TCU has been invited to the Big 12

[boksooner]

This is NOT about a football program! It's about adding market share and increasing the value of TV contracts. Adding TCU not only doesn't add market share for the Big 12, it probably weakens it, especially compared to A&M. This is NOT about TCU versus A&M on the football field.

Shouldn't it be?

How many big markets does the SEC have and yet they have a huge contract because of the product on the field.

 

[WTSooner]

Shouldn't it be?

How many big markets does the SEC have and yet they have a huge contract because of the product on the field.

Ding, ding, ding.

This whole "market share" and "tv set" crap is just that, crap. I'm sure the people making these decisions (whom to add, when/where/how) have ran the numbers and talked with those that contract with the Big 12. If they've all approved, then we're fine.

 

[stoops4pres]

TCU was in the conference with Sugar Bowl winner Utah who is now in the Pac-12, BYU, who beat us in Dallas and has a national championship.

TCU is 1 of 2 teams to beat us in Norman under Stoops. They have been to back to back BCS Bowls and beat Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl.

A&M is 12-29 vs OU, Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State the past decade. Their lone bowl win the past decade is the galleryfurniture.com bowl.

TCU is a major step up not only on the field but also in class and intelligence.

As for basketball, I have been to their arena and it's far superior to Baylor. Freshen it up a little, get the right coach and they will snag the 3 or 4 recruits it takes to start competing in no time.

Exactly. boca and bigabd are spot-on about the recent state of both programs.

I said the same thing about Missouri when comparing them to A&M. Regardless of how easier TCU's schedule has been compared to A&M's, they still have been a better program recently. Keep in mind A&M has continually embarrassed themselves against mediocre and putrid teams out of conference, as well. I think many people lose sight of the fact that A&M has been--for the most part--a pathetic, underachieving football program for the majority of the Big 12's existence.

A&M obviously has more stature and better resources, but TCU has fielded a better team over the last several seasons.

 

[stoops4pres]

Exactly.... and I love this "but they arent good at basketball" thing. The following programs have sucked big time since the Big 12 started:

Kansas State (sucked, now good)
Baylor (sucked, now good)
Texas A&M (sucked, now good)
Nebraska (sucked, still suck)
Colorado (sucked, still suck)
Texas Tech (sucked, still suck)

Its not like a great basketball team is required to play in this league. There have been lots of really awful teams in this league. everyone acts like everyone in the league is really good and TCU is way behind. Recruit 3-4 good players and you have a good team.

A few years ago Baylor was given the closest thing to the death penalty basketball has ever seen. A&M went winless during conference play. Now you could argue that both of those programs are more stable than OU.

If Baylor has proven anything, tradition, unless its Duke/UNC/KU/Kentucky/etc level, doesn't mean much in the eyes of the 16, 17 year old kids. All you need is the right coach and one or two program changer players and things can change quickly. If TCU gets the proper coach and invests in their basketball program, they would be a very relevant player in the Big 12.

Both of these posts pretty much nail it. Basketball programs are much easier to turn around than football programs. TCU, while a dismal program now, could turn it around just like other programs in the Big 12 have done.

 

[campbest]

Ding, ding, ding.

This whole "market share" and "tv set" crap is just that, crap. I'm sure the people making these decisions (whom to add, when/where/how) have ran the numbers and talked with those that contract with the Big 12. If they've all approved, then we're fine.

I wouldn't say its complete crap, but it is definitely overblown. SEC is big because not just their representative states watch, but because people outside the footprint tune in. That is where you win.

 

[Tony]

A few years ago Baylor was given the closest thing to the death penalty basketball has ever seen. A&M went winless during conference play. Now you could argue that both of those programs are more stable than OU.

If Baylor has proven anything, tradition, unless its Duke/UNC/KU/Kentucky/etc level, doesn't mean much in the eyes of the 16, 17 year old kids. All you need is the right coach and one or two program changer players and things can change quickly. If TCU gets the proper coach and invests in their basketball program, they would be a very relevant player in the Big 12.

