Who are TCU's real rivals?
I keep hearing that TCU is hesitant on accepting a Big East invite because they like the Mountain West and the rivalries that they have there. But they've only been in that league since 2005. I was under the impression that most of TCU's *true* rivals are the old SWC teams that are currently in C-USA and the Big 12. Am I dead wrong on this?
(11-08-2010 10:52 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ]Who are TCU's real rivals?
I keep hearing that TCU is hesitant on accepting a Big East invite because they like the Mountain West and the rivalries that they have there. But they've only been in that league since 2005. I was under the impression that most of TCU's *true* rivals are the old SWC teams that are currently in C-USA and the Big 12. Am I dead wrong on this?
You are not wrong. I'm pretty sure they have much stronger ties to and interest in their old SWC foes than there old WAC, CUSA, and MWC rivals. They are probably just posturing to increase the possibillities of the Big East letting in Houston as a second Texas school. Or maybe they are letting everyone know that under any circumstancs, if the Big 12 comes calling, they're going to go. It is not however a desire to play with the CUSA Texas schools else they'd have stayed in CUSA instead of moving to the MWC.
(11-08-2010 10:52 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ]Who are TCU's real rivals?
I keep hearing that TCU is hesitant on accepting a Big East invite because they like the Mountain West and the rivalries that they have there. But they've only been in that league since 2005. I was under the impression that most of TCU's *true* rivals are the old SWC teams that are currently in C-USA and the Big 12. Am I dead wrong on this?
Yeah, I don't know who the heck keeps thinking that TCU has rivals in the MWC. They are seriously more of a geographic outlier in the MWC compared to the Big East today, and it will be even worse when Nevada, Boise State and Fresno State are added to the conference next year. The two schools that TCU cares about playing in the MWC are Utah and BYU, and those happen to be the two schools that are going to be ditching the conference starting next year. TCU basically has about as much of a clean slate in moving to another conference as anyone.
When they were in C-USA, they played UL, UC, and USF a few times, so that would be some right there.
Rice is their main rival
I guess more recently utah, byu
I am starting to wonder what is TCU's incentive? They are already making BCS bowls. Would the money be that much different?
(11-08-2010 12:02 PM)oasispirate Wrote: [ -> ]I am starting to wonder what is TCU's incentive? They are already making BCS bowls. Would the money be that much different?
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/10/26...-will.html
The package he assembled has cost the Mountain West some exposure but has generated more revenue and provided scheduling stability. The contract is worth $12 million a year through 2015-16 — triple what ESPN pays the WAC — and Mountain West partners only scheduled two non-Saturday games this year, both on Thursdays.
The deal also spawned The Mtn., which provides a national outlet for 30 football and 76 men’s basketball games — as well as some non-revenue events — that otherwise would air on local TV or not at all. All of the football on The Mtn. is in high definition.
“Given what there was on the table financially, I think it was the best move the league could make,” said Utah athletic director Chris Hill, whose program moves to the Pac-12 next year. “There’s obviously been some growing pains with the distribution.”
Many of those issues have been solved. The Mtn. is available in nearly 30 million (with 8.5 million subscribers) homes and the contract dispute between Versus and DirecTV that plagued the league last season has been resolved. Viewership on Versus has increased 25 percent, with the Utah-Pittsburgh game averaging 877,000 viewers this year.
Still, The Mtn. isn’t on Dish Network or major cable outlets in Dallas/Fort Worth and San Diego. CBS College Sports isn’t on Cable One.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/06/04...lions.html
TELEVISION: The Mountain West has a 10-year, $120 million contract with Versus and CBS College Sports. That would be $1.2 million per team per year in a 10-team league.
Things to consider
- The MWC TV revenue is $12 million per year for both football and hoops.
- The conference network isn't on TV in Dallas meaning that many of TCU's games can't be viewed in their own market.
- The MWC is going to be losing two of the top revenue generating schools (Utah and BYU) meaning a contract negotiation is likely.
- Travel in the MWC conference is not significantly different from Travel in the Big East.
Why would TCU consider the Big East?
