Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest #1Stunner

TCU Case Study - jumping conferences in order to improve?

Recommended Posts

Guest #1Stunner

Up until 1996, TCU was a longtime member of the Southwest Conference (72 years) until that conference dissolved, and TCU was left behind with the other "undesirables"---TCU, SMU, and RICE.

TCU has an enrollment of ~10,000 students, and at the time that the SWC dissolved, was most similar in enrollment and athletics history to Rice and SMU.   TCU was terrible at football.  All three schools had money, but no athletics success or tradition (except for SMU for a short while).

CURRENT ENDOWMENTS:

TCU - $1.5 Billion

SMU - $1.5 Billion

RICE - $5.3 Billion

 

After getting left behind from the SWC, TCU decided to pursue a strategy of RISK/REWARD to get their school back on top.   Essentially - conference hopping or pursuing marginally better opportunities.

 

The Horned Frogs, without a conference to call home after 72 years, first joined the Western Athletic Conference (WAC), along with SMU and Rice. TCU called the WAC home from 1996 through 2000.

In 2001, TCU made the tough decision to leave longtime rivals SMU and RICE, and join Conference USA (C-USA).  TCU remained there through 2004.

TCU then joined the Mountain West Conference (MWC) in 2005.   TCU was the only Texas school in the MWC, and TCU had no in-state rivals in the conference.  A risk for TCU was playing fewer, if any, in-state Texas games.  TCU split from Houston when it left CUSA for the MWC.

In 2010, TCU took another risk, and accepted an invitation to join the Big East Conference in all sports starting in 2012; the Big East had no other Texas schools.

However, on October 10, 2011, TCU announced that it had reversed its decision and would be joining the Big 12 (headquartered in another Metroplex city, Irving) in 2012 instead, a move that went into effect July 1

 

d737a8d5aba5d79593220d7f1014599a.png

 

The rest is history.   RISK.... REWARD?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner

I think @Dr. Dre is on to something, regarding SDSU possibly bolting.   Following the TCU model.   Probably joining the AAC in some capacity, or going Indy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
1 minute ago, ph90702 said:

TCU got rejected by the Big 12 originally.  Rejection is a great motivator to improve.

The interesting thing is that TCU took chances on marginal improvements.   WAC to CUSA, to MWC to BIG EAST.

They were willing to dump old rivalries to do it, too.   It paid off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, TCU was never similar to Rice in enrollment. Rice has always been an infinitely more prestigious and harder to get into college than either TCU or SMU and will remain so for our lifetimes and the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren.  Now your comparison of the latter two is apt, and it'll be interesting to see if TCU can separate itself based on being in a more prestigious athletic conference. 

SteelCityBlue

November 24th, 2018 at 9:10 PM ^

I'm looking forward to a new head coach who isn't a cud-chewing autistic retard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
5 minutes ago, Victor Maitlin said:

Dude, TCU was never similar to Rice in enrollment. Rice has always been an infinitely more prestigious and harder to get into college than either TCU or SMU and will remain so for our lifetimes and the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren.  Now your comparison of the latter two is apt, and it'll be interesting to see if TCU can separate itself based on being in a more prestigious athletic conference. 

the comparison is athletics tradition at the breakup of the SWC, and how much money each school has to throw at athletics.   Rice is notable for being in the SWC, and having a ton of money and resources.  

I'm surprised that Rice hasn't expanded their enrollment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

The interesting thing is that TCU took chances on marginal improvements.   WAC to CUSA, to MWC to BIG EAST.

They were willing to dump old rivalries to do it, too.   It paid off. 

Maybe SDSU & BSU to the AAC would have worked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Rampage said:

Maybe SDSU & BSU to the AAC would have worked?

I suspect that had the AAC offered full membership as well as pulling in one more western school, BSU would have stayed with the BE/AAC. I think the only combination that could possibly have made them considered a "power conference" would have been BSU, SDSU, BYU, and TCU.

If the Big12 implodes, I think there will be a serious and concerted effort to have only 4 power conferences, and they'll split off, at which point we'll be relegated to FCS style status in the coming years. Even a BOR with a B12 remnants in combination with the best MWC & AAC teams will not be recognized as a power conference.  

 

24570143_BSUBACKGROUNDBANNERANDY1AWELCOME.png.5fa1e131a0fec4c26c0be2f4d0a420eb.png

망치를 가진 남자에게는, 모든것이 못처럼 보인다.

