Dan Patrick

[FBallFan123]

He’s probably right, if he’s talking about money and tv ratings.

Which includes networks, people who make money from college football, or people watch college football.

You think most fans want to see TCU in the playoff over blue bloods?

This is probably not the day to listen to talking heads discuss college football if you have thin skin.

 

[BigDubya2012]

Obviously we dont like it as TCU fans, but he isn't wrong. The number of teams in play for the playoff has jumped a whole bunch. The Pac-12 is alive again, etc.

What is UW's signature win? Fresno? Rutgers? Their schedule is as soft as Charmin.

 

[Zubaz]

What I don't get is the fact that many of these old writers are still stuck in the 80's as far as perception is concerned. Look no further than A&M as a great example. How many sports writers today would still consider A&M one of the big boys in college football? More than most. But it's been nearly 20 years since they even won a conference championship, they haven't won a national title since the 1930's and only have two Heisman winners overall. Now the same sports writers will all claim TCU is in the "new money" category of football, ignoring the early days where TCU contributed a lot to the sport up until the 70's - 90's. Sure, three decades of mediocrity will kill the perception of a program, but what exactly has many of these so-called blue-chip programs done lately other than be ranked high early, and failed to deliver? Some of these programs haven't had the same level of success TCU has in the last 17 years, yet we're constantly judged by the teams we had during those 3 decades.

It's a perception problem, and I fail to see how any of this will change until the current crop of sports writers die off or Patterson wins multiple National Titles.

I think it really comes down to that P5 / G5 divide. Since the BCS started in 1998, there are only three schools to have been elevated from G5 to P5 status: Us, Utah, and Louisville. I think TCU and Utah are viewed at in largely the same category, whereas Louisville gets a bit more benefit since they joined the Big-Conference club 7 years before we did.

Despite all of the success that TCU had from 1998-2012, that barely counts save maybe for the lingering respect from the Rose Bowl win. The clock only really re-started on our national relevance when we joined the Big 12. So we have 5.5 seasons, 3 of which were mediocre for whatever reason. 2014, 2015, and this year have done well to put us in to that national respect category, but we still have a ways to go. It's not fair, but it's the reality of the have-vs-have-nots dichotomy of college football between P5 and G5 schools.

 

[LSU Game Attendee]

It's a perception problem, and I fail to see how any of this will change until the current crop of sports writers die off or Patterson wins multiple National Titles.

I agree 100%. Sports biases seem to be burned in somewhere between age 7-25.

It also explains why TCU is thought less of locally than nationally. The lost local generation that was hard coded to think TAMU is good at football due to their ~20 years of professional wrecking crew teams can never be saved.

The Frogs' great run in the 1930s-60s explains the impressive core of bluehairs that would faithfully show up to watch the frogs usually get destoyed in the 70s-90s.

 

[kdaltcu]

He’s probably right, if he’s talking about the networks, people who make money from college football, or people watch college football.

You think most fans want to see TCU in the playoff over blue bloods?

This is probably not the day to listen to talking heads discuss college football if you have thin skin.

I completely disagree, which is why it makes me so mad when the media tries to act like people dont want TCU there. People are going to watch regardless because people love college football. I dont recall what the viewership was for the Rose Bowl, but it certainly seemed like a lot of people watched/cared because of the fact that is WAS TCU who took down the big bad school.

 

[satis1103]

Both Dan Patricks can take a long walk off a short pier.

 

[TK2000]

Greg McElroy who usually doesn’t give us much credit and was the TV analyst for our game sort of complimented us this morning on his radio show.

When asked if Iowa St was the real deal, he said “ No, From what I saw TCU shot itself in the foot at the wrong time over and over and should have easily won that game by 14 plus points”

He was at the game and watched the whole thing unlike Dan Patrick ( lib tard )

 

[BABYFACE]

By the way, most cfb fans are ignorant dumbasses. They have no idea of history. They just listen to what the Tv tells them to think.

Kind of like politics.

 

[Way of the Frog]

Is Dan still alive or is it just his career that has gone into the witness protection program?

 

[RollToad]

Greg McElroy who usually doesn’t give us much credit and was the TV analyst for our game sort of complimented us this morning on his radio show.

When asked if Iowa St was the real deal, he said “ No, From what I saw TCU shot itself in the foot at the wrong time over and over and should have easily won that game by 14 plus points”

He was at the game and watched the whole thing unlike Dan Patrick ( lib tard )

Wouldn’t that be the same guy that swooned about Joel Lanning’s spirit?

 

[Mean Purple]

Dan sux

 

[TK2000]

Wouldn’t that be the same guy that swooned about Joel Lanning’s spirit?

He was caught up in his man lust, he wasn’t thinking clearly

 

[ftwfrog]

I agree 100%. Sports biases seem to be burned in somewhere between age 7-25.

It also explains why TCU is thought less of locally than nationally. The lost local generation that was hard coded to think TAMU is good at football due to their ~20 years of professional wrecking crew teams can never be saved.