Exactly.... and I love this "but they arent good at basketball" thing. The following programs have sucked big time since the Big 12 started:

Kansas State (sucked, now good)
Baylor (sucked, now good)
Texas A&M (sucked, now good)
Nebraska (sucked, still suck)
Colorado (sucked, still suck)
Texas Tech (sucked, still suck)

Its not like a great basketball team is required to play in this league. There have been lots of really awful teams in this league. everyone acts like everyone in the league is really good and TCU is way behind. Recruit 3-4 good players and you have a good team.

Both of these posts pretty much nail it. Basketball programs are much easier to turn around than football programs. TCU, while a dismal program now, could turn it around just like other programs in the Big 12 have done.

It's obviously easier to turn around a basketball program than it is a football program, but you guys are arguing that the current state of a schools program/facilities/fan support/etc. is completely irrelevant. I don't think that's the case. Just because some teams have done it doesn't mean you can put whoever in there and they can do it.

 

[NickZepp]

A&M hasn't really done that well in the Big 12 because outside of OU/Tx nobody really has. Tech or Nebraska are probably the 3rd best programs in the Big 12 since it began. And both have had some bad eras. OSU and A&M are probably close at 5th/6th. Point is that nobody is really playing the conference that well outside of the top two. OSU's had some good years the last 3 or 4. But before that they were awful some years, good some years. Nebraska dominated the first 5 years of the conference disappeared after that. Came back a bit the last few years. But they had some awful years. Tech has been consistent, with winning records every year. But only one really special year. Leach brought excitement. Won 8 games a year.

Does anyone really think TCU is suddenly 3rd best in the Big 12 right now? They couldn't beat Baylor SMU this year. TCU will be a 7 win team most years in the Big 12. Maybe one year they jump up win 8 or 9 games, but middle of the pack is about all you will get from them. They'll have a tough time beating OU/OSU/Texas right now.

Since this is a basketball board we are about to add a new doormat to the conference. Which might be good for us. It should be 2 wins a year we can automatically add. Something we haven't had a lot of in recent years.

 

[thebigabd]

It's obviously easier to turn around a basketball program than it is a football program, but you guys are arguing that the current state of a schools program/facilities/fan support/etc. is completely irrelevant. I don't think that's the case. Just because some teams have done it doesn't mean you can put whoever in there and they can do it.

How could their basketball gym be worse than the Coors Event Center, Baylor's arena, or the Bob Devaney Center in Lincoln? I mean, the LNC is old and sucks too but they have made proper renovations and its fine. At the end of the day people go and sit in a chair to watch a basketball game. Ive been to games in Norman, Stillwater, American Airlines Arena, Pepsi Center, Reynolds Center, Mabee Center, etc and its pretty much the same. I show up to watch the team I want to watch, sit down, watch basketball, go home.

Over the past decade, the "DMC" has undergone a number of renovations and expansions, beginning in the Fall 2002 when a new men's locker room and player's lounge area was completed. In 2003, a new women's locker room and player's lounge area was completed along with a new sports medicine facility. That same year, a new state-of-the-art playing surface replaced the original floor.

A new lighting system was added a year later, and most recently, a $1.5-million four-panel LED scoreboard along with LED baseline boards were installed. A new sound system was added to the "DMC" in the Spring 2010.

New floor, new sound, new lighting, new locker rooms.. whats the problem?

People focus on weird things.

Also, they have a practice facility that was built in 2005.

 

[Tony]

How could their basketball gym be worse than the Coors Event Center, Baylor's arena, or the Bob Devaney Center in Lincoln?

Completely non-responsive. You are the one arguing that it is totally irrelevant how good a basketball program has been in the past. If so, we might as well close up this thread, because it doesn't matter who we bring into the league.

 

[thebigabd]

Completely non-responsive. You are the one arguing that it is totally irrelevant how good a basketball program has been in the past. If so, we might as well close up this thread, because it doesn't matter who we bring into the league.

I am not saying its totally irrelevant, but I think given their location that we shouldnt worry about it too much.

