Why was Baylor selected instead of TCU
- Thread starter alaskaguy
- Start date
Do us a favor and stop the Cyclone recruiting in Texas and send back the 20 players on your team.
According to Rivals there are 347 2 star or better players from the stat of Texas this year. That is enough for almost 14 schools to have 25 recruits each. The state of Iowa has 10 recruits 2 stars or higher.
Baylor has the advantage over out of state schools like ISU because your coaches don't even have to leave the state to see recruits, which is evident in the fact that since 2007 baylor has only had 6 recruits not from Texas. ISU has to recruit nationally and pull recruits from TX, FL, and CA.
Please do not complain about all of your recruiting hardships to us with all of the natual advantages Baylor has.
The reason Baylor recruiting is the worst of the Texas schools is not because there is not enough talent in the state to go around. Baylors fanbase is terrible. ISU hasn't had a lot of football success, but we show up to almost every game better than Baylor does. This means something to recruits.
Until recently I don't honestly know if the Baylor athletic department was seriuos about competing in football. The current Baylor coach at least seems to be having things going in the right direction. The fans need to start showing up and supporting the team. Then maybe you will see a few more higher ranked Texas recruits coming to Baylor. Of course, I am fine with Baylor not showing up. All the better for ISU.
Just don't complain to us about ISU stealing away your precious Texas recruits.
/rant
TCU's alumni base is much more national and that probably contributes to their poor attendance. People go to school there from all over the country and generally leave Ft. Worth and Texas all together after they graduate.
Very True and combined with their small enrollment, you get smaller attendance numbers. I would think, however, that their attendance the last four years or so has average higher. The games I have attended all had 40+ at the games.
To answer another comment earlier in the thread, TCU has a decent baseball program and came close to eliminating Texas last spring. Their women's basketball program is good as well.
Great article on why Baylor and Tech were added to the Big 8.
We should be very glad that ISU is in this conference. I know the TV package stinks, but I believe that we should be able to out recruit most Northern teams having to play Texas and Oklahoma.
We should be very glad that ISU is in this conference. I know the TV package stinks, but I believe that we should be able to out recruit most Northern teams having to play Texas and Oklahoma.
Originally the Big 8 was just going to add Texas and Texas A&M, but Texas politics got involved and forced us to take Texas Tech and Baylor. Those two were probably the most deserving. You could make an argument for Houston over Baylor, but all the major conferences have a private school so I guess the Big 12 should have one too. Besides, I believe Houston's program was starting to slip a bit, and Baylor has a bigger stadium.
I've got nothing against Texas Tech or Baylor, but I think it would have been better for the North schools if the Big 8 had been able to add just Texas and Texas A&M. By taking in half of the SWC and making one-third of the conference Texas schools, it became more like a merger than Big 8 expansion. The South schools gained power, the league offices moved south, etc.
The Big 8 plus Texas and Texas A&M would have all the same media markets the Big 12 currently has. There would be no divisions and no championship game, so it wouldn't be about the strong South and the weak North. Teams would have a nine game schedule where you play everybody every year. In basketball you could play everybody home and away.
I've got nothing against Texas Tech or Baylor, but I think it would have been better for the North schools if the Big 8 had been able to add just Texas and Texas A&M. By taking in half of the SWC and making one-third of the conference Texas schools, it became more like a merger than Big 8 expansion. The South schools gained power, the league offices moved south, etc.
The Big 8 plus Texas and Texas A&M would have all the same media markets the Big 12 currently has. There would be no divisions and no championship game, so it wouldn't be about the strong South and the weak North. Teams would have a nine game schedule where you play everybody every year. In basketball you could play everybody home and away.
Championship game = extra game = extra money for the conference.
When the Big 12 gets its TV act together, there will be one more game for TV versus a 10-team conference, which means more revenue.
For Iowa State, with Iowa on the schedule every year, a nine-game conference schedule would mean only 2 easier non-con games, which would make bowl eligibility challenging.
There's also strength in numbers beyond TV market, which is why the Pac-10 is again looking to expand.
I think Big 8 + 2 would have been very shortsighted.
