"Let's assume this is true. TCU also is putting less than 35,000 people into their stands this year. Is this B2 quality? I mean, obviously it is. My how the mighty have fallen. " I may be wrong sometimes, but I at least like to have a clue what I am talking about. TCU is building a new stadium right now and playing during the construction. Capacity this season is 32-33k. TCU has sold out every single home game plus SRO tickets with maybe the worst home schedule of any team in the country (La-Monroe, Portland State, SMU, New Mexico, Colorado State, UNLV). The home side only has porta-potties and there are no elevators to assist the elderly. The Link
Actually gdu they are rebuilding their existing stadium. As part of the process they reduced the capacity from 45k to 40k.
I guess I have to eat a little crow, here. I knew TCU's stadium was under construction, but, like ViperHorn, I thought it still sat around 40. After looking a little harder, it looks to me like gdu is correct. In 2011, AGC seats around 34,000, and the remodeled stadium will seat 40,000. I know I watched the 4th Quarter of a very exciting SMU@TCU game this year and I sure saw a lot of empty seats at Amon G. So I repeat myself: The B2 just added a TCU that will seat 40,000 (and which is going to play significantly more challenging ball in the B2 than it has in its recent golden age). Is this B2 quality? Obviously it is. My how the mighty have fallen.
Not sure where y'all get some of the numbers you do. TCU blew up the old stadium. The only thing that remained was the 21 rows below ground level. The stadium seated 46k in 2010. The plan was for it to seat 42k once the rennovations were completed. Now that TCU is in the B12, it will seat close to 50k and still have plenty of standing room. There are alot of BCS teams that average lower attendance than TCU has and even more that will average lower than TCU will in the B12. I know Ross Bailey, TCU's assoc AD in charge of the stadium. There probably isn't anything anybody here can tell me about it that I don't already know.
TCU has said that if it were invited into the B2 -- which, of course, it has -- then TCU would consider extending the initial construction project and completely close the north end zone to increase capacity to 50,000-55,000. Unless that north end zone project has gotten approved in the last few days, AGC stadium will seat something just over 40,000, beginning next year. Has the north end zone project gotten the go-ahead? Not even your link , gdu, shows the north end zone project. That link shows the 40,000+ seat stadium project, which is slated for completion next year. If the north end zone project has the go-ahead, that would be good for TCU and the B2 ... if TCU can fill the place for the Baylors, SMUs, Kansas States, etc. At any rate, TCU is here so I hope they can carry their weight in the stands and on the field. We'll see soon enough. The last thing we need is a TCU of the calibre of the SWC days. And that is my concern once TCU consistently plays teams grades above the MWC.
"TCU has said that if it were invited into the B2 -- which, of course, it has -- then TCU would consider extending the initial construction project and completely close the north end zone to increase capacity to 50,000-55,000. Unless that north end zone project has gotten approved in the last few days, AGC stadium will seat something just over 40,000, beginning next year. Has the north end zone project gotten the go-ahead? Not even your link , gdu, shows the north end zone project. That link shows the 40,000+ seat stadium project, which is slated for completion next year. If the north end zone project has the go-ahead, that would be good for TCU and the B2 ... if TCU can fill the place for the Baylors, SMUs, Kansas States, etc. At any rate, TCU is here so I hope they can carry their weight in the stands and on the field. We'll see soon enough. The last thing we need is a TCU of the calibre of the SWC days. And that is my concern once TCU consistently plays teams grades above the MWC. " I wish you would just listen to what I am telling you since I know what I am talking about. The stadium was going to seat 42k with TCU going to the BE. Obviously demand will be a lot higher with TCU going to the B12, so the stadium will now seat close to 50k. The extra seats were never going to come from the north endzone. No idea where you got that idea. The west and east side decks don't even match up with the north endzone deck. The construction plans will not change. Rather, the non-chairback seats on the east side will be smaller to accomodate the additional capacity. If they continually sell out, TCU will go ahead and build the 3rd deck and make the east side seats the size originally planned. Do a google if you don't believe me. TCU's AD has said several times since the B12 announcement, that the capacity will now be closer to 50,000. The TCU stadium website has never been very accurate since they broke ground.