- The Big East guarantees BCS access meaning its champion does not have to go undefeated or have a single loss to make a BCS game. It is similar to receiving a paycheck each week regardless of performance or only getting paid the same amount but only when you do an outstanding job.
- The Big East football contract is $13 million per year without TCU included. In other words, the BE football contract is larger than the entire MWC TV contract. Assuming the contract increases to keep revenue per team the same, TCU would make ~25% more TV revenue (1.625 million versus 1.2 million) as a football-only member of the Big East compared to being an all-sport MWC member.
Just to give you guys an idea, here's an excerpt from
today's article by the Daily Mail's Jack Bogaczyk...
Jack Bogaczyk Wrote:According to filings with the U.S. Department of Education last month, for the 2009-10 school year, West Virginia's football revenue for 2009 was $29.47 million. That's about $10 million more than six other Big East programs, and $7 million more than Pitt.
Of the Mountaineers' total revenue 2009-10 of $62.03 million, football provided 47.5 percent of that (men's basketball 21.5 percent).
This was taken from the bottom of page 2...
(11-08-2010 11:42 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote: [ -> ]Rice is their main rival
I guess more recently utah, byu
SMU is TCUs historical rival, not Rice. Second is probably Baylor, TCU has played Baylor more than any other team.
BYU and Utah were developing nicely, but they are leaving the MWC anyways.
(11-08-2010 01:45 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote: [ -> ]SMU is TCUs historical rival, not Rice. Second is probably Baylor, TCU has played Baylor more than any other team.
That was one of the reasons I once suggested SMU as a possible candidate for The BEast. I knew they had history with TCU from their SWC days. But I also think SMU could approach their former glory with BCS conference membership - a long way from Texas...
However, since I have no input in the decisions...
(11-08-2010 11:36 AM)Villecard Wrote: [ -> ]When they were in C-USA, they played UL, UC, and USF a few times, so that would be some right there.
They only played in C-USA for 4 years, one of which was 2005, the year after we left for the Big East. UC has only played them 3 times, all in the 2000's (we're 2-1).
From '96-'01 TCU was in the WAC. The WAC membership changed significantly in this time, but in '96 when they joined it was a 16-team league that included all current MWC teams except Air Force, as well as UTEP, Hawaii, Rice, Fresno, SMU, Tulsa, and San Jose State. The MWC was formed in '98.
The western/mountain teams have been playing musical chairs for decades. It's dizzying to try to keep track of it.
(11-08-2010 12:57 PM)UofL07 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-08-2010 12:02 PM)oasispirate Wrote: [ -> ]I am starting to wonder what is TCU's incentive? They are already making BCS bowls. Would the money be that much different?
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/10/26...-will.html
The package he assembled has cost the Mountain West some exposure but has generated more revenue and provided scheduling stability. The contract is worth $12 million a year through 2015-16 — triple what ESPN pays the WAC — and Mountain West partners only scheduled two non-Saturday games this year, both on Thursdays.
The deal also spawned The Mtn., which provides a national outlet for 30 football and 76 men’s basketball games — as well as some non-revenue events — that otherwise would air on local TV or not at all. All of the football on The Mtn. is in high definition.
“Given what there was on the table financially, I think it was the best move the league could make,” said Utah athletic director Chris Hill, whose program moves to the Pac-12 next year. “There’s obviously been some growing pains with the distribution.”
Many of those issues have been solved. The Mtn. is available in nearly 30 million (with 8.5 million subscribers) homes and the contract dispute between Versus and DirecTV that plagued the league last season has been resolved. Viewership on Versus has increased 25 percent, with the Utah-Pittsburgh game averaging 877,000 viewers this year.
Still, The Mtn. isn’t on Dish Network or major cable outlets in Dallas/Fort Worth and San Diego. CBS College Sports isn’t on Cable One.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/06/04...lions.html
TELEVISION: The Mountain West has a 10-year, $120 million contract with Versus and CBS College Sports. That would be $1.2 million per team per year in a 10-team league.
Things to consider
- The MWC TV revenue is $12 million per year for both football and hoops.
- The conference network isn't on TV in Dallas meaning that many of TCU's games can't be viewed in their own market.
- The MWC is going to be losing two of the top revenue generating schools (Utah and BYU) meaning a contract negotiation is likely.