원숭이도 나무에서 떨어진다.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that the conference hopping was a 'strategy' is ridiculous.  The strategy was to learn from the mistakes of the past and invest considerable time, effort and cash in upgrading the athetic programs in the hopes that the investment would pay off in the end with an invite back to the big kids table....someday.  But every time TCU changed conferences it was in response to a changing environment.  Joined the WAC because of being left behind.  Left the WAC for CUSA because, essentially, TCU got left behind by the formation of the MWC which devalued the WAC.  Left CUSA for the MWC because CUSA was devalued by the loss of several high-profile programs, and because by that time, all the effort and money invested in the athletic program was starting to bear fruit.  Left MWC for the Big East because the Big East had a seat at the table and because Utah and BYU had left the MWC already, devaluing it (notice the pattern).  And then Big East to the Big 12 because that obviously made more sense (and because the Big East had also lost its own high profile programs).  And none of the decisions was particularly tough nor particularly risky.  The risk was in spending the money without having any idea if there would be a payoff at the end.  And if Texas A&M hadnt pitched a hissy fit, it might not have.  Rice was never particularly a rival since the 50's, UH even less so, while the rivalry with SMU has continued uninterrupted, albeit devalued by SMU's football struggles.  And TCU continues that investment because that was the original mistake that left them on the outside looking in.  IF (and its still an if) another reorganization occurs and it leaves TCU on the sidelines again, it wont be because of a lack of effort.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Rampage said:

Maybe SDSU & BSU to the AAC would have worked?

I don't think so, but a 24-36 team G-5 division would work very well, styled after the NFL divisional model.

"If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, are you still a moron?"

"Give me a Sandwich and a Douchebag and there's nothing I can't do!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine six, six team divisions. Play 5 games against you divisional mates, and one team from each of the other divisions. That's ten games. Then you can play a P5 game for the payday, and get an extra home game against FCS. 

 

"If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, are you still a moron?"

"Give me a Sandwich and a Douchebag and there's nothing I can't do!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
3 hours ago, RSF said:

The idea that the conference hopping was a 'strategy' is ridiculous.  The strategy was to learn from the mistakes of the past and invest considerable time, effort and cash in upgrading the athetic programs in the hopes that the investment would pay off in the end with an invite back to the big kids table....someday.  But every time TCU changed conferences it was in response to a changing environment.  Joined the WAC because of being left behind.  Left the WAC for CUSA because, essentially, TCU got left behind by the formation of the MWC which devalued the WAC.  Left CUSA for the MWC because CUSA was devalued by the loss of several high-profile programs, and because by that time, all the effort and money invested in the athletic program was starting to bear fruit.  Left MWC for the Big East because the Big East had a seat at the table and because Utah and BYU had left the MWC already, devaluing it (notice the pattern).  And then Big East to the Big 12 because that obviously made more sense (and because the Big East had also lost its own high profile programs).  And none of the decisions was particularly tough nor particularly risky.  The risk was in spending the money without having any idea if there would be a payoff at the end.  And if Texas A&M hadnt pitched a hissy fit, it might not have.  Rice was never particularly a rival since the 50's, UH even less so, while the rivalry with SMU has continued uninterrupted, albeit devalued by SMU's football struggles.  And TCU continues that investment because that was the original mistake that left them on the outside looking in.  IF (and its still an if) another reorganization occurs and it leaves TCU on the sidelines again, it wont be because of a lack of effort.

TCU took some real chances.... they jumped at marginally better opportunities (leaving CUSA for the MWC, for example).  They left behind in-state rivalries with SMU, Rice, and Houston to do this. 

Got to give TCU credit for taking risks.  If they hadn't done so, they might look like Rice or SMU now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Chad Sexington said:

I don't think so, but a 24-36 team G-5 division would work very well, styled after the NFL divisional model.

Too many schools - 18-20 teams would work, however. Take the top revenue and attendance schools, including all 3 military academies. Stick to the 8-game schedule

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MAD MACGYVER said:

I suspect that had the AAC offered full membership as well as pulling in one more western school, BSU would have stayed with the BE/AAC. I think the only combination that could possibly have made them considered a "power conference" would have been BSU, SDSU, BYU, and TCU.

If the Big12 implodes, I think there will be a serious and concerted effort to have only 4 power conferences, and they'll split off, at which point we'll be relegated to FCS style status in the coming years. Even a BOR with a B12 remnants in combination with the best MWC & AAC teams will not be recognized as a power conference.  

 

I still think they'll expand the playoffs to 8 and throw the G5/BOR a bone with one spot in that.

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RamSack said:

How is the his strategy working for BYU?

Well, BYU was in the WAC and then the MWC.  Performance wise they deserve a better conference, they have an athletic dept that is funded to compete at the highest levels despite it's limitations due to rules/religious affiliation, but it's a whole different animal being a religious school that actually tries to follow it's own rules.  TCU is Christian only in name, and we've seen what's been going on at Baylor these days.

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RamSack said:

How is the his strategy working for BYU?

Great actually...  better schedules, far more money, WAY more exposure, and don't have to deal with coattail riders like CSU.  BYU couldn't be more happy.  Thanks for your concern.

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...