TCU and expansion...

ND_jacket

Helluva Engineer
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
2,223
I'm not sold on TCU as the best option. I think it'd set them up well to continue performing in football, but the league does have to consider the rest of the sports. Adding UT is one thing, because the revenue enhancements would offset the costs of travel for the non-revenue sports. TCU doesn't bring a big enough bump in TV money to offset the increased travel costs (and academic costs to SAs for travel to/from Texas).
 

TechinItEasy

Dodd-Like
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
13,058
They have a better ten year showing than we do.
Yes, which is exactly why I said "outside of the last 10 years"
2 BCS bowls (1-1) they have more tradition and history as a football program than most everyone in the ACC currently minus 3-4 teams. I mean how more wrong can you be based on your original reply? Outside of a 15 year period where they bounced around in öööö conferences (we have the same its called 1968-1983), they've been pretty relevant.
From 1959 to 1994 they went to 4 bowls, losing all of them. They were ok for a few years after that, and have been pretty damn good now under Patterson.

But, for the third time, what is going to happen when Patterson leaves?
 

gtphd

What a time to be alive
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
23,286
Why does everyone want UCONN? Their football team will stink since their coach left, and the basketball team is a bunch of cheaters.

Who is available?

Too far, adds little value: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, TCU

Poor academic fit: Texas Tech, USF, WVU, Cincy, Louisville,

Going elsewhere: OK, OK St, TAMU

That leaves: UT, Mizzou, UConn, Rutgers, Navy, BYU, and ND. And keep in mind that BYU is still probably too far and Mizzou is probably SEC or Big10 bound.

So unless you want to dip into a mid major conference, or steal from the Big 10/SEC, you have to at least consider UConn.
 

SCADjacket

Damn Good Rat
Joined
Jul 16, 2003
Messages
1,478
I didn't know that... but with that the speculation makes sense. But would the ACC would have then Pitt, it PennSt was on the table?

Re Penn St, there have been a number of newspaper articles calling for them to go to the ACC. Probably still a pipe dream, but some Penn St fans and beat writers are calling for a move. They associate themselves more with the east coast and have an appreciation for the rivalries they'd revive with a move to the ACC (Pitt, BC, Syracuse, etc.), especially if we land ND.
 

gtphd

What a time to be alive
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
23,286
I didn't know that... but with that the speculation makes sense. But would the ACC would have then Pitt, it PennSt was on the table?
Pitt is a good grab with or without PSU. They're at least an average ACC football team in a typical year (probably above average) and above average basketball team with good academics that are on an upward trajectory. Pitt has big alumni presence in Cincy, Pittsburgh, and Philly.

They were a top target of the ACC (obviously) and Big 10.
 

lonestarjacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
10,278
I guess if you really think the ACC is on par with the MWC or the WAC, then ya.

You have lost.

Pack it in and give it up and admit you popped off based on your flawed recollections.

Even if you had been right, it is irrelevant. They are hot right now with mor enational attention than we have had for the past five years. Yes, the success mught be due to a particular coach but again the same could be said of GT.

As far as basketball goes, I remember all the message board experts predicting Boston College, VT, and Miami would get wiped in the mighty ACC in BB and would bring the level of competition down. Didn't turn out that way.

Whatever team comes to the ACC will inevitably up its game in BB because of the recruiting advantage and increased exposure. It doesn't take long to turn things around in a BB program with a good coach.
 

TechSBP

Dodd-Like
Joined
May 3, 2004
Messages
6,862
And they've only been decent in football for 10 years.
That's like saying Tech has only been decent for the last 20 years.

They were good in the 30's, 40's, and 50's. So were we. They went downhill around the time we did, and unlike us, aren't in a BCS conference.

I don't think they are a good option. But TCU's football history is very respectable, and they've been relevant at many points. As for what matters most, they are as relevant as we are today.

They've certainly got a better history than UNC, NCST, WF, VT, and UVA. Not as good as GT, Miami, Pitt, Syracuse, or Clemson.
 

bellyseries

Dodd-Like
Joined
Dec 28, 2001
Messages
4,229
To do this again:

National Rankings USNWR undergraduate overall academics:

Duke - #10
ND - #19
UVA - #25
Wake - #25
UNC - #29
BC - #31
GT - # 36
Miami - #38
UT - #45
PSU - #45

Maryland - #55
Pitt - #58
UConn - #58
Syracuse - #62
Clemson - #68
Rutgers - #68
Virginia Tech - #71
TCU - #97
Florida State - #101
NC State - #101
Cincinnati - #143
WVU - #164
Louisville - #164

UCF - #174
USF - #181
Rutgers looking pretty good.
 

Legal Jacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
4,255
:rolleyes:

I have no sense of football history because I didn't take into consideration that one random team won a couple championships in the 30's? Give me a break.

If Tech had fallen to the levels of a mid major conference for 5 decades then I might agree with your assessment, but they didn't.

Nobody has answered my question though...what happens to TCU when Patterson leaves?
How old are you, 15? TCU isn't a "random" team - they are a pretty historic member of the Southwest Conference. Just because you are a child and got into sports 3 years ago doesn't make them "random." Go sit at the kiddie table and let the grownups talk.

Again, you blow any semblance of credibility with your second paragraph. Would you define a "mid major" conference as one with Texas, Arkansas, A&M, and Texas Tech? Cause that was the Southwest Conference from 1956 (When TT joined) - 1991 (when Arkansas Left). And that's not including a team like SMU that was dominant for the better part of at least a decade before it got the black death. They were such a "mid major" that they had an automatic bid to the Cotton Bowl - one of the four biggest bowls over that time.

