fischer
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 16,271
|
Post by fischer on Jun 27, 2008 16:08:16 GMT -5
No, FSN (that is Fox Sports Network Southwest) televizes the Southland Conference on Saturdays.
Even if it was during the week, its better than during the week on the vs. channel.
I don't know why you think there would be less interest in Rice than Colorado State, but you are wrong. I am a prime example. Rice interests me (and any other southerner/Texan) a ton more than Colorado State. That statement is ridiculous.
College football already is that way...you would know that if you took off the purple glasses and looked at it objectively.
ISU, BU, Maryland, the Big East, IU, Northwestern, and Vandy are all in bigtime conferences and will stay there. They are amongst the haves. tcu is among the have nots. Get over it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ticket Mouse on Jun 27, 2008 16:43:20 GMT -5
"TCU people would be so turned off by playing UNT that they wouldn't even show up." Very typical TCU'er. They think they're better than that, because mommy and daddy told them they were. And paid for it. Two thoughts: 1) Loved fischer's analogy about the fat chick. (Quoting Mike about me) "Spot On"! 2) Stubbs said it best. He wouldn't go to any of these games because he has no interest in watching the other teams. Don't you go to the games to watch your team? That's like not going to the Rangers games when the Yankees aren't in town. I didn't say I wouldn't go to the game. I'd go to a few...but most of the people around me wouldn't. I'd still keep my season tickets but I may not go to every game and I certainly wouldn't do any travelling. FWIW, I hate go to the Rangers' game when the Yankees are in town b/c all thouse annoying, unintelligent carpetbaggers come out of the woodwork and it pisses me off. |
|
|
|
Post by Ticket Mouse on Jun 27, 2008 16:45:01 GMT -5
"TCU people would be so turned off by playing UNT that they wouldn't even show up." Very typical TCU'er. They think they're better than that, because mommy and daddy told them they were. And paid for it. Two thoughts: 1) Loved fischer's analogy about the fat chick. (Quoting Mike about me) "Spot On"! 2) Stubbs said it best. He wouldn't go to any of these games because he has no interest in watching the other teams. Don't you go to the games to watch your team? That's like not going to the Rangers games when the Yankees aren't in town. Sully, you are on point(how about that one) about TCU attendance being tied to the opponent. This is one thing that separates the majors from the mid majors. Once again, it wouldn't make a dent in attendance whether it's Rice, Tulsa, or UTEP than it would for BYU, UTAH, and CSU. |
|
|
|
Post by Ticket Mouse on Jun 27, 2008 16:48:29 GMT -5
Would Rice interest you enough to go to the game? Well, maybe you but very few others.
I watch a ton of college football and I NEVER notice when Southland games are on TV. Even if they are, no one cares because there are about 50 better games on at that time.
|
|
fischer
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 16,271
|
Post by fischer on Jun 27, 2008 16:59:16 GMT -5
Would Rice interest you enough to go to the game? Well, maybe you but very few others. I watch a ton of college football and I NEVER notice when Southland games are on TV. Even if they are, no one cares because there are about 50 better games on at that time. There are always at least 50 better games on t.v. when the MWC games aren't getting televised. When they are, Jeopardy or Oprah is on and no one has the vs channel anyways. I am not saying it would be a t.v. bonanza, but tcu would def. get more pub by playing in the BAC. You are just dead wrong on the Rice/Houston vs Colorado State/San Diego State issue. There is not any question which one would generate more attendence. No question whatsoever. its not even close. The fact that you think otherwise proves your inability to objectively look at the situation. |
|
|
|
Post by Ticket Mouse on Jun 27, 2008 17:26:49 GMT -5
Let's look at attendance:
50. UTEP 42444
71. Memphis 32440
85. Houston 21910
87. Tulsa 21364
95. ASU 19069
99. ULaMon 18594
100. NMSU 17596
108. UNT 15650
109. SMU 15428
113. Rice 14760
115. LaTech 14586
117. ULaLA 14516
Little ole TCU would be third by just a few heads in this conference. That's just sad. UTEP would be embarrassed to play in this too if it weren't for the DFW and Houston exposure. When the MWC expands, I would love it if they added UTEP but it probably won't happen. The bottom of that conference would just be ridiculous. Those numbers are sad and those schools should just give it up and dominate 1-AA.
|
|
fischer
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 16,271
|
Post by fischer on Jun 27, 2008 17:32:15 GMT -5
You are missing our original point. If the BAC were created, those attendence numbers would go up because there would be games of interest being played between them.
