Utah gives notice it will leave the MWC to go to the Pac-10
- Thread starter Despite the odds Frog
- Start date
QUOTE(Frogs1983 @ Jun 15 2010, 01:59 PM) [snapback]579988[/snapback]
Certainly can't blame them if the offer is there. We would do the same thing.Let's all admit it.
Not quite so sure. IMO, I would much rather be the MWC (current 10 members as of 6/14/10) with an autobid than the Big 12. I have no desire for TCU to become one of UTs pawns regardless of how much money it would temporarily bring in.
QUOTE(Frogs1983 @ Jun 15 2010, 01:59 PM) [snapback]579988[/snapback]
Bring on UH to replace.Let's at least get a travel partner out of the deal and a replacement Baseball program.
So, the term 'travel partner' is brought up a lot, but what exact benefits would one bring? So you have one away game every 2 years that is closer to get to, but what else?
EDIT: I got hung up before hitting reply and just saw all the other posts talking about travel partners.
Certainly can't blame them if the offer is there. We would do the same thing.Let's all admit it.
Not quite so sure. IMO, I would much rather be the MWC (current 10 members as of 6/14/10) with an autobid than the Big 12. I have no desire for TCU to become one of UTs pawns regardless of how much money it would temporarily bring in.
QUOTE(Frogs1983 @ Jun 15 2010, 01:59 PM) [snapback]579988[/snapback]
Bring on UH to replace.Let's at least get a travel partner out of the deal and a replacement Baseball program.
So, the term 'travel partner' is brought up a lot, but what exact benefits would one bring? So you have one away game every 2 years that is closer to get to, but what else?
EDIT: I got hung up before hitting reply and just saw all the other posts talking about travel partners.
PurplePutt
Active Member
QUOTE(HFrog1999 @ Jun 15 2010, 02:44 PM) [snapback]580081[/snapback]
Utah not contacted by Pac-10
Doubt Utah gets an offer prior to all the Big 12 members signing on the dotted line. Tech still hashing it out but they will cave in. I heard Okie State just did?
Utah not contacted by Pac-10
Doubt Utah gets an offer prior to all the Big 12 members signing on the dotted line. Tech still hashing it out but they will cave in. I heard Okie State just did?
thewellendowedfrog
New Member
One thing I haven't picked up on, but may be redundant to those that follow this closely, when do these changes take effect?
Also, I know I may be in the minority here, but I would rather see SMU in the MWC conference then Houston. I know Houston has had more than one season of recent success, but SMU did go a a bowl game and there doesn't seem to be an end to the support from their boosters, financially speaking. Not to mention, they are a far better match, academically. If we are in the MWC for the long haul, I feel SMU will be a better long term match.
Also, I know I may be in the minority here, but I would rather see SMU in the MWC conference then Houston. I know Houston has had more than one season of recent success, but SMU did go a a bowl game and there doesn't seem to be an end to the support from their boosters, financially speaking. Not to mention, they are a far better match, academically. If we are in the MWC for the long haul, I feel SMU will be a better long term match.
PurplePutt
Active Member
No baseball program and no track program? They made a commitment to football when they hired Jones but have not made the across the board commitment to athletics needed to join a better conference and one that has a real chance at a BCS auto-bid.
thewellendowedfrog
New Member
QUOTE(PurplePutt @ Jun 15 2010, 04:01 PM) [snapback]580204[/snapback]
No baseball program and no track program? They made a commitment to football when they hired Jones but have not made the across the board commitment to athletics needed to join a better conference and one that has a real chance at a BCS auto-bid.
I can understand that...and can't really argue with it. It's too bad because I feel SMU would be a much better fit with the MWC (especially over Houston) from an institutional standpoint.
Anyone have an answer on when these conference changes become effective?
No baseball program and no track program? They made a commitment to football when they hired Jones but have not made the across the board commitment to athletics needed to join a better conference and one that has a real chance at a BCS auto-bid.
I can understand that...and can't really argue with it. It's too bad because I feel SMU would be a much better fit with the MWC (especially over Houston) from an institutional standpoint.
Anyone have an answer on when these conference changes become effective?
QUOTE(ShaleFrog @ Jun 15 2010, 04:25 PM) [snapback]580235[/snapback]
I can understand that...and can't really argue with it. It's too bad because I feel SMU would be a much better fit with the MWC (especially over Houston) from an institutional standpoint.
Anyone have an answer on when these conference changes become effective?
I'm with you on the SMU being better than Houston, but only b/c Houston is bigger dog. SMU is still not even close to being worthy of consideration into the MWC. If Utah does leave, I'd rather keep at 9 than either of those 2 schools. Hopefully Pac10 is done for now and sees no value in adding Utah only to have 1 more team split a huge pile of money.
I can understand that...and can't really argue with it. It's too bad because I feel SMU would be a much better fit with the MWC (especially over Houston) from an institutional standpoint.
Anyone have an answer on when these conference changes become effective?
