• The KillerFrogs

Dan Patrick reports SDSU to Pac 12

JogginFrog

Active Member
Kliavkoff is exploring some pretty desperate moves to keep his conference viable. I guess taking the best available program in SoCal and Texas makes sense--standing pat seems like a losing strategy. San Diego and Dallas are not only the best available media markets, but they provide a bit of cover for what is shaping up to be a huge raid of the PAC's recruiting ground. If the remaining PAC schools don't have an annual game in SoCal, their rosters will be decimated. Adding SDSU and SMU at least throws conference members a bone as they attempt to stay competitive. Here's a breakdown is of Cali and Texas players on current rosters of the four corners schools:

Ariz.: 39 Calif., 7 Texas (39 other, assuming 85 total)
AZ St.: 32 Calif., 7 Texas, 46 other
Utah: 29 Calif., 11 Texas, 45 other
Colo: 28 Calif., 23 Texas, 34 other

In the portal era, I get why the athletic staffs of those schools would be hesitant to jump ship to the Big 12. The money might be clearly better, but their teams wouldn't be.

Wilner wrote a piece in the San Jose paper advocating for the PAC to merge with the Big 12 in order to form a clear #3 conference. That makes sense from a PAC perspective, but to TCU fans (and SMU and Houston fans, too), if just looks a lot like the mid-90s WAC. Big travel bills and half-empty stadiums. Schools in the Big 12 do not need regular road trips to Corvallis and Pullman.

In retrospect, I'm glad the Big 12 offered Houston. Rather have them in the conference than helping to prop up the PAC. Kill it now.
 

Brog

Full Member
Though I'd rather see SMU in the Big 12 (I know that's not a majority view here), I hope for the Ponies' sake that they do get into the Pac. It will help their program, which in turn increases the significance of our cross-town rivalry. I'm happy for that series to be a real challenge that will draw eyeballs; in the long-run I believe that a good rivalry benefits both programs, it's not a zero-sum.
Oh yeah, anything that helps SMU"s program I am really for. (Where IS that sarcasm button?)
 

CountryFrog

Active Member
We don't have to participate in it being a new era. We could just keep playing SMU every year because it's the right thing to do. It easy; you just schedule SMU, then you play the game.
I'm neither for nor against playing SMU every year. I'm fine with keeping them on the schedule. You have to play someone and it's an easy road trip every other year. I don't think I understand why it's "the right thing to do" though. Right thing for whom?
 

Wexahu

Full Member
I'm neither for nor against playing SMU every year. I'm fine with keeping them on the schedule. You have to play someone and it's an easy road trip every other year. I don't think I understand why it's "the right thing to do" though. Right thing for whom?
It’s just kind of logical that we play them IMO, although they aren’t our main rival, it is a nice little rivalry that has some history. And its almost like a free home game when we play them in Dallas. Can’t hurt local recruiting. Beats playing some spare G5 team we have no real connection to.

I guess I don’t see a real good reason not to play them other than we are somehow afraid of elevating their status, which I don’t really get. If they are beneath us, we should whoop up on them about every year.
 

froginaustin

Active Member
If the PAC wanted to prop up SoCal recruiting, why wouldn’t they take Fresno instead of SMUg?

I understand it’s in the Valley, but it’s a hell of a lot closer to SoCal than Dallas is.
 

CountryFrog

Active Member
It’s just kind of logical that we play them IMO, although they aren’t our main rival, it is a nice little rivalry that has some history. And its almost like a free home game when we play them in Dallas. Can’t hurt local recruiting. Beats playing some spare G5 team we have no real connection to.

I guess I don’t see a real good reason not to play them other than we are somehow afraid of elevating their status, which I don’t really get. If they are beneath us, we should whoop up on them about every year.
I'm just not sure why it's "the right thing to do." I don't view playing SMU as any more right (or wrong for that matter) than playing a game against Memphis or Wyoming. When someone says it's the right thing to do then that makes it sound like we have some kind of responsibility to do it and I don't understand that line of thinking.
 

Wexahu

Full Member
I'm just not sure why it's "the right thing to do." I don't view playing SMU as any more right (or wrong for that matter) than playing a game against Memphis or Wyoming. When someone says it's the right thing to do then that makes it sound like we have some kind of responsibility to do it and I don't understand that line of thinking.
Of course we don’t have an obligation, but I think it makes a lot more sense to take advantage of what is a natural rivalry than to play a Memphis or a Wyoming type team instead. Even if one or both teams stink, the game still mean something locally. As Duggan always says, that’s what college football is about at least to some degree.
 

froginaustin

Active Member
Actually, I don’t think playing SMUg is a bad idea. I don’t think TCU should play them home and home.
They should visit Carter.

Of course that’s how UTx wants to schedule BXII teams after they move to the sec.
 

CountryFrog

Active Member
Of course we don’t have an obligation, but I think it makes a lot more sense to take advantage of what is a natural rivalry than to play a Memphis or a Wyoming type team instead. Even if one or both teams stink, the game still mean something locally. As Duggan always says, that’s what college football is about at least to some degree.
I can understand that. For me, I feel like we play plenty of regional rivals every year as it is so that's why I don't feel like it matters too much whether or not we play SMU every year. I'd rather get Texas, A&M, OU, or Arkansas on the OOC as a rivalry game but I'm not sure how likely that is to happen.

I'm not advocating to never play SMU again. I'm just not of the opinion that the game must happen every single year. I'm not staunchly opposed to it either, though. I'd just personally prefer to play more games against different teams. Right now, we're locked into 9 conference games plus SMU so there are only 2 games per year against different opponents. If we stop playing FCS teams every year then that would help too and I'd be a little more ok with SMU taking up a spot on the schedule every year. I don't know what CSD's opinion is on playing those games every year.
 
Last edited:

Limey Frog

Full Member
Oh yeah, anything that helps SMU"s program I am really for. (Where IS that sarcasm button?)

I've said the same thing before about Baylor (who I generally cheer for against teams other than TCU chiefly for this reason): I believe that healthy rivalries between quality programs benefit both parties. In the long run, I don't think it helps your program to have either no rivalries that anyone cares about (see WVU's predicament in the current Big XII) or useless rivals with no pulse. I am always most excited to see TCU in meaningful rivalry games against teams we want to beat for reasons other than 'a win is a win'. I'd rather beat SMU than UCF, and I'd rather beat a good SMU than a bad SMU. So, yes, I am for things that help their program because I think it also helps ours.

I'm neither for nor against playing SMU every year. I'm fine with keeping them on the schedule. You have to play someone and it's an easy road trip every other year. I don't think I understand why it's "the right thing to do" though. Right thing for whom?

Tradition. The household gods of college football demand that we sacrifice a pony on the high altar of Amon G. Carter's temple every second September, and it is neither meet nor right not to do so.
 
Top