- Travel in the MWC conference is not significantly different from Travel in the Big East.
Why would TCU consider the Big East?
- The Big East guarantees BCS access meaning its champion does not have to go undefeated or have a single loss to make a BCS game. It is similar to receiving a paycheck each week regardless of performance or only getting paid the same amount but only when you do an outstanding job.
- The Big East football contract is $13 million per year without TCU included. In other words, the BE football contract is larger than the entire MWC TV contract. Assuming the contract increases to keep revenue per team the same, TCU would make ~25% more TV revenue (1.625 million versus 1.2 million) as a football-only member of the Big East compared to being an all-sport MWC member.
I live in Fort Worth and over the last two years only one game per year has not been on TV. Between the Mountain, CBS-College and ESPN TCU is always on.
Revenue, well MWC is definitely less than the Big East but not enough to join Big East for Football only. Those of you who think TCU would leave their other sports for Big East football must be smoking crack. Not to be harsh but the Big East Football teams don't exactly knock me out. You guys can try and downgrade the conference all you want but no team in the Big East compares to Boise which we will still be playing once a year.
In a couple of years the contract will expire and I believe ESPN will come a calling to get the MWC back on their network for enough money to make it all worthwhile.
I don't think ESPN will ever come calling for the MWC. Why would they? Further, why should they?
Even when TCU and Boise are each exceptional - as you each are this season - the fact remains that you only average about 30K fans per game. Your name is so weak in the DFW market that the mtn. cable network isn't even on the basic cable there. That would be unheard of in the BE even though our teams too share markets with large, powerful state schools (Florida, Kentucky, Ohio State, Penn State, etc.). I know your teams are good but that means next to nothing when your brand is so feeble in your own market.
And what about the MWC teams who are unexceptional? What about New Mexico or Wyoming or San Diego State? What does ESPN gain from adding those schools other than a game to play after midnight on the East Coast that people catch the end of while we pass out after coming home late from the bars? They already have that in the WAC, which is how I know who Colin Kaepernick is.
I absolutely agree that TCU should be an all-sports member of the BE and I think you should negotiate like hell to make that happen. However you would be wise to be careful to not overplay your hand here because no matter what anyone thinks about its quality, the Big East is a member of the BCS and will be for as long as there is a BCS because we still have the vast majority of the TV sets. And when the BCS eventually goes away - and it will - the league will be a member of whatever system replaces the BCS.
TCU would be VERY fortunate to be invited to join such an exclusive organization and anyone who thinks otherwise is grossly ill informed or fooling only themselves. Now go out there and win some more football games because we are going to need those BCS rankings whenever you do finally capitulate and join the BE is some form or fashion.
I always figured Texas Christian's #1 rival would be Texas Pagan University.
TCU is very much like East Carolina...its rivals lie outside of its conference. ECU concerns itself with NC State, UNC, VT....
They play cross town rival SMU every year. They play Baylor, which is a few hours away. They play Texas Tech.
These games would continue no matter what conference they are in.
Honestly, I believe Boise State will become a rival in the new MWC. Not only will they lead the pack, but they have played twice in the last two years with both winning once (and both being close). They are hand in hadn at the top of the poll right now. So, in the MWC I see Boise being TCU's rival.
In the Big East....I dont see any.
TCU has 3 main active rivalries:
1) SMU. "The Battle for the Iron Skillet". Great crosstown rivalry back in the SWC days. Fort Worth vs Dallas, Cow Town vs Big D. 90 games played. According to legend, this one began when an SMU fan was frying Frog legs in an iron skillet during the game. A TCU boy came over and tried to take it. They bet the skillet on the winner of the game (TCU) and the rest is history.
2) Baylor. Played a whopping 106 times, this game is actually one of the oldest and most played series in college football. Actually began as a crosstown rivalry when the fore runner of TCU opened up in Waco TX.
3) Texas Tech. This is another game with hometown roots. Fort Worth is home to the Frogs but it is also home to the largest group of Red Raider alumni in Texas. Not surprising since FW, is the closest major city to Lubbock. 57 games played in the series.