The Frogs' great run in the 1930s-60s explains the impressive core of bluehairs that would faithfully show up to watch the frogs usually get destoyed in the 70s-90s.

This makes a little bit of sense. As an outsider looking in (someone who never grew up in Texas) A&M was never a national power when I was growing up (80's & 90's). Michigan, Ohio State, Miami, Nebraska, Florida, FSU. I could name others but A&M was waaaaaay down the list on relevance in the 80's and 90's on a national perspective.

As for the OP, I'm glad to hear Dan Patrick is still alive. Haven't heard the name in about a decade.

 

[Casey T]

Clemson has less than 20K undergrads. Still double our size but much smaller than many of the big state schools

 

[Dogfrog]

I agree 100%. Sports biases seem to be burned in somewhere between age 7-25.

It also explains why TCU is thought less of locally than nationally. The lost local generation that was hard coded to think TAMU is good at football due to their ~20 years of professional wrecking crew teams can never be saved.

The Frogs' great run in the 1930s-60s explains the impressive core of bluehairs that would faithfully show up to watch the frogs usually get destoyed in the 70s-90s.

Agree. I would tighten the age bracket a little to 12-22. For example Dan PAtrick would have been 15 in 1971? IMO it’s mostly about who was always in the top 20 back then, but also who really sucked at that time. TCU, with only a couple exceptions was bottom 10 for years during that period. So our ancient suckage attached itself to his brain like a barnacle.

 

[stbrab]

Greg McElroy who usually doesn’t give us much credit and was the TV analyst for our game sort of complimented us this morning on his radio show.

When asked if Iowa St was the real deal, he said “ No, From what I saw TCU shot itself in the foot at the wrong time over and over and should have easily won that game by 14 plus points”

He was at the game and watched the whole thing unlike Dan Patrick ( lib tard )

FYI, last week McElroy had us at #2.

 

[Mean Purple]

Greg McElroy who usually doesn’t give us much credit and was the TV analyst for our game sort of complimented us this morning on his radio show.

When asked if Iowa St was the real deal, he said “ No, From what I saw TCU shot itself in the foot at the wrong time over and over and should have easily won that game by 14 plus points”

He was at the game and watched the whole thing unlike Dan Patrick ( lib tard )

Greg also indicated TCU still has a shot towards the end of his game broadcast. Just before they signed off.

 

[Purp]

I know Miami is a private school but I don't think they're small. Maybe they are.

Either way, they are not looked at nationally as small because they had about a 20 year run of multiple national championships, being an NFL factory, and having some of the best teams ever assembled in college football history. Unfortunately for TCU, (and every other small private school), they don't have that type of relatively recent history to fall back on.

I think this is part of the point. The main reason I think Miami gets a pass at this is because, similar to Baylor fans, for most college football observers and talking heads college football history began when most games became televised on cable and the BcS was born. Miami had the long recent history you described prior to the BcS so they're included in the club.

Had Miami not gotten good until the BcS era I think they'd face the same perception bias we do. They also would have had a much tougher time becoming the multiple national champion NFL factory you described. They didn't have to overcome that perception bias in the 80s that we've had to over the last 20 years b/c there weren't enough biased eyes watching back then to make a difference.

 

[Purp]

What I don't get is the fact that many of these old writers are still stuck in the 80's as far as perception is concerned. Look no further than A&M as a great example. How many sports writers today would still consider A&M one of the big boys in college football? More than most. But it's been nearly 20 years since they even won a conference championship, they haven't won a national title since the 1930's and only have two Heisman winners overall. Now the same sports writers will all claim TCU is in the "new money" category of football, ignoring the early days where TCU contributed a lot to the sport up until the 70's - 90's. Sure, three decades of mediocrity will kill the perception of a program, but what exactly has many of these so-called blue-chip programs done lately other than be ranked high early, and failed to deliver? Some of these programs haven't had the same level of success TCU has in the last 17 years, yet we're constantly judged by the teams we had during those 3 decades.

It's a perception problem, and I fail to see how any of this will change until the current crop of sports writers die off or Patterson wins multiple National Titles.

The 90s is when college football blew up with TV money. That's when most eye balls started to pay attention to it so the big programs at that time are considered the "traditional" powers. We weren't good when TV swelled the college football coffers so I think that explains the bias.

I disagree with you to one extent. I'm not so sure winning a national title will even change this perception. I think your option A of the old sports writers/talking heads shuffling off this mortal coil is the only thing that will change the bias. We just need to keep being good for another 10-15 years and I think that'll change the generational demographics of the college football writers enough to jettison the bias into the trash bin of history.

 

[ShreveFrog]

Have to agree with Dan Patrick. And I don't think it has anything to do with "perception" that we're still a little non-BCS school. We were exposed as a non Top 4 team in Ames. Something I think almost everyone here knew, whether they wanted to admit it or not, given our glaring weaknesses that get kicked around here all the time.