It's Official: Amon Carter is a dump!

Stallion · Post by **Stallion** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:03 am

see the Ft Worth Star Telegram. Is it a coincidence this article was written the week after TCU played SMU? The Baylor fans also started an internet discussion about the deficiencies of Floyd Casey after visiting SMU. Cut-n-Paste for recruiting.

ponyte · Post by **ponyte** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:16 am

Old stadiums tend to be, well, old stadiums. Now some schools spend huge amounts of money updating stadiums and some schools don't spend much money. Ownby was the dump of all dumps. Thanks goodness we had a moment of clarity and built Ford. Also, SMU has for once a huge advantage in the Boulevard. With a few wins, better crowds, and enthused students, we should be able to continue our improved recruiting.

San Diego Frog · Post by **San Diego Frog** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:21 am

Do you really think a new stadium helps your recruiting? It can be argued both ways. But I think the correct answer is updated. But do you think stadiums older than ours like Michigan's, Ohio State, Notre Dame, etc. hurts their recruiting. The exact opposite occurs in this case. Players are eager to play in such historic venues. It actually adds to their recruiting prowlness. Granted were not Michigan or Ohio State. If a new stadium was the solution then a lot of Division 2 schools would be competing for national titles since they have newer stadiums than most Division 1 schools. Or UH would be winning boat loads of talent with all their new state of the art facilities.

Truth be told recruiting is a result of traditon, but most of all your programs record. Your not going to beat out a team that has fielded top 25 teams five years in a row because you have a new stadium. But I do think you have to have up to date facilties. And TCU will be soon updating these facilities.

Hoop Fan · Post by **Hoop Fan** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:30 am

San Diego Frog wrote:Do you really think a new stadium helps your recruiting? It can be argued both ways. But I think the correct answer is updated. But do you think stadiums older than ours like Michigan's, Ohio State, Notre Dame, etc. hurts their recruiting. The exact opposite occurs in this case. Players are eager to play in such historic venues. It actually adds to their recruiting prowlness. Granted were not Michigan or Ohio State. If a new stadium was the solution then a lot of Division 2 schools would be competing for national titles since they have newer stadiums than most Division 1 schools. Or UH would be winning boat loads of talent with all their new state of the art facilities.

Truth be told recruiting is a result of traditon, but most of all your programs record. Your not going to beat out a team that has fielded top 25 teams five years in a row because you have a new stadium. But I do think you have to have up to date facilties. And TCU will be soon updating these facilities.

no offense, but prowlness? What dat? I always thought Amon Carter was a pretty decent college venue. Much better than Daniel Meyer, which I hate. And Frog Alley or whatever they call it cant touch the Boulevard.

WorldStang · Post by **WorldStang** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:47 am

I love it.. he compares Amon Carter to some of the most historic college program stadiums in the nation. Are you kidding yourself frog? Only the Cotton Bowl would come close to the lore of the stadiums of Michigan, Ohio State and Notre Dame.. and the Cotton Bowl has sadly become a huge dump.

While Amon Carter isn't a horrible venue.. it's not a new stadium and it's lore and/or history does not help recruiting.

San Diego Frog · Post by **San Diego Frog** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:52 am

If you read my post correctly, I never said we were Michigan or Notre Dame. I even said "granted we are not these programs". I was just stating that an older stadium even less renovated than ours doesn't hurt their program during recruiting.

My main point was that tradition and a team's winning percentage are the main determining factors during recruiting.

Stallion · Post by **Stallion** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:56 am

I thought Notre Dame's facility just had a large increase in seating capacity and I'm sure Michigan's facilities have been updated repeatedly since Amon Carter Dump.

WorldStang · Post by **WorldStang** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:04 am

San Diego Frog wrote:If you read my post correctly, I never said we were Michigan or Notre Dame. I even said "granted we are not these programs". I was just stating that an older stadium even less renovated than ours doesn't hurt their program during recruiting.

My main point was that tradition and a team's winning percentage are the main determining factors during recruiting.

Right..

Well hop away and work on your team's winning percentage tonight. Maybe your luxury boxes and nice stadium will hold all those fans/recruits that are so excited about TCU "tradition". :shock:

me@smu · Post by **me@smu** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:19 am

Let's see traditional stadiums..."the Horseshoe", "The Big House" Amon Carter...that was my thought process growing up when thinking about stadiums.

ponyte · Post by **ponyte** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:41 am

San Diego Frog wrote:If you read my post correctly, I never said we were Michigan or Notre Dame. I even said "granted we are not these programs". I was just stating that an older stadium even less renovated than ours doesn't hurt their program during recruiting.

My main point was that tradition and a team's winning percentage are the main determining factors during recruiting.

Lord, forgive me for agreeing with a Froggie. There, now that that is out of the way, SDF has a very salient point. There is more to recruiting than a nice shiny stadium. A program with many other assets can slide on the pretty stadium while a program with fewer assets may benefit from a nice stadium. Other facilities are a big plus (athletic training facilities, weight rooms, conference rooms, computer labs, dorms, exciting game day atmosphere, winning and so froth).

No doubt TCU has done a good job recruiting over the past few years. One may hazard a guess that Amon Carter was not the decisive factor in many recruits decision process. One might argue that TCU used other assets to recruit players (not talking money here, but campus and AD assets). And the same is true for ND, Michigan, Ohio State, LSU, and others.

We have to develop our assets (Boulevard, stadium, winning, great looking co-eds, etc) that entice recruits to play at SMU.

San Diego Frog · Post by **San Diego Frog** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:50 am

Alright, I'll hop away. Good luck with your game Saturday.

Will go and try to improve on our winning percentage although I don' think it will happen tonight because Utah is damn good. Good luck with your 6-29 (.171) under Bennett. Hopefully, you guys can make it 7-29.

WorldStang · Post by **WorldStang** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 12:05 pm

San Diego Frog wrote:Alright, I'll hop away. Good luck with your game Saturday.

Will go and try to improve on our winning percentage although I don' think it will happen tonight because Utah is damn good. Good luck with your 6-29 (.171) under Bennett. Hopefully, you guys can make it 7-29.

Many here are quite happy with 1-10.. if it means a win over TCU. I'm not one of them..

RE Tycoon · Post by **RE Tycoon** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 12:17 pm

I'm not happy with 1-10, and neither should any SMU fan.

Post by **SmooPower** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 1:31 pm

San Diego Frog wrote:Alright, I'll hop away. Good luck with your game Saturday.

Will go and try to improve on our winning percentage although I don' think it will happen tonight because Utah is damn good. Good luck with your 6-29 (.171) under Bennett. Hopefully, you guys can make it 7-29.

6-29 was at the beginning of this season. It is 7-30 now!

me@smu · Post by **me@smu** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 1:40 pm

Though more importantly, since we don't get points for history...we are 1-1 on this season.