This used to get kicked around a bit in the early days of realignment but I never actually seen the claim with a source. If so, a new conference could go a long ways to giving the following schools a permanent home.

New SWC

Texas State
Arkansas State
New Mexico State
Missouri State
Louisiana
La Tech
Southern Miss
UTEP
UTSA
Rice

I've never even heard that as a rumor. It would take an extraordinary explanation for me to believe Southwest Texas State somehow obtained the rights to the SWC name.

All of you new conference dreamers really ought to go read the NCAA Division I manual. It's true that any 7 Division I schools can form a new Division I conference, and that any 8 Division I FBS schools can form a new Division I FBS conference. However, to be certified by the NCAA and eligible to participate in NCAA postseason competition, the new conference must first establish "continuity". That means it must have sponsored minimum numbers of men's and women's sports, including men's and women's basketball, for at least 8 YEARS.

Realistically, no group of Division I schools is going to give up NCAA tournament eligibility in all sports for 8 years. The continuity rule was put in place in 2011 for the specific purposes of preventing new Division I conferences from being formed and making the existing conferences too valuable to die. This is why conferences like the WAC and Summit may struggle to meet the minimum membership requirement from time to time but are unlikely to ever dissolve.

If you want to dream of new conference alignments, have at it, but know that any proposal you devise needs to start with the membership of an existing conference.

Just perusing the trademark database, there's a guy who currently owns the trademark "Southwest Conference" that was filed in January of this year in regards to "Entertainment in the nature of basketball games; entertainments in the nature of sporting events" who lives in Houston. There was another filing that pertained more specifically to college athletics that was owned by an individual in San Antonio, but it was abandoned in 2011. There are also abandoned trademarks that were owned by a non-profit entity known as the Southwest Conference that were abandoned in 2001-2004, including the letters SWC.

The actual for real SWC trademark was cancelled in 2001, the wordmark in 2006. There have been subsequent filings for the name that are all cancelled except for a filing by a Peter Schwethelm of Houston in January of this year who used to be an assistant basketball coach at the college level.

Unless he's using the name in interstate commerce in the filing is pointless.

(05-27-2014 02:23 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Just perusing the trademark database, there's a guy who currently owns the trademark "Southwest Conference" that was filed in January of this year in regards to "Entertainment in the nature of basketball games; entertainments in the nature of sporting events" who lives in Houston. There was another filing that pertained more specifically to college athletics that was owned by an individual in San Antonio, but it was abandoned in 2011. There are also abandoned trademarks that were owned by a non-profit entity known as the Southwest Conference that were abandoned in 2001-2004, including the letters SWC.

(05-27-2014 02:22 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  All of you new conference dreamers really ought to go read the NCAA Division I manual. It's true that any 7 Division I schools can form a new Division I conference, and that any 8 Division I FBS schools can form a new Division I FBS conference. However, to be certified by the NCAA and eligible to participate in NCAA postseason competition, the new conference must first establish "continuity". That means it must have sponsored minimum numbers of men's and women's sports, including men's and women's basketball, for at least 8 YEARS.

Realistically, no group of Division I schools is going to give up NCAA tournament eligibility in all sports for 8 years. The continuity rule was put in place in 2011 for the specific purposes of preventing new Division I conferences from being formed and making the existing conferences too valuable to die. This is why conferences like the WAC and Summit may struggle to meet the minimum membership requirement from time to time but are unlikely to ever dissolve.

If you want to dream of new conference alignments, have at it, but know that any proposal you devise needs to start with the membership of an existing conference.

That's why it makes more sense work within an existing framework. If someone wants to form a SWC either invite enough western Sun Belt teams to CUSA to get it going with eastern CUSA joining Sun Belt and renaming it, or get the western CUSA schools to join the Sun Belt and rename it the SWC and let CUSA backfill with eastern SBC members.

Anything else is pain in the rear by comparison.

Where is Snopes when you need it? I know it was pre 2011, but didn't the MWC get a waiver from the ncaa to be eligie for post season eligibility right away? This would essentially be the same kind of situation. You basically take the best and most marketable schools from CUSA and the Belt thus creating a true competitor to the MWC and even the AAC.

(05-27-2014 02:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 02:22 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  All of you new conference dreamers really ought to go read the NCAA Division I manual. It's true that any 7 Division I schools can form a new Division I conference, and that any 8 Division I FBS schools can form a new Division I FBS conference. However, to be certified by the NCAA and eligible to participate in NCAA postseason competition, the new conference must first establish "continuity". That means it must have sponsored minimum numbers of men's and women's sports, including men's and women's basketball, for at least 8 YEARS.

