PonyFans.com

GiddyUp wrote:Is TCU locked in for a while or will that go away eventually?

I think we have a winner....I suspect the TCU-SMU series is done after the current agreement is over (2017 I think). I have no direct information on this but I have heard enough to form this opinion. That explains why SMU would agree to a 12 year deal with UNT.

Ladies and gentlemen - meet your new in-state, OOC rival: NTSU

It will no longer be TCU after this contract is up - now that they are in the B12 they have ZERO incentive to continue the annual game with SMU. I posted on this subject last year that once TCU moved up, they would no longer want us on their schedule.

Grant Carter wrote:

malonish wrote:

mavsrage311 wrote:Isn't that one word?

The other word would need many asterisks.

What does Tulane have to do with this anyway?

We do so well against Green teams- Baylor, Tulane, why not add UNT to that list? Let's just pencil it in as a loss and move on and then leave the field with Juneses before the band can play Varsity just like every away game we lose.

malonish wrote: We do so well against Green teams- Baylor, Tulane, why not add UNT to that list? Let's just pencil it in as a loss and move on and then leave the field with Juneses before the band can play Varsity just like every away game we lose.

got optimism?

Yep. To me this signals the end of the TCU series.

To say that TCU has zero incentive to continue the series is a bit of an exaggeration. The game should be a money maker because of low travel costs and local interest. Even with multi-million dollar budgets it still makes sense to increase profit margins wherever possible. The business of college football has taken a more capitalistic approach to marketing, selling and distributing its product. This series could meet the current criteria.

However, TCU's capitalistic approach may result in a desire to "bury the competition" at the expense of tradition. In order to create the appearance of a division between themselves and their traditional rival TCU may want to exclude games against SMU. That approach blends in perfectly with the current cut-throat college football climate.

It is ironic that the culture at most universities is somewhat more socialistic than the mainstream population with the exception of college football wich is as capitalistic as can be.

Bergermeister wrote:

malonish wrote: We do so well against Green teams- Baylor, Tulane, why not add UNT to that list? Let's just pencil it in as a loss and move on and then leave the field with Juneses before the band can play Varsity just like every away game we lose.

got optimism?

Sewanee Stang wrote:To say that TCU has zero incentive to continue the series is a bit of an exaggeration. The game should be a money maker because of low travel costs and local interest. Even with multi-million dollar budgets it still makes sense to increase profit margins wherever possible. The business of college football has taken a more capitalistic approach to marketing, selling and distributing its product. This series could meet the current criteria.

However, TCU's capitalistic approach may result in a desire to "bury the competition" at the expense of tradition. In order to create the appearance of a division between themselves and their traditional rival TCU may want to exclude games against SMU. That approach blends in perfectly with the current cut-throat college football climate.

It is ironic that the culture at most universities is somewhat more socialistic than the mainstream population with the exception of college football wich is as capitalistic as can be.

For TCU, its a quality game against a regional opponent in the Dallas market with lots of history. The game usually gets a saturday night time slot on a major network. There is definately an incentive for TCU to continue the series.

I don't believe the rumored Big 12 / ACC scheduling alliance but if it comes to fruition, then TCU will have less room in the schedule. Also, TCU is able to get big non-conference games in Jerry's world. They've done this with Oregon State, BYU & LSU. This puts pressure on the schedule as well.

I've said several times that the way that TCU becomes a national power is to become the Home team of the Dallas Metroplex. That's why they play those games at Jerry World. The acceptance into the Big 12 goes a long way toward making that reality. They got unprecedent support across the Metroplex by qualifying for 2 BCS Bowls. They annually for decades have beaten SMU in recruiting in the Metroplex.

I think TCU dropping SMU would probably move TCU even farther in that direction. If recruits consider that TCU is the option for the Dallas Metroplex then TCU can compete on a national scale if they are successful in recruiting the Metroplex. To recruits born in the next decade SMU quite likely will be considered even more of a second tier program with respect to TCU -kind of like NTSU and UTA to the common fan.

TCU is playing the Big Boys week after week-about 10 bowl teams including many Top 25 teams. Yet SMU is too fightened to play B-A-Y-L-O-R because they are frightened they might have to play 7 bowl teams in CUSA 2.00 and complaining that SMU needs to dumb down the schedule to go to the Tiolet Bowl.

