PonyFans.com

This thread is silly to put it kindly. Tcu is football first. They had a capital program and from what I understand about 40% of it went to their stadium renovation. It believes that football drives everything. Turner doesn't believe that. We have reputable academic programs (undergraduate and graduate level). In other words, both schools view football as a way to increase publicity but the difference is we don't believe it is the only lever to do so. In fact if it weren't for the CoC, we'd still where we were 8 years ago. Without football, tcu is literally tcwho?

Very true. Their academics are an embarrassment and now their football is also. This is not bad for us.

ojaipony wrote:I completely disagree with the first post. This has absolutely nothing to do with SMU.

Yeah but I still think it's time to panic!

Mustangs_Maroons wrote:This thread is silly to put it kindly. Tcu is football first. They had a capital program and from what I understand about 40% of it went to their stadium renovation. It believes that football drives everything. Turner doesn't believe that. We have reputable academic programs (undergraduate and graduate level). In other words, both schools view football as a way to increase publicity but the difference is we don't believe it is the only lever to do so. In fact if it weren't for the CoC, we'd still where we were 8 years ago. Without football, tcu is literally tcwho?

Irrelevant. I'm referring to the scandals potential effect on our football program. Obviously it isn't going to harm the university as a whole!

The idea that this is going to turn anti-athletic is rpreposterous considering the overall majority of those indicted were not athletes (I didn't read anything saying that other sports had players involved).
This may very well turn anti-fraternity or sorority, or anti-minority, or anti-gay or ANY social group or organization that had representatives indicted, but all TCU jokes aside I am hopefull that the higher-ups at that school - or any school looking at this episode- will realize that these are individual kids who thought that they could get away with breaking the law and acted on their own.

couch 'em wrote:

Mustangs_Maroons wrote:This thread is silly to put it kindly. Tcu is football first. They had a capital program and from what I understand about 40% of it went to their stadium renovation. It believes that football drives everything. Turner doesn't believe that. We have reputable academic programs (undergraduate and graduate level). In other words, both schools view football as a way to increase publicity but the difference is we don't believe it is the only lever to do so. In fact if it weren't for the CoC, we'd still where we were 8 years ago. Without football, tcu is literally tcwho?

Irrelevant. I'm referring to the scandals potential effect on our football program. Obviously it isn't going to harm the university as a whole!

Your comparison is apples and oranges. Like I said, different institutional approaches to football. Tcu is football first in their approach and overall philosophy. Think if it this way: tcu is a football school while we're a university with a football program. There IS a difference. We don't follow their same model.

Bah! I hope I am never shown to be right!

We recruit the same players as TCU, UT, A&M and Baylor-if there are problem there, there is more than likely similiar problems at SMU. SMU offered Tanner Brock. TCU fans used to laugh at all the problems at UT too. When light is shown on even reputable programs like Nebraska and Penn St and now TCU-which has run a relatively clean program-the rats come out. There certainly was a drug problem when I went to SMU and it involved bigger stars than listed here. Now back to pretending that SMU is somehow is not affected by this issue

Stallion wrote:We recruit the same players as TCU, UT, A&M and Baylor-if there are problem there, there is more than likely similiar problems at SMU. SMU offered Tanner Brock. TCU fans used to laugh at all the problems at UT too. When light is shown on even reputable programs like Nebraska and Penn St-the rats come out. There certainly was a drug problem when I went to SMU and it involved bigger stars than listed here. Now back to pretending that SMU is somehow is not affected by this issue

Maybe you should re-read the original post. I'm not naive enough to not realize that most if not all universities will have some drug use from their students. It's unfortunate that this is the case. SMU as other schools have had bad publicity from this.

The original post was making a reference to our impact on our football program. I answered with my opinion that we have two different football philosophies. We don't follow the same football approach. tcu has shown that they believe football is their top priority. Why else does such a big portion of their capital campaign go to football renovations. When they talk about the tcu experience, it always starts with football. If it weren't for the CoC, I think we all know where we would be in football. We have reputable academic programs that we can stand by. This administration now recognizes that football can be a complementary part of the SMU experience, but in no way does it support smu football above all else.

The whole alleged failed drug tests that took place at tcu's football team and the inaction done by Patterson should serve as potential additional evidence to their current position on football.

SMU is doing EXACTLY what TCU is doing-you are misinformed. If anything TCU has had a much higher graduation rate in recent years and recruits less non-qualifiers. 24 Hours ago TCU's reputation was as Clean as any in the Country. See Sports Illustrated investigative article done last year on criminal arrest records of Top 30 teams. TCU was the only one with none

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/w ... index.html

Plus there is a common misconception that Drugs are a minority/thug issue. In fact, SMU and now TCU have had major problems from kids with relatively upper class backgrounds. So simply having higher academic standards even if it were true would be missing the point. SMU's well publized drug problems/deaths have been students from wealthy backgrounds

Sorry. I guess we'll just agree to disagree. Without the CoC, I think you know where we would be in football. Completely different institutional approaches to football. We don't invest about 40% of our capital campaign on our football facilities. We go out to donors for that. It's an institutioanl philosophy. I'm not talking about how football programs are run from an operational basis by the coaches. I'm talking about the institutional support from each school.

Also, how squeaky clean was Penn State? Just because it was reported to be clean doesn't make it so. GP has such complete control of the football program that he keeps everything within his doors, not unlike what Paterno was able to do. This was just above him so he couldn't keep the flood gates from opening.

What about the breaking and entering charges from their kicker? Sport Illustrated Must not have dug deep. Everyone in the media has a hard-on for GP/TCU because they win, he is passionate and is old school and takes no sh*t, they have Christian in their name and seem to run a clean program. Great underdogs. A carefully cultured image by TCU. Underneath, they are better than most but certainly no saints.

SMU simply copied TCU's Gang of 100. They were the first that I remember in this part of the Country to use the Super-Commmitte approach. SMU just started later. We are pouring money into athletic infrastructure just like TCU did. You are sitting up there in New York and really are misinformed if you claim there is a fundamental difference in what TCU has done and what SMU is doing now. Plus TCU's endowment is growing recently at a greater or at least comparable rate as SMU in recent years so I don't know what you are talking about. We are neck and neck based on results published within the month

TCU troll tell us there is and that we should follow suit or be left in their dust.

This is not a SMU problem, I know personally about 9 defensive starters last year, and there preference was spending nights playing COD, studying or chillin out, no drug activity that I witnessed, maybe other programs, but not here, yes, a private university with similar student demographics to TCU but totally unfair to compare Froggie off the field activities compared to SMU players, I can count on one hand the number of frat parties and Greenville ave bars that our players attended last year.