Fort Worth > Stillwater, Waco, Lubbock, Ames, Lincoln, Manhattan

They are swimming in a huge talent pool.

The opportunity of being in the Big 12, being on TV, and being able to start and stay around Dallas is going to land them a couple of good players per year. If it doesnt, you've got the wrong coach.

 

[NickZepp]

They are swimming in a huge talent pool.

Why have they had a bad basketball program for the last forever. Their current coach has won 38 games in 3 seasons.

 

[thebigabd]

Why have they had a bad basketball program for the last forever. Their current coach has won 38 games in 3 seasons.

Because good players play in good leagues, for the most part. TCU has had good players recently, just not enough of them.

You think Baylor would have revived its program if it played in the Mountain West? What about A&M? They sucked forever and revived with a good coach who can recruit Texas with the best of em'. K-State?

Being in a power conference gave those schools a chance to get better. Perry Jones isnt gonna go play in the Mountain West and be on local television a couple of times per year. Neither is LeBryan Nash. Neither is Blake Griffin. Neither are high-major non-star players like Khris Middleton, Tony Crocker, Marcus Denmon, Tyshawn Taylor, etc.

BYU succeeded in that league because they get all the mormons. But, since that league became what it is even prominent programs like Utah and UNLV fell apart. They just cant convince the top level guys to come to their school and not get noticed.

 

[stoops4pres]

but you guys are arguing that the current state of a schools program/facilities/fan support/etc. is completely irrelevant.

I never once argued that those aforementioned factors are irrelevant.

The only point I was making was that it's not improbable for TCU to have a program resurgence. Big 12 teams in the past have proven that.

Just because some teams have done it doesn't mean you can put whoever in there and they can do it.

Agreed. But the proof of a possible reclamation project is there.

Just because other programs have turned around doesn't mean TCU automatically will do the same. But it is possible.

 

[stoops4pres]

A&M hasn't really done that well in the Big 12 because outside of OU/Tx nobody really has.

Well, that's not the only reason A&M has been bad.

And cumulatively speaking--at least starting at the Stoops era--comparing A&M to Tech and/or Nebraska is probably somewhat of a stretch. Sure Tech and Nebraska haven't been juggernauts, but A&M has had more seasons where they were in despair than both. In fact, I'm willing to bet OU's largest average margin of victory at Owen Field out of all Big 12 teams has been vs. A&M (since Stoops has been here). They truly have been anything but a consistent, winning program for quite some time.

That's why, when talking about replacements, TCU has been a better program than A&M for quite some time now. Regardless of conference affiliation... The wins (or lack thereof in A&M's case) validates this sentiment.

Does anyone really think TCU is suddenly 3rd best in the Big 12 right now? They couldn't beat Baylor SMU this year. TCU will be a 7 win team most years in the Big 12. Maybe one year they jump up win 8 or 9 games, but middle of the pack is about all you will get from them. They'll have a tough time beating OU/OSU/Texas right now.

Over the last several seasons, TCU very well could've been the 3rd best team in the Big 12 in some of those years. And maybe even better than that (last year and 2005 are two seasons that come to mind). Prior to this season, TCU has been very legit as of late. That's why, henceforth, I don't think it's a certainty that TCU will be a mediocre program every single season.

Not saying TCU's trend of playing for BCS bowls and winning over 10 games a year will definitively continue, but it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility.

Since this is a basketball board we are about to add a new doormat to the conference. Which might be good for us. It should be 2 wins a year we can automatically add. Something we haven't had a lot of in recent years.

I agree with that. Right now TCU could give OU some much needed W's.