Not to mention, tcu would still only be third in attendence in the BAC. That alone is an argument for tcu being in such a conference. tcu will not ever carry a conference. Third is good for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ticket Mouse on Jun 27, 2008 17:44:03 GMT -5
I just said it's sad that TCU would be third. It's sad that they're 3rd in the MWC but when expansion takes place they will go down that list.
You have provided me no evidence that attendance will go up. These matchups already exist and there is absolutely NO interest.
Here's SMU last year:
Home against :
UTEP 16454
UNT 20517
Rice 13902
At:
Tulsa 18853
Memphis 20184
Even the Tech game only generated 26969. TCU sells out when Tech comes.
TCU would have to carry this conference along with UTEP. That's a recipe for disaster. At least in the MWC there's three dogs in the race for the top.
NO ONE FREAKING CARES.
|
|
fischer
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 16,271
|
Post by fischer on Jun 27, 2008 17:47:01 GMT -5
the evidence is the southwest conference. Have you ever heard of that? This is the old SWC with some extra teams to replace the ones that are in the Big 12/sec.
The SWC was greatness because it was regional. It generated rivalries,interest, exposure in the area, and lots of great games. This would be the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ticket Mouse on Jun 27, 2008 17:50:55 GMT -5
So 13902 people were interested in that good ole SWC rivalry of SMU and Rice. Man, that's a lot of people. I bet Denton Ryan would love to have those numbers...oh, wait...
I'd like to correct myself...TCU is 4th in the MWC in attendance. I forgot about our heroic Air Force Falcons.
|
|
fischer
honorary peso (chingador*)
Posts: 16,271
|
Post by fischer on Jun 27, 2008 18:10:02 GMT -5
Let's look at attendance: 50. UTEP 42444 71. Memphis 32440 85. Houston 21910 87. Tulsa 21364 95. ASU 19069 99. ULaMon 18594 100. NMSU 17596 108. UNT 15650 109. SMU 15428 113. Rice 14760 115. LaTech 14586 117. ULaLA 14516 Little ole TCU would be third by just a few heads in this conference. That's just sad. UTEP would be embarrassed to play in this too if it weren't for the DFW and Houston exposure. When the MWC expands, I would love it if they added UTEP but it probably won't happen. The bottom of that conference would just be ridiculous. Those numbers are sad and those schools should just give it up and dominate 1-AA. I don't know where you got those numbers but they aren't the 2007 football attendance numbers. tulsa, Houston, Rice, SMU, UTEP, UNT, UL-M, U-Lala, and La tech all avereaged more fans than this. What year were you looking at? |
|
|
|
Post by Ticket Mouse on Jun 27, 2008 18:31:58 GMT -5
That's 2006. Couldn't find a complete 2007. Houston's average actually fell to 20955 in 2007. SMU actually rose to 17169 thanks to a whopping 26969 Tech fans. 15209 w/o Tech.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ticket Mouse on Jun 27, 2008 18:44:08 GMT -5
Fischer, this would be a cool thing if it weren't 2008. If TCU/SMU was like it used to be and Rice and Houston were relevant, I'd be all for this but times have changed and no one cares about the SWC w/o A&M, TU, and Arkansas.
|
|
cowtownmike
honorary peso (chingador*)
I done been thru the scruggles.
Posts: 12,467
|
Post by cowtownmike on Jun 28, 2008 7:47:23 GMT -5
Didn't TCU, Rice and SMU all belong to the same conference when the SWC broke up? I seem to remember going to a TCU/Rice game in the 90's that had a pretty good crowd. If so, TCU should have never left that conference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ticket Mouse on Jun 28, 2008 11:48:19 GMT -5
That was in the God-forsaken WAC I and was when the SWC still had some relevance to some. Rice had some decent teams in the 90s with Trevor Cobb.
TCU had no choice but to leave the conference. It expanded way too much and way too fast. Seven of the top 8 big boys decided to take their ball and go home leaving everyone else scrambling to find a home. That's when CUSA jumped at the chance to gobble up a few. The WAC II has rebuilt themselves into a decent conference but is about to get raided again by the MWC. They will annex at least two more teams between Boise St., Hawaii, and Fresno St. Hawaii may be the odd man out for travel reasons but might get in if the PAC-10 ever decideds to expand and add BYU and possibly UTAH. The PAC-10 has a new commish that's not as much of a traditionalist as the old guy. There's talk that they would might be interested in TCU if they can't get Utah but that's just crazy talk. I've also heard they would be interested in Colorado. Those west coast writers can be out there. The Pac-10 has also been after A&M and TU since the breakup of the SWC but the schools probably wouldn't want to leave the good thing they have now and even if they did the Texas legislature probably wouldn't let them. Who knows what's going to happen?
|
|