Realistically, no group of Division I schools is going to give up NCAA tournament eligibility in all sports for 8 years. The continuity rule was put in place in 2011 for the specific purposes of preventing new Division I conferences from being formed and making the existing conferences too valuable to die. This is why conferences like the WAC and Summit may struggle to meet the minimum membership requirement from time to time but are unlikely to ever dissolve.

If you want to dream of new conference alignments, have at it, but know that any proposal you devise needs to start with the membership of an existing conference.

That's why it makes more sense work within an existing framework. If someone wants to form a SWC either invite enough western Sun Belt teams to CUSA to get it going with eastern CUSA joining Sun Belt and renaming it, or get the western CUSA schools to join the Sun Belt and rename it the SWC and let CUSA backfill with eastern SBC members.

Anything else is pain in the rear by comparison.

I like your suggestion. Just for discussion purposes, since any conference NOT in the P5 will simply be G5 conferences and all at the same level, divide the CUSA, AAC and SBC into regional conferences, like the MWC and MAC. Rename the SBC the SWC for the Western conference, the AAC is the Eastern conference, and keep the CUSA name for the Southern conference.

If Houston, SMU, Tulane and Tulsa elect to remain in the AAC, Marshall, UAB, MTSU and WKU remain in CUSA.

SWC - Western based conference

Arkansas State, North Texas, Louisiana Tech, Texas State, UTSA, Rice, Louisiana, USM, UTEP, NMSU, (Houston, Tulane, SMU, Tulsa)

AAC - Eastern based conference

UCONN, Cincy, Temple, ECU, Memphis, Navy, USF, UCF, (Marshall, UAB, Middle Tenn., WKU)

CUSA - Southern based conference

ODU, Charlotte, FIU, FAU, Troy, USA, ULM, App State, GA State, GA Southern

If we are going to dig up old names then the eastern league needs to revive the oft vaunted but never launched Seaboard League name or at least go retro and use Metro.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(05-27-2014 04:39 PM)Shox Wrote:  Where is Snopes when you need it? I know it was pre 2011, but didn't the MWC get a waiver from the ncaa to be eligie for post season eligibility right away? This would essentially be the same kind of situation. You basically take the best and most marketable schools from CUSA and the Belt thus creating a true competitor to the MWC and even the AAC.

It was pre-2011. The MWC schools qualified as 6 schools for 5 years, or whatever the numbers were.

The Big East NEEDED a waiver, because even though we met the old criteria, and the 2005 Big East was designed for a split with those criteria in mind, the old criteria had been done away with.

(05-27-2014 06:17 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If we are going to dig up old names then the eastern league needs to revive the oft vaunted but never launched Seaboard League name or at least go retro and use Metro.

There is a sizable and vocal faction of Memphis fans who HATE the Metro name, for reasons I still don't quite understand.

(05-27-2014 06:44 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 04:39 PM)Shox Wrote:  Where is Snopes when you need it? I know it was pre 2011, but didn't the MWC get a waiver from the ncaa to be eligie for post season eligibility right away? This would essentially be the same kind of situation. You basically take the best and most marketable schools from CUSA and the Belt thus creating a true competitor to the MWC and even the AAC.

It was pre-2011. The MWC schools qualified as 6 schools for 5 years, or whatever the numbers were.

One of the MWC or WAC fans might remember the details of this, but IIRC both the MWC and WAC were given waivers for basketball autobids after the MWC breakaway.

actually I like Metro & SW for AAC [names of division]

"Southwest Conference" is synonomous with scandal, dysfunction and cheating in a lot of people's minds. The name is dead and should stay dead. It certainly shouldn't be revived for a bunch of schools that have no connection to the original.

(05-27-2014 06:44 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 04:39 PM)Shox Wrote:  Where is Snopes when you need it? I know it was pre 2011, but didn't the MWC get a waiver from the ncaa to be eligie for post season eligibility right away? This would essentially be the same kind of situation. You basically take the best and most marketable schools from CUSA and the Belt thus creating a true competitor to the MWC and even the AAC.

It was pre-2011. The MWC schools qualified as 6 schools for 5 years, or whatever the numbers were.

Your memory is good. The old 7-6-5 rule was that a conference could be formed by 7 schools, provided that at least 6 of them had played together for the 5 previous years. So the MWC didn't need a waiver.