Well, gdu, I have run googles in the past. Here, for example, is a link that I think pretty much backs up my comments:
That is a garbage link, and doesn't address the conference change. Let me help you out. I would try googling tcu 50,000 chris del conte. That is TCU's AD and he has said several times since the B12 announcement that the stadium will now seat close to 50,000. If you want to stick your head in the sand, by all means do so.
Ok, gdu, I tried your google suggestion. Here is part of an interview from your boy on the first link I clicked on:
As I clearly explained, nothing has to be approved or whatever you want to call it to go to almost 50,000. The additional capacity in 2012 will come from messing with taped off seat sizes, not actually adding anything. Those words from the mouth of the man in charge of the project to my ears as we sat across the table eating dinner together about two weeks ago. If that isn't good enough for you, no google result will be. The link you provided is from months before the B12 announcement when I already told you that the plan was to build seating capacity of 42k but with plans to go to 50k if warranted. The B12 warranted it. How about fining a link after the B12 announcement. The only one with delusion about this is you. I've never seen someone want to be wrong as badly as you apparently do.
Oh wow, TCU will have about a 50K stadium! For real? People are getting excited about this? Are recruits getting excited about this?
Here's the thing: UT has made the decision to stick in the Big 12, due (at least in part, it seems) to the potential that it sees in the LHN. That's where we have to start this discussion, even if we don't like that basic decision. Given our continued membership in the Big 12, we ought to want the conference to be as healthy, stable, and lucrative as possible. So.... Who is out there that is actually gettable that is better in terms of quality of athletic program, national stature, and potential tv audience than the teams th conference is adding, or is looking at adding? As far as I can tell, there are no really major programs looking to change at this point. The ACC has solidified, no one is looking to leave the SEC, B1G, or Pac 12. So, where do we look for teams that average 80,000 in their stadium? TCU looks pretty good from the standpoint of football, even given the johnny come lately nature of its top 25 relevance. While it adds zero tv audience, TCU does provide more games for the Big 12 in Texas, and a bigger presence in this recruiting market. Since aggy has opened the door to the check writing fiends in the SEC, there is at least some value in this. West Virginia seems a little dicier to me. Unless it is part of a bigger move, adding WV does not provide a lot to the conference. Color me waiting to see if any other shoes drop. Hook 'em!
Looking at it from a strictly football standpoint, adding TCU & West Virginia while subtracting aggy and Mizzou is a push at worst and overall a slight upgrade really when you look at the big picture. The Big 12 is easily a better football conference overall than anyone else in the country other than the SEC right now (and that's no real thanks to the 2 newcomers-it's due to LSU, Alabama, Florida & Auburn all already being there).
there are no teams to replace what we lost. despite only losing one program of any worth on the playing field (Nebraska) there is something to be said for what we lost in terms of recognition and there is no way to compensate for that.
Here are some more numbers for you regarding the historical "power" bowls, and how many teams from each conference actually compete for them year to year. I think this conclusively refutes the notion that every conference only has 1-3 good teams and the rest suck as bad as the rest of the Big 12. All 2nd and 3rd tiers are not alike. In the Big 12, there have been 2 historical "power" bowl tie ins, the Orange (big 8) and the Cotton (SWC). You would also get some random invites to the other three "power" bwols from time to time in the Sugar, Rose, and Fiesta. Here ias how the numbers stack up in terms of wins: OU: 16 (11 OB, 4 SB, 1 FB) Texas: 17 (11 CB, 2 OB, 2 RB, 1 SB, 1 FB) TCU: 5 (3 CB, 2 SB) OSU: 2 (1 SB, 1 FB) KU: 1 (1 OB) That is right -- TTech, Baylor, ISU, and KSU have NEVER won a major bow, and only 8 major bowls have been won by teams other than UT and OU. Now, how does the Pac 12 stack up? In the Pac 12, there has only been one "power" tie in in the rose bowl, but there have also been a number of invites to the other 4 major bowls. Here are the numbers: USC: 27 (23 RB, 2 OB, 1 FB, 1 CB) Washinton: 8 (7 RB, 1 OB) Ucla: 8 (5 RB, 2 CB, 1 FB) Stanford: 7 (7 RB) ASU: 6 (1 RB, 5 FB) CU: 4 (2 OB, 1 CB, 1 FB) OreSt: 3 (1 RB, 1 FB, 1 CB) Oregon: 2 (1 RB, 1 FB) Cal: 2 (2 RB) WSU: 1 (1 RB) UA: 1 (1 FB) Utah: 1 (1 FB) That is right, ALL 12 Pac 12 teams have won a "major" bowl, while only 5 Big 12 teams have. Moreover, outside of USC, the Pac 12 teams have won 43 major bowls, vs. only 8 for the non-power teams in the Big 12. And the opver all numbers for each conference are not close either: 80 vs. 31. So please spare me the argument that "every" confernce is as historically piss-poor as the Big 12 after you get past the first two teams.
