TCU vs Texas

[utee94]

Ah, but I am acknowledging cycles to football, and when the inevitable happens what does TCU bring to the conference?  And when you say they will bring "no less than the Aggies did through 100 years of SWC football and 15 years of B12 football" I couldn't disagree with you more.  

I guess it is shame that TCU didn't get the nod over Baylor in the mid-90's but looking at their record for the 20 or so years before that it's easy to see why.  

I'd like to think I'm not bagging the B12 at all, rather I'm bagging TCU.  You won't see me make this argument about WVU even though they're not nearly as strong of a program over the last few years as TCU.  I thought then as I do now that WVU brings a lot to the B12 even if they're football team isn't the best.  

I'm ambivalent at best about the Mississippi schools.  To me they are the equivalent of Ok St or Iowa St.  

Yes, of course you disagree with me about the value that the Aggies brought to the B12, and the SWC before it.  You're an Aggie. 
Regardless, I'm very much on record as wishing the Aggies were still in the B12 conference.  If they were, then TCU never would have been added.  
But the Aggies decided to leave, and the B12 needed another Texas school, and TCU was by far the best option at the time (and has remained so).    

[BrownCounty]

Gotta remember, a lot of the years when the little guys sucked is back in the days of unlimited scholarships and such.  If Patterson left TCU, it is very conceivable that another coach could bring them back.

The biggest requirements for success are exposure and location.  TCU gets both right now.  Size of student body (or stadium size) is not the factor it was decades ago.

Texas Tech (for example) has a hard time due to location.  If anyone is behind the 8-ball in these parts, it's them.  TCU and Baylor can do fine with P5 exposure and DFW/I-35 location.

All games are on TV now.  Not just the helmet schools.

[Gigem]

All good points. I agree that football wise nobody was better than tcu and they made the most sense. 

It’s strange but I kinda like tcu and they are one of the teams I will watch. They are usually disciplined and play well no matter the opponent. I’m not sure how many other schools have had as much success as they have except maybe Boise st. 

I just wonder if they will be able to keep the program up once Patterson is gone. 

[utee94]

That's fair.  I have no idea.  Programs like TCU obviously have fewer advantages than helmet schools, but that hasn't stopped them from being significantly better than Texas over the past decade.  And several other helmets having down time over similar periods, too.

[MikeDeTiger]

You must be thinking of someone else? 

No, I'm pretty sure it was you.  But this was before the conference realignment stuff in 2011.  This was back sometime when I was living in the area, so '09 or earlier.  Aggies were not a candidate for departure as far as I know at the time, and we were probably just spitballing about the B12 adding teams if the SuperConference Wars started, or something.  In fact, now that I think about it, I've asked you this before a few years ago, remembering that same conversation, and you said that whole dialog had to do with the B12 not needing any more Texas exposure than UT, TAMU, Tech, and Baylor already brought it, and that you didn't change your opinion so much as the position of the Big 12 changed with a handful of teams departing.  
I'm getting old, I'm starting to repeat myself yourself.

[utee94]

Well before all the dearly departed left for other conferences, I certainly never thought the B12 needed to expand, but that's true of TCU or anyone else.  So I suppose that's consistent with what you remember.

And even after Nebraska and Colorado left, I didn't think those schools necessarily needed to be replaced with Texas schools.

But, specifically, when A&M left, then I asserted strongly and often, that the replacement needed to be a Texas school.  And TCU was really the only logical choice at that point, due to their program-building and recent success.

[BrownCounty]

Conference wise, something good is probably coming for Texas.  Del Conte is nothing like DeLoss Dodds.

[CharleyHorse46]

I grew up on the Southwest Conference. Loved it, hated it, understood why it couldn’t last.

I loved the original Big 12 and I think it’s a shame it didn’t last.

I’m a Texas fan but I try to be honest and objective rather than an apologist so I believe Texas’ (and others) flirting with the then called PAC-10 started the reactions that led to the defections and replacements.

As far as ideal conference mates go, I think you need a balance between large fan bases, close proximity, historical relevance and en vogue buzz.  You can’t always hit all of those measures so you have to give up one to get another. You just need to make sure other teams balance things out.

What’s a damn shame is when politics get involved and tell you that you have to include Baylor instead of UofH (to the Big 12) or instead of Colorado (to the PAC 10).

Also, I’m not opposed to schools that that need to grow up.

Texas Tech, Arizona and Arizona State are not schools that were in major conferences from the 1910s through the 1950s (or even in the 60s for the Arizona schools) but major conferences saw their potential and fattened them up.

Schools with big enrollments in nice markets (like UCF & USF) have that kind of growth potential.

As for the motion that Mississippi schools are somehow better than Kansas schools just because of their conference affiliation is just a bunch of bull.