(05-27-2014 07:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 06:44 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 04:39 PM)Shox Wrote:  Where is Snopes when you need it? I know it was pre 2011, but didn't the MWC get a waiver from the ncaa to be eligie for post season eligibility right away? This would essentially be the same kind of situation. You basically take the best and most marketable schools from CUSA and the Belt thus creating a true competitor to the MWC and even the AAC.

It was pre-2011. The MWC schools qualified as 6 schools for 5 years, or whatever the numbers were.

One of the MWC or WAC fans might remember the details of this, but IIRC both the MWC and WAC were given waivers for basketball autobids after the MWC breakaway.

The continuity period was only two years at the time, and the MWC wasn't given a waiver for an autobid but teams from the league qualified as at large anyway. The WAC might have been given a waiver for its continuity, but the minimum members was six so it should have not needed a waiver. There have been a couple iterations of rules since the MWC/WAC split.

If seven or more Southwest teams from CUSA split off after UTSA has been a member for seven years, Southwest would be a natural name. Splitting is one way that a new conference effectively bypass the continuity rule. Seven schools can split off (if they meet the continuity rule), and even if only one is left, the lone school can save the conference if enough other schools join. Only new conferences have to establish continuity: old ones like the WAC or Summit only to a have minimum number of members and sports. The new American is the old Big East, and it doesn't meet continuity requirements but still maintains an autobid. The New Big East is truly a new conference according to the NCAA, and the seven original Catholic schools met NCAA continuity requirements is the old Big East.

(05-28-2014 12:58 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 06:44 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 04:39 PM)Shox Wrote:  Where is Snopes when you need it? I know it was pre 2011, but didn't the MWC get a waiver from the ncaa to be eligie for post season eligibility right away? This would essentially be the same kind of situation. You basically take the best and most marketable schools from CUSA and the Belt thus creating a true competitor to the MWC and even the AAC.

It was pre-2011. The MWC schools qualified as 6 schools for 5 years, or whatever the numbers were.

Your memory is good. The old 7-6-5 rule was that a conference could be formed by 7 schools, provided that at least 6 of them had played together for the 5 previous years. So the MWC didn't need a waiver.

The MWC split before the 7-6-5 rule was adopted.

(05-28-2014 01:06 AM)NoDak Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 12:58 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 06:44 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 04:39 PM)Shox Wrote:  Where is Snopes when you need it? I know it was pre 2011, but didn't the MWC get a waiver from the ncaa to be eligie for post season eligibility right away? This would essentially be the same kind of situation. You basically take the best and most marketable schools from CUSA and the Belt thus creating a true competitor to the MWC and even the AAC.

It was pre-2011. The MWC schools qualified as 6 schools for 5 years, or whatever the numbers were.

Your memory is good. The old 7-6-5 rule was that a conference could be formed by 7 schools, provided that at least 6 of them had played together for the 5 previous years. So the MWC didn't need a waiver.

The MWC split before the 7-6-5 rule was adopted.

Indeed? I didn't know that. I stand corrected.

(05-28-2014 01:04 AM)NoDak Wrote:  The New Big East is truly a new conference according to the NCAA, and the seven original Catholic schools met NCAA continuity requirements is the old Big East.

EVerything I saw in the media was that the new Big East was getting a waiver. The fact that we qualified under the pre-2011 rules (and that the 2005 Big East was specifically designed with a split in mind under the pre-2011 rules) was an argument in favor of the waiver, but didn't guarantee it.

Bigger factor was that the new Big East wasn't going to be a one-bid league, so having one more automatic bid and one less at-large bid wasn't taking away a bid from the elite leagues and giving it to the mid-majors. If CUSA tried a split like what's described above, there would be resistance from the top basketball conferences.

(05-28-2014 12:58 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 06:44 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 04:39 PM)Shox Wrote:  Where is Snopes when you need it? I know it was pre 2011, but didn't the MWC get a waiver from the ncaa to be eligie for post season eligibility right away? This would essentially be the same kind of situation. You basically take the best and most marketable schools from CUSA and the Belt thus creating a true competitor to the MWC and even the AAC.

It was pre-2011. The MWC schools qualified as 6 schools for 5 years, or whatever the numbers were.

Your memory is good. The old 7-6-5 rule was that a conference could be formed by 7 schools, provided that at least 6 of them had played together for the 5 previous years. So the MWC didn't need a waiver.

It wasn't completely without opposition. The tournament play-in game was specifically conceived to deal with the additional tournament bid and loss of an at-large bid to satisfy the other conferences.