PonyFans.com

jtstang wrote:I just don't get SMU people that want to rail on TCU. They've done everything right, at least in football, and we've done everything wrong. We should aspire to them. Leave the "rivalry" to the players on the field and look at the reality of the situation.

Agree with you again, JT. You must be getting smarter or something.

mathman wrote:

jtstang wrote:I just don't get SMU people that want to rail on TCU. They've done everything right, at least in football, and we've done everything wrong. We should aspire to them. Leave the "rivalry" to the players on the field and look at the reality of the situation.

Agree with you again, JT. You must be getting smarter or something.

Not likely. I'd be more worried about you getting dumber.

jtstang wrote:

mathman wrote:

jtstang wrote:I just don't get SMU people that want to rail on TCU. They've done everything right, at least in football, and we've done everything wrong. We should aspire to them. Leave the "rivalry" to the players on the field and look at the reality of the situation.

Agree with you again, JT. You must be getting smarter or something.

Not likely. I'd be more worried about you getting dumber.

That would not surprise me in the least.

Corp wrote:

PK wrote:...if you are really happy in MWC, but you do realize that
you are the redheaded stepchild in that family...don't you?

If being a red-headed stepchild means:

Being currently ranked #12 nationally & consistently in the top 25.

A realistic shot at a BCS Bowl game.

Honing in on a 2nd conference championship in four years.

Incredible success in recruiting.

Membership in the NCAA's top non-BCS conference.

Playing quality teams - before good crowds & in great venues.


Hint: Maybe June needs to corner the market on red dye.

Most of those things you mention were already happening to TCU before you moved to the MWC. As I posted earlier..."Just remember that those guys blewup the WAC because it didn't suit their needs to hang together and if it ever came to a dispute between you and one of those guys...chances are they would all just spit in your face." and that is what I mean by redheaded stepchild.

PK wrote:

Corp wrote:

PK wrote:...if you are really happy in MWC, but you do realize that
you are the redheaded stepchild in that family...don't you?

If being a red-headed stepchild means:

Being currently ranked #12 nationally & consistently in the top 25.

A realistic shot at a BCS Bowl game.

Honing in on a 2nd conference championship in four years.

Incredible success in recruiting.

Membership in the NCAA's top non-BCS conference.

Playing quality teams - before good crowds & in great venues.


Hint: Maybe June needs to corner the market on red dye.

Most of those things you mention were already happening to TCU before you moved to the MWC. As I posted earlier..."Just remember that those guys blewup the WAC because it didn't suit their needs to hang together and if it ever came to a dispute between you and one of those guys...chances are they would all just spit in your face.
" and that is what I mean by redheaded stepchild.

i get your point, but I would bet their is hardly one among us who if offered a slot by our Big 12 brethren, would turn it down. And they gave us the ultimate screwing back in the late 20th century. I say past be damned, do what is right for you now.

[quote="PK"]

..."Just remember that those guys blewup the WAC...


And the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor - today they are our

bosom buddies. That episode involving a 16 team WAC was

doomed to fail from it's inception. The teams that were left

behind after the SWC dissolvement were simply scrambling

to find a home without taking into consideration just how totally

unmanageable a conference with sixteen teams might be. Besides,

it's now all ancient history. If you really want to be p-oed at someone

look no further than Austin, College Station, Lubbock or Waco.

Corp wrote:

PK wrote:If you really want to be p-oed at someone

look no further than Austin, College Station, Lubbock or Waco.

Not to worry...I continue to be P-oed at the Austin and College Station schools all the time. Lubbock and Waco were just lucky to have powerful politicians in Austin at that time which kept them in the game. Texas and A&M were the driving forces behind the demise of the SWC and I will never forgive them for that. The SWC was a better conference than the big eight and we should have folded the four top schools from the big eight into the SWC rather than the opposite...IMHO.

PK wrote:Texas and A&M were the driving forces behind the demise of the SWC and I will never forgive them for that.

Arkansas, anyone?

jtstang wrote:

PK wrote:Texas and A&M were the driving forces behind the demise of the SWC and I will never forgive them for that.

Arkansas, anyone?

Yeah, I don't like them either. They started the mess in a way, but the SWC was still viable after they left.

jtstang wrote:

PK wrote:Texas and A&M were the driving forces behind the demise of the SWC and I will never forgive them for that.

Arkansas, anyone?

I came here to fight them and no one followed.

The administration's of SMU Rice and TCU who failed to realize the value of SWC membership and were playing under their own "Ivy League" rules had more to do with the breakup of the SWC. If they had invested in their programs back then like they are now the SWC just might have had a chance. Not one of those teams improved their physical plants in 40 years before the breakup and all 3 were simply riding the coattails of the State school without any serious attempt to institute the policies that are necessary to compete at a BCS level. That's OK to strive to be an Ivy League program but let's not sugarcoat the fact that they all SUCKED because of those policies. If you want to succeed at a BCS level then you have to make commitments and institute policies that will allow you to compete. Its that simple. UT, A&M, Arkansas, and Tech made the right decision-you'd have to be an death dumb and blind to deny it.

you guys are kidding right? stop whining about big time football progams following the almighty dollar.

Stallion wrote:The administration's of SMU Rice and TCU who failed to realize the value of SWC membership and were playing under their own "Ivy League" rules had more to do with the breakup of the SWC. If they had invested in their programs back then like they are now the SWC just might have had a chance. Not one of those teams improved their physical plants in 40 years before the breakup and all 3 were simply riding the coattails of the State school without any serious attempt to institute the policies that are necessary to compete at a BCS level. That's OK to strive to be an Ivy League program but let's not sugarcoat the fact that they all SUCKED because of those policies. If you want to succeed at a BCS level then you have to make commitments and institute policies that will allow you to compete. Its that simple. UT, A&M, Arkansas, and Tech made the right decision-you'd have to be an death dumb and blind to deny it.

I believe you mean ...deaf, dumb and blind...

We were actually doing the same thing the big boys were doing (there was no BCS back then) and we were doing it better...cheating. They didn't like SMU beating their butts and saw to it that we wouldn't any more. You are correct that after the DP we did nothing to be competitive and thanks in part to Dr. Pye we did try to be an Ivy League school, but prior to the DP that can't be said. I don't think their desires to go else where were only developed in those few years after the DP, but then I am probably deaf, dumb and blind.

Oh I think you are very wrong. Playing 1 game at Ownby and having to dress across the street at the Moody Coliseum Dressing Rooms is all UT Officials need to see of SMU's Commitment. Plus Ken Pye as President of the SWC President's Council was a royal pain in the [deleted] to the state schools as he tried to institute conference wide academic restrictions at the same time the Big 8 was beating the crap out of 'em using even lower academic restrictions. The 6-8 years after the DP had a whole lot to do with the breakup. Ken Pye, Malcom Gillis and Tucker at TCU had a whole lot to do with it. Of course, you didn't notice because you are generally oblivious to what's going on in College Football.

Stallion:

Undoubtedly you are correct. However, my well placed Texas people tell me that UT / A&M could see the economic value of swapping Rice, SMU, TCU, Baylor for Big 10 state schools.
I think TV and big travel venues killed the SWC.

SMU and Ken Pye simply accelerated it.

Regarding TCU: I wish we had the forward looking administration that recognized that football / basketball are marketing tools to increase student interest and fund raising. Money spent in these areas are INVESTMENTS not expenses.

I think SMU filling has the admin, board and major donors on board with what it takes to grow the university in prestige.