"Oh wow, TCU will have about a 50K stadium! For real? People are getting excited about this? Are recruits getting excited about this?" I don't know about you, but I prefer quality football and couldn't care less about stadium size.
TCU is one of only 10 or 11 teams to have played in the cotton, sugar, orange, fiesta and rose bowls.
Zona, while I don't disagree with your premise, I think you overstate the quality of the FB prior to its inclusion in the Bowl Alliance/Coalition. When Arizona was racking up all of those "major" bowl wins you credit them with, it was in the WAC and went there are winner of the WAC, not the PAC-10. You are also giving UCLA, OU, and OSU credit for wining a "major" bowl game in the FB in the time prior to it being prestegious. I wouldn't count any win in the FB as a major win prior to the 1986 season when they managed to entice two top ranked independent teams to play for the MNC. At that point, the FB became prestigious at the same time the SWC was falling apart and the CB became increasingly irrelevant. if you want to take away all of the CB wins after 1986 to balance things out, I wouldn't argue that point. And not to be picky, but you credit USC with a FB win. Their only appearance in the Fiesta Bowl was a loss to Penn State in 1982 prior to it becoming a major bowl.
Zona did you pull those results out of your *** or what? Just off the top of my head, OU has won a Rose and Cotton bowl. Looking at the Cotton Bowl site, OSU, KSU, MU have all won one. The Link
I researched this topic in ancient literature and folk wisdom down through the ages. Recently there are controversial, albeit intriguing, findings in markings from what might have been Atlantis, even Lemuria in the Pacific region. Throughout all of it, each culture did in fact rate sports as the most important thing in life. What was perhaps kicking a ball -- or a man's head! -- through a stone ring in one age, is tossing, running and kicking a ball made of pigskin today. We are merely following our ancestors. And the gods.
Having grown up in Arizona and going to ASU for a couple of years, the Fiesta Bowl became a major player or Power Bowl in the early 1980's when it moved to January 1, head to head with the Cotton Bowl. I think the season was 81', or the 82 Fiesta Bowl when Arizona State beat OU and Marcus Dupree. That was the year that the Fiesta Bowl hit the map. Some may say it was the year before when USC played Penn State. Marcus Allen had just won the Heisman and Art Schlister was Ohio State;s QB. While his numbers may be a little skewed, he brings up a good point. I will say this about those SEC teams, LSU has had many ups and alot more downs through history. Florida is a Johnny come lately, as a college football power. Tennessee never was year in and year out outstanding except the past few years. Alabama is the only long term stud amongst those SEC schools. My top 20 schools of all time: Tier 1 or College Football Royalty 1.) Notre Dame 2.) Texas 3.) USC 4.) Alabama 5.) Oklahoma 6.) Michigan 7.) Ohio State 8.) Penn State Tier 2 or almost there schools: 9.) Florida State 10.) UCLA 11.) Washington 12.) Wisconsin 13.) LSU 14.) Florida 15.) Tennessee 16.) Texas AM 17.) Arkansas 18.) Arizona State 19.) Clemson 20.) Miami