I'm with you on the SMU being better than Houston, but only b/c Houston is bigger dog. SMU is still not even close to being worthy of consideration into the MWC. If Utah does leave, I'd rather keep at 9 than either of those 2 schools. Hopefully Pac10 is done for now and sees no value in adding Utah only to have 1 more team split a huge pile of money.
RustySimondale
Member
QUOTE(ShaleFrog @ Jun 15 2010, 04:25 PM) [snapback]580235[/snapback]
I can understand that...and can't really argue with it. It's too bad because I feel SMU would be a much better fit with the MWC (especially over Houston) from an institutional standpoint.
Anyone have an answer on when these conference changes become effective?
Boise State will be part of the conference starting in 2011. I've heard that out of Nebraska and Colorado, one goes into effect in '11 and the other in 2012. Maybe someone can help me out with that one?
I can understand that...and can't really argue with it. It's too bad because I feel SMU would be a much better fit with the MWC (especially over Houston) from an institutional standpoint.
Anyone have an answer on when these conference changes become effective?
Boise State will be part of the conference starting in 2011. I've heard that out of Nebraska and Colorado, one goes into effect in '11 and the other in 2012. Maybe someone can help me out with that one?
QUOTE(RustySimondale @ Jun 15 2010, 04:39 PM) [snapback]580249[/snapback]
Boise State will be part of the conference starting in 2011. I've heard that out of Nebraska and Colorado, one goes into effect in '11 and the other in 2012. Maybe someone can help me out with that one?
Nebraska leaves in 2011 & Colorado in 2012.
Boise State will be part of the conference starting in 2011. I've heard that out of Nebraska and Colorado, one goes into effect in '11 and the other in 2012. Maybe someone can help me out with that one?
Nebraska leaves in 2011 & Colorado in 2012.
mrnicefrog
Full Member
QUOTE(ShaleFrog @ Jun 15 2010, 03:39 PM) [snapback]580165[/snapback]
Also, I know I may be in the minority here, but I would rather see SMU in the MWC conference then Houston. I know Houston has had more than one season of recent success, but SMU did go a a bowl game and there doesn't seem to be an end to the support from their boosters, financially speaking. Not to mention, they are a far better match, academically. If we are in the MWC for the long haul, I feel SMU will be a better long term match.
+1. Why everyone here thinks Houston is sooo good I don't understand.
Have you seen their stadium and facilities are way behind Smew's.
Also, I know I may be in the minority here, but I would rather see SMU in the MWC conference then Houston. I know Houston has had more than one season of recent success, but SMU did go a a bowl game and there doesn't seem to be an end to the support from their boosters, financially speaking. Not to mention, they are a far better match, academically. If we are in the MWC for the long haul, I feel SMU will be a better long term match.
+1. Why everyone here thinks Houston is sooo good I don't understand.
Have you seen their stadium and facilities are way behind Smew's.
mrnicefrog
Full Member
QUOTE(Daniel @ Jun 15 2010, 04:43 PM) [snapback]580258[/snapback]
Nebraska leaves in 2011 & Colorado in 2012.
Given that, the PAC could wait a year to invite Utah. No hurry,
they may wait around and see if this new Big-Briles conference will make it.
Nebraska leaves in 2011 & Colorado in 2012.
Given that, the PAC could wait a year to invite Utah. No hurry,
they may wait around and see if this new Big-Briles conference will make it.
Dogfrog
Active Member
Again you guys are missing the point with either Houston or SMU. The question is not which of them are more deserving. The question is which of them improves TCU's situation? Answer: Neither. Either or both hurt us. There is a pecking order of universities and conferences in the state of Texas. Top on the list is Big 12, at least for now. 2nd tier is MWC. Next is CUSA. Why on earth does TCU want to elevate in state rivals up to our tier. We are just improving the competitor's status and decreasing our own.
We have a nice, unique niche as the only TExas school in MWC. Let's stop talking seriously about screwing that up. Please.
We have a nice, unique niche as the only TExas school in MWC. Let's stop talking seriously about screwing that up. Please.
gdu
Active Member
QUOTE(Dogfrog @ Jun 15 2010, 04:50 PM) [snapback]580267[/snapback]
Again you guys are missing the point with either Houston or SMU. The question is not which of them are more deserving. The question is which of them improves TCU's situation? Answer: Neither. Either or both hurt us. There is a pecking order of universities and conferences in the state of Texas. Top on the list is Big 12, at least for now. 2nd tier is MWC. Next is CUSA. Why on earth does TCU want to elevate in state rivals up to our tier. We are just improving the competitor's status and decreasing our own.
We have a nice, unique niche as the only TExas school in MWC. Let's stop talking seriously about screwing that up. Please.
Irony?
Again you guys are missing the point with either Houston or SMU. The question is not which of them are more deserving. The question is which of them improves TCU's situation? Answer: Neither. Either or both hurt us. There is a pecking order of universities and conferences in the state of Texas. Top on the list is Big 12, at least for now. 2nd tier is MWC. Next is CUSA. Why on earth does TCU want to elevate in state rivals up to our tier. We are just improving the competitor's status and decreasing our own.
We have a nice, unique niche as the only TExas school in MWC. Let's stop talking seriously about screwing that up. Please.
Irony?