[MikeDeTiger]

The whole Texas A&M/SEC thing is still odd to me, and I'm not sure how long that's gonna take to wear off.  When it comes to Aggies and LSU, that doesn't phase me in the least because that game was played all the time when I was a kid, and it's definitely a regional match, so it checks all the boxes in my brain.  But I have yet to get used to watching Aggie play Alabama, Auburn, Clanga, etc.  Something is just off about that.  

Maybe it's because I lived in Texas and I know the average Texan's mentality about being a Texan, and that it kinda clashes with the prevailing Southern mentality, except Louisiana.  Louisiana has a kind of diet-version of the Texas complex.  People from Louisiana can often be pretty into themselves being from Louisiana.  The rest the South, far as I can tell, are more into being Southerners rather than being from a specific state.  So when A&M rolls into town thumping their chest because BY GOD WE'RE FROM TEXAS, LSU kinda neatly matches that ethos with WELL BY GUMBO, WE'RE FROM LOUISIANA WANNA START SOMETHING?  When A&M goes to or hosts one of these other schools and says BY GOD WE'RE FROM TEXAS, those schools are like "Huh?  Ok.  We're from the South, I reckon.  Er...nice to meet you?"  

But mostly I think it's just weird watching A&M play a bunch of schools there's no history with, and not playing schools there's a ton of history with.  I remember watching the annual UT/TAMU games as far back as they were on TV in my lifetime, and it's weird not to see it anymore.  

Oh well, times change.  They're our problem now, I guess, for better or for worse.  I do hope the the UT game is resumed one day as an annual ooc match.  And who knows what the future holds.  The SEC is unlikely to stop courting UT, and who knows, one day maybe the 4th or 5th time will be the charm.  

[BrownCounty]

The SEC is unlikely to stop courting UT, and who knows, one day maybe the 4th or 5th time will be the charm.

The problem is that while Texas and Oklahoma might fill out the SEC quite nicely, schools like Villanova, oops, I mean Vanderbilt, have no business there while Texas Tech and Oklahoma State get left out.

It's not like the SEC doesn't have it's own chopping block material.  2 schools from Mississippi?  Pfffft.

[Gigem]

Did I miss something?  I’ve never heard anything about Texas joining the SEC?  in fact I’m not sure that would happen. Not because they aren’t an attractive program, because they are, but because the sec doesn’t need another top 10 program. 14 teams is already unwieldy as it is. 

If that happens the sec might as well try to get a few more teams and split off into its own league and get rid of the ncaa. 

[CharleyHorse46]

Supposedly Texas has a standing offer.

Also, Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky and A&M supposedly have a gentlemen’s agreement to collectively block the entry of a second school from any of their states.

[MikeDeTiger]

Did I miss something?  I’ve never heard anything about Texas joining the SEC?  in fact I’m not sure that would happen. Not because they aren’t an attractive program, because they are, but because the sec doesn’t need another top 10 program. 14 teams is already unwieldy as it is.

If that happens the sec might as well try to get a few more teams and split off into its own league and get rid of the ncaa.

Texas was offered in during the SEC's "original" expansion in 1992 that landed us Arkansas and South Carolina, but Texas and Texas A&M was at the top of their list.  They offered UT again when the SWC disbanded prior to 1996, and probably A&M as well, for all I know.  In 2011 when the PAC 10 made its move to form the PAC 16, the SEC immediately publicly offered UT, TAMU, and OU.  No proof I can point to that says Texas has a standing offer, but that's been the scuttle for a while, and the SEC's interest in Texas (and to a lesser extent OU) is well-documented.  

[MikeDeTiger]

You guys are way harsh on the Mississippi schools.  From a program standpoint, sure, who gives a crap.  From a watchability standpoint, they're pretty easy on the attention span.  In general, no they're not, and I fully agree, total snooze-fest.  But since Hugh Freeze took Ole Miss and Dan Mullen's second half of his tenure at Clanga, those have been some fun offenses to watch.  I mean, who doesn't like good QBs, crazy NFL WR talent, and lots of passing?  I mean, that's basically the Big 12 South when there was divisions.  It remains to be seen how long these teams stay watchable without Freeze and Mullen at said schools, but if you skip them based on brand alone, that's unfortunate.  You can't claim Okie State is interesting and the MS schools are duds lately.  Too much the same thing.  

K-State is also quality viewing, those guys are fun to watch so long as Snyder is there.  Nothing like seeing a bunch of 2 and 3 star kids play so well and fundamentally sound together that they consistently punch above their weight class.  That's good stuff.  

But yall are acting like the MS schools are like watching KU or ISU or something, and I don't think you're gonna find any neutral parties who agree.