In fact, from 1963 -1970 - the conference won at least a share of FIVE national championships. The conference won at least shares of 21 championships total in its existence. Mid-major? Way to show of that historical knowledge buddy.

And that's not even getting into what we did after we lost Dodd/left the SEC but prior to Ross reasserted our team (1967-1988). That's 5 bowls in ~ 20 years and a 109-128-7 record. TCU may have been worse over that time, but we were awful for a long time.

And I have no idea where you are pulling the "5 decades" thing from. TCU was decent until the Mid 60s. They struggled until about 94. May be splitting hairs, but that's THREE decades, not five.
 

Legal Jacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
4,255
That's like saying Tech has only been decent for the last 20 years.

They were good in the 30's, 40's, and 50's. So were we. They went downhill around the time we did, and unlike us, aren't in a BCS conference.
Exactly my point. You can pick nits in the differences but the point is if you dismiss TCU's history you are essentially dismissing GT's as well.
 

Legal Jacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
4,255
Who is available?

Too far, adds little value: Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, TCU

Poor academic fit: Texas Tech, USF, WVU, Cincy, Louisville,

Going elsewhere: OK, OK St, TAMU

That leaves: UT, Mizzou, UConn, Rutgers, Navy, BYU, and ND. And keep in mind that BYU is still probably too far and Mizzou is probably SEC or Big10 bound.

So unless you want to dip into a mid major conference, or steal from the Big 10/SEC, you have to at least consider UConn.
I think the sweet spot is ND, PSU, and then UConn. Problem is there isn't a good fourth if ND and PSU fall by the wayside.
 

GTCrew

Patrick Henry
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
49,873
If that happens Rutgers is the luckiest team in modern history.
 

non-gineer

Jolly Good Fellow
Joined
Nov 6, 2003
Messages
1,915
Another 2 cents or less worth:

If football is your primary concern, then PSU and ND make sense. In basketball, ND brings a little prestige, PSU somewhat less.

The reason Texas is probably not a candidate is not only geography, it's the fact that the ACC absolutely positively requires equal revenue sharing, and UT is unlikely to be willing to give away all the money they make from their new network. However, if that is solved - and if geography doesn't matter - then UT and Kansas would bring the Texas football prestige, and also create the number 1 all-time basketball conference.

That said, I think it's gonna be UConn plus somebody.
 

ND_jacket

Helluva Engineer
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
2,223
Another 2 cents or less worth:

If football is your primary concern, then PSU and ND make sense. In basketball, ND brings a little prestige, PSU somewhat less.

The reason Texas is probably not a candidate is not only geography, it's the fact that the ACC absolutely positively requires equal revenue sharing, and UT is unlikely to be willing to give away all the money they make from their new network. However, if that is solved - and if geography doesn't matter - then UT and Kansas would bring the Texas football prestige, and also create the number 1 all-time basketball conference.

That said, I think it's gonna be UConn plus somebody.
I'm not convinced that LHN couldn't co-exist with equal revenue sharing of the league TV and bowl revenues. My understanding is that teams negotiate their own radio deals right now and to air coaches shows, etc. on TV outside the ACC purview. If that can co-exist with equal revenue sharing, why not LHN, as long as it's not airing anything covered under the ACC media deal?
 

beej67

new around here
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
56,552
If I am the ACC, I would seriously consider taking TCU.

.......

This move would be brilliant in my opinion.
:bowrofl::rotfl::lol::biggthumpup:

Best BOR troll I've seen in years.

:bowdown:

(you weren't serious, right?)
 

beej67

new around here
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
56,552
I would rather stab my eye out with a ball point pen than take UConn and Rutgers as our 15 and 16, but either would be a better pick than TCU. TCU offers nothing. Their football is about to suck again, and they're about to be begging their way into the MWC. Their academics are crap, they're an also-ran in their own state by about five other schools. They have nothing to offer. Nothing.
 

coldbeer

Jolly Good Fellow
Joined
Dec 3, 2001
Messages
1,836
Why doesn't everyone keeping throwing PSU out there?
PSU isn't going anywhere.

The best you can get is ND+1.
You'll likely get Uconn and Rutgers.

You won't get UCF or USF - We already have 2 schools in FL.

You won't get ECU - We already have 4 schools in NC

You might get Louisville? Maybe Cincinnati? Gives you a foot in Ohio and Kentucky.

You won't get WV.
The ACC doesn't want WVU, UCF, USF, ECU, or Louisville. PERIOD. Garbage academics.
 

BarrelORum

Mediocre Poster
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
16,266
They have nothing to offer. Nothing.
Texas. And If my options are between UConn, Rutgers, and TCU... I'm taking TCU and one of the others. Unless someone better presents themselves.

Lets face it, UConn and Rutgers as options sucks donkey balls. I'm looking this strictly from a football perspective. TCU is head and shoulders above either of those teams not only currently, but historically, and they give us a foothold in Texas. They are also better than Rice, SMU, or Baylor which are the leftovers in Texas once the Pac 10 and SEC take the other 3.
 

WREKedinTexas

Kick the tires and light the fires!
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
332
TCU would be a great addition. They are good people, and have a big support in the DFW area. I believe they have the fastest growing enrollment in the nation. They have a pretty good expansion of the stadium going on at this time.
 
Top