(11-22-2014 01:37 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 06:43 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 11:23 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 07:40 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I wish some programs would reform a new version of the Southwest Conference. A very good conference could be built from the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas.

There would be great potential with recruiting!!! (The new SWC)
Houston
Rice
SMU
New Mexico
Tulane
Texas St
Tulsa
UTEP-if they'd give the new league the sun bowl bid.
Texas San Antonio-at least to consider
Louisiana Tech-at least to consider
Arkansas St-at least to consider

it is always laughable to see people talking about reforming a conference that failed and using the very reason that the failed conference failed as a selling point as to why the new conference would be successful

the SWC failed because outside The State of Texas few people cared what happened with the SWC other than a few OOC games and when bowl season came

and the SWC failed because so many of the schools had nothing to offer recruits that was different than many of the other SWC schools other than perhaps a chance to play for a team with a long streak of losing seasons going and perhaps possibly maybe hopefully could "turn it around" (probably for a season or two at the longest)

The SWC failed because:

1. There was a massive disparity in institutional commitment. No modern conference has a similar differential in commitment. There may be some that rival it in resources but none where the low-resource are so committed to not trying to narrow the gap.

2. It was a VASTLY different era. ESPN held no first tier television rights to a power league. ESPN2 was a few months old and geared toward alterate sports. There was no FS1, FS2, CBSS, NBCS, regional nets were less influential.

3. This was before carriage fees rather than advertising revenue were the primary source of income for sports nets.

No G5 does diddly for carriage fees nationally. G5 leagues are paid only for what audience they can bring for ad revenue and what ever investment the network wants to make in the online space (see MAC and MLS deals).

If by some magic the Southwestern AAC, CUSA and Sun Belt aligned, you maybe could extract another nickel or dime from providers in Arkansas where scientific polling places AState's fan base at 25% of UArk, in Louisiana if you are offering Tulane, La.Tech, Louisiana as part of your package you are in good shape add the Pelicans you can surely get more money, Oklahoma I don't know whether private Tulsa has the depth of support but bundled with the Thunder it helps the argument. In Texas, coupled with local NBA, MLB, NHL higher fees can be achieved.

No new SWC does much for you unless you can help a Fox or Comcast command more for their channel.

And you forgot:

4. It became too regional in the end (let alone throughout history), with all schools (half of them private) in one state and most within a few hundred miles of each other. That's actually how things should be in conferences and it worked for nearly a century but as TV became a bigger factor, it could no longer work.

And:

5: As I just said, half of the schools were private and redundant in the same markets. Great for college sports and the way it should be but not great in the era of the college football TV bubb...err, I mean expansion.

(11-22-2014 08:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-22-2014 01:37 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 06:43 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 11:23 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 07:40 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I wish some programs would reform a new version of the Southwest Conference. A very good conference could be built from the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas.

There would be great potential with recruiting!!! (The new SWC)
Houston
Rice
SMU
New Mexico
Tulane
Texas St
Tulsa
UTEP-if they'd give the new league the sun bowl bid.
Texas San Antonio-at least to consider
Louisiana Tech-at least to consider
Arkansas St-at least to consider

it is always laughable to see people talking about reforming a conference that failed and using the very reason that the failed conference failed as a selling point as to why the new conference would be successful

the SWC failed because outside The State of Texas few people cared what happened with the SWC other than a few OOC games and when bowl season came

and the SWC failed because so many of the schools had nothing to offer recruits that was different than many of the other SWC schools other than perhaps a chance to play for a team with a long streak of losing seasons going and perhaps possibly maybe hopefully could "turn it around" (probably for a season or two at the longest)

The SWC failed because:

1. There was a massive disparity in institutional commitment. No modern conference has a similar differential in commitment. There may be some that rival it in resources but none where the low-resource are so committed to not trying to narrow the gap.

2. It was a VASTLY different era. ESPN held no first tier television rights to a power league. ESPN2 was a few months old and geared toward alterate sports. There was no FS1, FS2, CBSS, NBCS, regional nets were less influential.

3. This was before carriage fees rather than advertising revenue were the primary source of income for sports nets.

No G5 does diddly for carriage fees nationally. G5 leagues are paid only for what audience they can bring for ad revenue and what ever investment the network wants to make in the online space (see MAC and MLS deals).

If by some magic the Southwestern AAC, CUSA and Sun Belt aligned, you maybe could extract another nickel or dime from providers in Arkansas where scientific polling places AState's fan base at 25% of UArk, in Louisiana if you are offering Tulane, La.Tech, Louisiana as part of your package you are in good shape add the Pelicans you can surely get more money, Oklahoma I don't know whether private Tulsa has the depth of support but bundled with the Thunder it helps the argument. In Texas, coupled with local NBA, MLB, NHL higher fees can be achieved.