 

[thebigabd]

2010:
They won at #6 Utah (who was undefeated) 47-7
Beat #4 Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl 21-19
Beat #24 Oregon State
Beat BYU 31-3

2009
Won at Virginia
Won at Clemson
Won at #16 BYU 38-7
Beat #16 Utah 55-28

2008
Beat Stanford 31-14
Beat #8 BYU 32-7
Beat #9 Boise State in bowl game
-------------------------

Impressive Texas A&M wins in same time span:

2010
Lost to Ranked Missouri
Lost to Ranked OSU
Lost to Ranked Arkansas
Beat #11 Oklahoma
Beat #9 Nebraska
Lost to #11 LSU

2009
Lost to Arkansas 47-19
Lost to OSU at home 36-31
Lost to K-State 62-14
Lost to COLORADO 35-34
Lost to Oklahoma 65-10
Lost to Texas 49-39
Lost to Georgia 44-20
No notable victories

2008
Lost to Arkansas State 18-14
Lost to Miami at home 41-23
Lost to OSU 56-28
Lost to K-State 44-30
Lost to Tech 43-25 at home
Lost to OU 66-28 at home
Lost to Baylor 41-21
Lost to Texas 49-9
No notable victories

 

[AdaSooner]

I'm late to the dance on this topic, but thought I would throw in my two cents anyway.

If the Big 12's goal is to add the best school available regionally, TCU was the obvious choice. I would much rather see the Whorn Frogs get in than Houston, SMU, or Boise State for that matter. BYU, Louisville and WVU would not be bad options should the conference expand further. But until the decision is made to return to the original twelve, I can't see increasing travel expenses by going outside the region too far.

 

[NickZepp]

If you put TCU in the Big 12 in 1996 they might not have won a game in the first couple years. They were going 4-7 and 1-10 in the WAC. So they never would have been the program they became if they were in the Big 12. They would have been about like Baylor, maybe a little worse.

I know this is all about football with this move but this is a bad move for just about all sports outside of Baseball. TCU has a really solid baseball program. They add nothing to football. They'll be middle of the pack at best.

What's really disappointing is that this sounds like about it as far as moves go. Maybe they replace Missouri if they leave but it sounds like they want to stick with 10 teams. This conference is dead if they can't get to 12 teams.

 

[One More Rebound]

If you put TCU in the Big 12 in 1996 they might not have won a game in the first couple years. They were going 4-7 and 1-10 in the WAC. So they never would have been the program they became if they were in the Big 12. They would have been about like Baylor, maybe a little worse.

I know this is all about football with this move but this is a bad move for just about all sports outside of Baseball. TCU has a really solid baseball program. They add nothing to football. They'll be middle of the pack at best.

What's really disappointing is that this sounds like about it as far as moves go. Maybe they replace Missouri if they leave but it sounds like they want to stick with 10 teams. This conference is dead if they can't get to 12 teams.

September 7, 1996:

TCU 20 OU 7: In Norman.

 

[NickZepp]

And OU was one of the worst teams in the country that year.

 

[stoops4pres]

2010:
They won at #6 Utah (who was undefeated) 47-7
Beat #4 Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl 21-19
Beat #24 Oregon State
Beat BYU 31-3

2009
Won at Virginia
Won at Clemson
Won at #16 BYU 38-7
Beat #16 Utah 55-28

2008
Beat Stanford 31-14
Beat #8 BYU 32-7
Beat #9 Boise State in bowl game
-------------------------

Impressive Texas A&M wins in same time span:

2010
Lost to Ranked Missouri
Lost to Ranked OSU
Lost to Ranked Arkansas
Beat #11 Oklahoma
Beat #9 Nebraska
Lost to #11 LSU

2009
Lost to Arkansas 47-19
Lost to OSU at home 36-31
Lost to K-State 62-14
Lost to COLORADO 35-34
Lost to Oklahoma 65-10
Lost to Texas 49-39
Lost to Georgia 44-20
No notable victories

2008
Lost to Arkansas State 18-14
Lost to Miami at home 41-23
Lost to OSU 56-28
Lost to K-State 44-30
Lost to Tech 43-25 at home
Lost to OU 66-28 at home
Lost to Baylor 41-21
Lost to Texas 49-9
No notable victories

Yep. If not for A&M's good season last year, that'd be an extremely miserable 3-year stretch that you just posted above for them.