A large number of SMU fans seem perfectly happy to accept SMU IRRELEVANCY just so we can go to Weed-Eater Bowl. You don't cancel a Home game with a BCS team and local rival-EVER. The only way SMU can win this fight is to play and beat teams that Texans care about-and you won't find those teams in the AAC. If you want to be a BCS team why are you afraid to play a BCS schedule-which would still only be the 5th toughest schedule in Texas.

Sewanee Stang wrote:However, TCU's capitalistic approach may result in a desire to "bury the competition" at the expense of tradition. In order to create the appearance of a division between themselves and their traditional rival TCU may want to exclude games against SMU. That approach blends in perfectly with the current cut-throat college football climate.

TCU doesn't need to create the appearance of a division between themselves and us. That division has apparent to anyone paying even the slightest amount of attention the last decade. Us lagging behind them for so long is what killed this "rivalry".

StallionsModelT wrote:Yep. To me this signals the end of the TCU series.

This was done years before TCU went to the Big 12.

Stallion wrote:I've said several times that the way that TCU becomes a national power is to become the Home team of the Dallas Metroplex. That's why they play those games at Jerry World. The acceptance into the Big 12 goes a long way toward making that reality. They got unprecedent support across the Metroplex by qualifying for 2 BCS Bowls. They annually for decades have beaten SMU in recruiting in the Metroplex.

I think TCU dropping SMU would probably move TCU even farther in that direction. If recruits consider that TCU is the option for the Dallas Metroplex then TCU can compete on a national scale if they are successful in recruiting the Metroplex. To recruits born in the next decade SMU quite likely will be considered even more of a second tier program with respect to TCU -kind of like NTSU and UTA to the common fan.

TCU is playing the Big Boys week after week-about 10 bowl teams including many Top 25 teams. Yet SMU is too fightened to play B-A-Y-L-O-R because they are frightened they might have to play 7 bowl teams in CUSA 2.00 and complaining that SMU needs to dumb down the schedule to go to the Tiolet Bowl.

A large number of SMU fans seem perfectly happy to accept SMU IRRELEVANCY just so we can go to Weed-Eater Bowl. You don't cancel a Home game with a BCS team and local rival-EVER. The only way SMU can win this fight is to play and beat teams that Texans care about-and you won't find those teams in the AAC. If you want to be a BCS team why are you afraid to play a BCS schedule-which would still only be the 5th toughest schedule in Texas.

If we had not changed our schedule we would have been the only BCS team (which we will be next year) playing all BCS opponents in OOC. That is not smart scheduling.

Its not that tough a schedule-get over it. I'm tired of the whinning coming from a program that claims it wants to be BCS but can't play a Top 60 schedule. When the numbers come out ot will be slightly below average strength of schedule among traditional football programs. Most decent programs will play more bowl teams than SMU and in a tougher conference. If you can't beat a few bowl teams then you probably don't deserve to go to a bowl. There are plenty of poor football teams on our schedule that June Jones in his 6th year should beat-at least if June Jones hired a staff that knew how to recruit Texas. We've been crying about get excluded from the SWC for 2 decades but then [deleted] in our pants when we have to play them.

You are just wrong on this one Stallion. an out of conference schedule of TCU Baylor A&M and Tech is insane - EVERYONE uses a 1 tough, 1 easy and two even expectation for the OOC. A&M is what we wanted to drop - but had no choice when that didn't work.

i think the frogs should think twice about getting too uppity. They are going to have a very hard time getting through OU, UT, OSU, Kansas State and Baylor, and even Tech. They don't recruit as well as any of those teams (counting JC's) and according to you everything reverts to that spot anyway.

There is a big difference in lightening your non-conference games when you play a hard conference schedule (see SEC) as opposed to a weak conference schedule (see AAC). SEC and Big 12 need one or 2 easy wins to assure bowl eligibility. We should be able to do that within our conference and prove we belong in a better place by beating someone good. I too am tired of running from a challenge. Perhaps this year was a little harder than one would have liked, but giving up Baylor at home for Montana State is embarrassing. When we could not get out of A&M we should have just bit the bullet and gone forward.