs that win more games than they lose, go to bowl games/post season tournaments, and beat teams ranked in the top 10 on national television? It is time for SMU fans to demand more out of SMU athletic programs than what we have been given for the past 15 years!!!!!

No, I'd much rather lose 10 games a year and stay home during bowl season...[/sarcasm]

by **MrMustang1965** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:11 pm

WTF? SMU football won't exist 10 years from now.

by **Mustangs35SMU** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:27 pm

MrMustang1965 wrote:WTF? SMU football won't exist 10 years from now.

How bad it has gotten.

by **Sewanee Stang** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 11:12 am

I spoke with a former tutor to the TCU student athletes. She said that many of the football players were disgracefully unqualified academically. Some of them seemed to be more interested in flirting with/harassing her on a daily basis than studying. Apparrently, the only way to compete at a high level is to compromise the academic integrity of the university. TCU will give a scholarship to anyone who can play football regardless of their academic qualifications. SMU won't and can't seem to compete. Perhaps that is the message that Mr. Blackistone is trying to send to the readers of the Dallas Morning News.

by **PonySnob** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 11:22 am

Sewanee Stang wrote:I spoke with a former tutor to the TCU student athletes. She said that many of the football players were disgracefully unqualified academically. Some of them seemed to be more interested in flirting with/harassing her on a daily basis than studying. Apparrently, the only way to compete at a high level is to compromise the academic integrity of the university. TCU will give a scholarship to anyone who can play football regardless of their academic qualifications. SMU won't and can't seem to compete. Perhaps that is the message that Mr. Blackistone is trying to send to the readers of the Dallas Morning News.

Whatever!!! Hasn't it been fun having one winning season in 15 years while TCU has gone to numerous bowl games, been ranked in the top 25 on a regular basis and beat top 25 teams and even teams in the top 10? TCU athletics seem to get a lot more positive publicity for winning than SMU does for having really smart guys on a team who aren't D-1 athletes.

by **SMU Football Blog** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 11:23 am

BS. The professors say the same thing. This is the same high and mighty crap that is the source of the problem. The professors complain about the football players being dumb, but they don't complain about the dumb Paris Hilton wanna-be's.

Newsflash: SMU lets in nearly everybody. It isn't hard to get into. Ask a high school senior or look at the published numbers. In the early 90's, they let in 91% of the applicants. Even today, SMU accepts 2 out of 3 people that apply. Look up the numbers-for every SMU player that the faculty questions academically, there are three students that are not scrutinized because they are not athletes and not on scholarship. The lesson is if that if you are rich and dumb and daddy pays, nobody cares. But if you are poor and want to play football, you had better aspire to be a Rhodes Scholar.

by **Sewanee Stang** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 11:30 am

I never said that I had a problem with the way TCU attains success. I wish SMU would consider the same path. I'm just pointing out the differences relative to Mr. Blackistone's editorial slam on SMU football. Hell, I hate loosing and I'm ready to do almost anything to win.

by **EastStang** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 11:31 am

Tulane has higher standards than we do, and they went 12-0 a few years back. Stanford has its pick of athletes (albeit a better university). USC has to turn players away another well thought of private institution. Rice, Duke, Vanderbilt, on the other hand have suffered for decades in football. The issue is not one of academic integrity, but one of making our program attractive to players who have the academic credentials to succeed on and off the field. Until we figure out the answer to that question, we will continue to struggle on the field, absent the reincarnation of Knute Rockne, Vince Lombardi, George Allen, or Matty Bell.

by **San Diego Frog** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:09 pm

Don't forget, having a nationally recognized sports program also helps in over all student enrollment which provides money to construct new facilities towards higher education. Alumni are more willing to donate their money to a school which is winning.

Look at all our new facilities that have been built due to our success on the field.

Having your name consitently mentioned in the media helps in recruiting as well as the general student population wanting to attend your school. :wink:

by **Deep Purple** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:51 pm

Sewanee Stang wrote:I spoke with a former tutor to the TCU student athletes. She said that many of the football players were disgracefully unqualified academically. Some of them seemed to be more interested in flirting with/harassing her on a daily basis than studying. Apparrently, the only way to compete at a high level is to compromise the academic integrity of the university. TCU will give a scholarship to anyone who can play football regardless of their academic qualifications. SMU won't and can't seem to compete. Perhaps that is the message that Mr. Blackistone is trying to send to the readers of the Dallas Morning News.

You're the victim of bad information. As recently as 2003, TCU was recognized by the AFCA as one of only 23 Division I schools to graduate 70% or more of its football players. TCU's current graduation rate for the latest class cohort is 71%. SMU's is 61%. Check it out for yourself...

http://www.ncaa.org/grad_rates/2004/d1/index.html[/url]

by **Woblefrog** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 7:09 pm

D1 athletic programs have to be viewed as a necessary expense by any university wanting to have a high public profile. Do you have any idea how much it would cost for TCU to get the publicity in all the different newspapers and sports shows on the radio and television that did articles and spots on our football team after the OU game? It would have cost us a bundle! As a matter of fact, it did cost us a bundle! Either the university decides that they want that kind of advertising or they decide that they don't need to spend the money on it. Either way is OK but it is not free and it obviously cannot be done half way. Just reading your forum tells me that your admin. needs to step up for you guys or they just need to downgrade athletics to match whatever vision they have of them. Either way SMU will survive and still be a great school.

by **MrMustang1965** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 8:10 pm

Sewanee Stang wrote:Hell, I hate loosing and I'm ready to do almost anything to win.

Is your name Sherwood Blount?

by **LakeHighlandsPony** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 8:15 pm

No Offense to the frogs but gimme the USC or Miami Hurricane model. Those are the 2 most successful private schools.

by **TCU-Quedog95** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:55 pm

LakeHighlandsPony wrote:No Offense to the frogs but gimme the USC or Miami Hurricane model. Those are the 2 most successful private schools.

you would love to be a frog and have a model even close to what we have.

What's wrong with the TCU athletic model?

What's wrong with the TCU athletic model?

Re: What's wrong with the TCU athletic model?

Who is online