I know this has been posted before, but if TCU leaves and UCF decides not to join why bother to make the switch to C-USA? Why don't we just form the "Reject and Has-Beens Conference". SMU, Tulsa, Rice, La Tech, NTSU, Tulane, LA-directional schools. That'd have some great "regional rivalries". Sound good!
I also gotta say that it makes me sick when I read the quotes about TCU's commitment to having a "National" presence. For 2 reasons: #1-Their memories' are pretty short. Exactly one win 6 years ago!!! (albeit at our expense). #2-Why the hell can't SMU get it together and do the same thing?!!
I have posted before that the only thing that is going to save SMU football is to have some type of 16 team national playoff. If this ultimately does happen, TCU will have moved for nothing!!
What are we joining?
Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower
-
Adopted Frog
- Newbie
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 4:01 am
- Location: Dallas
- Contact:
Re: What are we joining?
"I also gotta say that it makes me sick when I read the quotes about TCU's commitment to having a "National" presence. For 2 reasons: #1-Their memories' are pretty short. Exactly one win 6 years ago!!! (albeit at our expense)."
Here's the weakness of that argument. Yes, we had a horrible 1-10 season a few years back, but lets compare performance over a longer time frame.
Let's review some 'stats (Source: stassen.com College Football Information) 1989 -2002 seasons:
TCU W-L 85-74-1 (ranked #51) ...add 2003 ytd and we're 93-74-1
SMU W-L 49-104-3 (ranked #100) ... add 2003 ytd and you're 49-112-3
TCU winning seasons 1989 - 2003 = 10 (if you count the 6-6 year in 2001)
SMU winning season 1989 - 2003 = 1
I don't think you can compare where we were with a freak 1-10 season with your consistently poor performance. We have made the committment to be a major player and you haven't... bottom line.
PS. Rice is #65 at 72-81-2 and Tulsa #98 at 53-104-1 during the same period.
Here's the weakness of that argument. Yes, we had a horrible 1-10 season a few years back, but lets compare performance over a longer time frame.
Let's review some 'stats (Source: stassen.com College Football Information) 1989 -2002 seasons:
TCU W-L 85-74-1 (ranked #51) ...add 2003 ytd and we're 93-74-1
SMU W-L 49-104-3 (ranked #100) ... add 2003 ytd and you're 49-112-3
TCU winning seasons 1989 - 2003 = 10 (if you count the 6-6 year in 2001)
SMU winning season 1989 - 2003 = 1
I don't think you can compare where we were with a freak 1-10 season with your consistently poor performance. We have made the committment to be a major player and you haven't... bottom line.
PS. Rice is #65 at 72-81-2 and Tulsa #98 at 53-104-1 during the same period.
Re: What are we joining?
Looks like you wasted a lot of time by not reading point #2
Re: What are we joining?
Why are you starting with 1989? Go back another 20 years...Originally posted by Adopted Frog:
"I also gotta say that it makes me sick when I read the quotes about TCU's commitment to having a "National" presence. For 2 reasons: #1-Their memories' are pretty short. Exactly one win 6 years ago!!! (albeit at our expense)."
Here's the weakness of that argument. Yes, we had a horrible 1-10 season a few years back, but lets compare performance over a longer time frame.
Let's review some 'stats (Source: stassen.com College Football Information) 1989 -2002 seasons:
TCU W-L 85-74-1 (ranked #51) ...add 2003 ytd and we're 93-74-1
SMU W-L 49-104-3 (ranked #100) ... add 2003 ytd and you're 49-112-3
TCU winning seasons 1989 - 2003 = 10 (if you count the 6-6 year in 2001)
SMU winning season 1989 - 2003 = 1
I don't think you can compare where we were with a freak 1-10 season with your consistently poor performance. We have made the committment to be a major player and you haven't... bottom line.
PS. Rice is #65 at 72-81-2 and Tulsa #98 at 53-104-1 during the same period.
-
Adopted Frog
- Newbie
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 4:01 am
- Location: Dallas
- Contact:
Re: What are we joining?
I chose 1989 as the starting point of "modern history" - the year you started playing football again. The idea was to illustrate the different directions the programs have taken since that time.
I don't think how bad TCU was 20-30 years ago has anything to do with now... anymore than does how good we were in the 30's or the 50's.
The other point was to show that the comparison between TCU's 1-10 record a few years back and SMU's situation are not apples=apples. Although we had a horrible losing season, we have mostly had winning seasons (10 of 14 including this year). SMU has not. Not flaming - just 'stats.
I don't think how bad TCU was 20-30 years ago has anything to do with now... anymore than does how good we were in the 30's or the 50's.
The other point was to show that the comparison between TCU's 1-10 record a few years back and SMU's situation are not apples=apples. Although we had a horrible losing season, we have mostly had winning seasons (10 of 14 including this year). SMU has not. Not flaming - just 'stats.
Re: What are we joining?
you still need to read #2 sucka - save yourself soem time!Originally posted by Adopted Frog:
I chose 1989 as the starting point of "modern history" - the year you started playing football again. The idea was to illustrate the different directions the programs have taken since that time.
I don't think how bad TCU was 20-30 years ago has anything to do with now... anymore than does how good we were in the 30's or the 50's.
The other point was to show that the comparison between TCU's 1-10 record a few years back and SMU's situation are not apples=apples. Although we had a horrible losing season, we have mostly had winning seasons (10 of 14 including this year). SMU has not. Not flaming - just 'stats.
First name \"Mister\"
Middle name \"Period\"
Last name.... \"T\"
Middle name \"Period\"
Last name.... \"T\"