Honorable mention:
4) Texas A&M. Although not an active rivalry anymore this game gets a mention because it is one of the longer series in both schools histories at 92 games (despite only one game played in the last 14 years). In addition, the Frog's mascot was the inspiration for Texas A&M inventing the very first hand sign of the SWC, "Gig 'Em" a reference to frog hunting.
erroneous. It's 42k not 30k.
(11-09-2010 12:32 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think ESPN will ever come calling for the MWC. Why would they? Further, why should they?
Even when TCU and Boise are each exceptional - as you each are this season - the fact remains that you only average about 30K fans per game. Your name is so weak in the DFW market that the mtn. cable network isn't even on the basic cable there. That would be unheard of in the BE even though our teams too share markets with large, powerful state schools (Florida, Kentucky, Ohio State, Penn State, etc.). I know your teams are good but that means next to nothing when your brand is so feeble in your own market.
And what about the MWC teams who are unexceptional? What about New Mexico or Wyoming or San Diego State? What does ESPN gain from adding those schools other than a game to play after midnight on the East Coast that people catch the end of while we pass out after coming home late from the bars? They already have that in the WAC, which is how I know who Colin Kaepernick is.
I absolutely agree that TCU should be an all-sports member of the BE and I think you should negotiate like hell to make that happen. However you would be wise to be careful to not overplay your hand here because no matter what anyone thinks about its quality, the Big East is a member of the BCS and will be for as long as there is a BCS because we still have the vast majority of the TV sets. And when the BCS eventually goes away - and it will - the league will be a member of whatever system replaces the BCS.
TCU would be VERY fortunate to be invited to join such an exclusive organization and anyone who thinks otherwise is grossly ill informed or fooling only themselves. Now go out there and win some more football games because we are going to need those BCS rankings whenever you do finally capitulate and join the BE is some form or fashion.
UofL and TCU a rival....Never happened in CUSA. I think Louisville fans have more intrest in ECU...They always brought a few thousand fans to the game...They brought more to the game than every other Big East team besides WVU. TCU should join up with this line up.
West
1 Utep
2 TCU
3 Houston
4 SMU
5 Ark. St.
6 Tulsa
East
1 LA Tech
2 Tulane
3 Memphis
4 So Miss
5 UAB
6 Troy
TCU was developing nice rivalries with Utah and BYU before Utah decided to jump to the Pac-12. BYU brought large numbers of fans to Fort Worth in 2006 and 2008, which no other conference team was ever able to do. For the rest of the MWC, TCU has little connection (except maybe Air Force).
However, with 3 conference titles in 6 years (and only 1 finish outside the top 3), TCU came into the MWC and really dominated, causing a lot of ruffled feathers among some of the other schools.
As for the new MWC, TCU has developed a rivalry with Boise State after 3 bowl games in the last few years, as well as the competition for spots in the BCS.
So, SMU remains TCU main rivalry, Baylor is still around (even if Baylor is not going to continue the recently renewed relationship for obvious reasons), Texas Tech (sort of), BYU (which TCU will not play again unless TCU goes to the Big East), Utah (same as BYU), and Boise.
As such, TCU will continue to play SMU every year and Baylor or Texas Tech once in a while.
TCU fans have pleasant memories of playing Cincy, L'ville, and USF during the CUSA years. After TCU wins a couple conference championships, I am sure some hard feelings and rivalries will develop.
(11-09-2010 12:32 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote: [ -> ]Your name is so weak in the DFW market that the mtn. cable network isn't even on the basic cable there. That would be unheard of in the BE even though our teams too share markets with large, powerful state schools (Florida, Kentucky, Ohio State, Penn State, etc.).
I live in a suburb of
Philadelphia (in PA) and have Comcast. I subscribe to $7.99/month sports package. For that I get channels such as Fox Soccer Channel, Fox College Sports, the Tennis Channel, MLB TV, and so on. I also get CBS College Sports, which broadcasts all Frogs games that are not on regular cable (ESPN, Versus). What I don't get is the B10 network. For the package that includes it I have to pay $16.99/month.
So, how come B10 is not on basic cable here? Does that mean that Penn State does not deliver this market? Is Penn State an "afterthought" here?