No new SWC does much for you unless you can help a Fox or Comcast command more for their channel.

And you forgot:

4. It became too regional in the end (let alone throughout history), with all schools (half of them private) in one state and most within a few hundred miles of each other. That's actually how things should be in conferences and it worked for nearly a century but as TV became a bigger factor, it could no longer work.

And:

5: As I just said, half of the schools were private and redundant in the same markets. Great for college sports and the way it should be but not great in the era of the college football TV bubb...err, I mean expansion.

The redundancy in and of itself wouldn't have been fatal but for the TV model of 1983-2010. If they magically could have ridden it out three decades would have been OK. Might have been first to add a network and picked off Big 8 growing to 12 but who waits 30 years for things to get better?

(11-22-2014 09:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The redundancy in and of itself wouldn't have been fatal but for the TV model of 1983-2010. If they magically could have ridden it out three decades would have been OK. Might have been first to add a network and picked off Big 8 growing to 12 but who waits 30 years for things to get better?

My dad in his first marriage.

(11-22-2014 09:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-22-2014 08:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-22-2014 01:37 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 06:43 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(11-20-2014 11:23 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  There would be great potential with recruiting!!! (The new SWC)
Houston
Rice
SMU
New Mexico
Tulane
Texas St
Tulsa
UTEP-if they'd give the new league the sun bowl bid.
Texas San Antonio-at least to consider
Louisiana Tech-at least to consider
Arkansas St-at least to consider

it is always laughable to see people talking about reforming a conference that failed and using the very reason that the failed conference failed as a selling point as to why the new conference would be successful

the SWC failed because outside The State of Texas few people cared what happened with the SWC other than a few OOC games and when bowl season came

and the SWC failed because so many of the schools had nothing to offer recruits that was different than many of the other SWC schools other than perhaps a chance to play for a team with a long streak of losing seasons going and perhaps possibly maybe hopefully could "turn it around" (probably for a season or two at the longest)

The SWC failed because:

1. There was a massive disparity in institutional commitment. No modern conference has a similar differential in commitment. There may be some that rival it in resources but none where the low-resource are so committed to not trying to narrow the gap.

2. It was a VASTLY different era. ESPN held no first tier television rights to a power league. ESPN2 was a few months old and geared toward alterate sports. There was no FS1, FS2, CBSS, NBCS, regional nets were less influential.

3. This was before carriage fees rather than advertising revenue were the primary source of income for sports nets.

No G5 does diddly for carriage fees nationally. G5 leagues are paid only for what audience they can bring for ad revenue and what ever investment the network wants to make in the online space (see MAC and MLS deals).

If by some magic the Southwestern AAC, CUSA and Sun Belt aligned, you maybe could extract another nickel or dime from providers in Arkansas where scientific polling places AState's fan base at 25% of UArk, in Louisiana if you are offering Tulane, La.Tech, Louisiana as part of your package you are in good shape add the Pelicans you can surely get more money, Oklahoma I don't know whether private Tulsa has the depth of support but bundled with the Thunder it helps the argument. In Texas, coupled with local NBA, MLB, NHL higher fees can be achieved.

No new SWC does much for you unless you can help a Fox or Comcast command more for their channel.

And you forgot:

4. It became too regional in the end (let alone throughout history), with all schools (half of them private) in one state and most within a few hundred miles of each other. That's actually how things should be in conferences and it worked for nearly a century but as TV became a bigger factor, it could no longer work.

And:

5: As I just said, half of the schools were private and redundant in the same markets. Great for college sports and the way it should be but not great in the era of the college football TV bubb...err, I mean expansion.

The redundancy in and of itself wouldn't have been fatal but for the TV model of 1983-2010. If they magically could have ridden it out three decades would have been OK. Might have been first to add a network and picked off Big 8 growing to 12 but who waits 30 years for things to get better?

I can almost hear Frank Broyles reply, "We did wait 30 years for things to get better!"

Frank tried to bust it up. He got Texas, Texas A&M, LSU, OU, OKST, Mizzou, and Nebraska in the same room and pitched forming a new league. He argued that they could form their own league and break from the CFA TV deal. He believed they could get a regional game in the morning, a national in the afternoon and could get the other two (during league play) on cable at night and only a few non-conference games might miss TV.

Obviously they didn't buy in but LSU reported on the meeting to the SEC who began looking at expansion and breaking from the CFA.

(11-22-2014 11:06 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(11-22-2014 09:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The redundancy in and of itself wouldn't have been fatal but for the TV model of 1983-2010. If they magically could have ridden it out three decades would have been OK. Might have been first to add a network and picked off Big 8 growing to 12 but who waits 30 years for things to get better?

My dad in his first marriage.

When I get to a computer you get rep points for that