(01-30-2015 10:14 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I really like the original idea for the Southwest Conference

Texas
Texas A&M
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Arkansas
LSU
Ole Miss

If they had started off with those 7, and instead of just all the smaller Texas schools, the conference could have shaped up pretty well. Say in the earlier years they do add a couple of larger state schools in states they already had, like Texas Tech and Mississippi State to get to 9.

I still think its likely they would have added one of the Texas privates (SMU/TCU/BU/Rice) or even Houston to get to 10.

As conferences moved towards the 12 team format, they would have had several options to expand, east adding Alabama/Auburn (not likely imo, they would likely be part of a more eastern focused SEC), north adding Mizzou/Kansas, or even west adding New Mexico/Colorado. Expanding both north and west would make a really good 14 team conference in my opinion, and leaves the possibility of expanding into Arizona/Utah to get to 16.

1. Ole Miss
2. Miss St
3. LSU
4. Ark
5. Mizzou
6. Kansas
7. OU
8. OSU
9. UT
10. A&M
11. Tech
12. SMU/TCU/Baylor/Houston/Rice
13. New Mexico
14. Colorado

If a 4th Texas school is never invited, perhaps Memphis could fill that other spot as well. I think this could have been a really good conference.

Baylor was one of the founders of the original SWC.

(01-30-2015 04:20 PM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  Baylor was one of the founders of the original SWC.

Thanks for the correction, after double checking it appears Rice was too. I was thinking they had joined a couple years later like both TCU and SMU had.

And Houston wasn't even founded as a junior college by the time the SWC came into fruition. As a matter of fact, teams in the SWC had already won national titles by the time UH fielded their first athletic teams shortly after World War II.

This thread...shows up once a month and never gets better.

(01-31-2015 04:50 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  

This thread...shows up once a month and never gets better.

Agreed.

(01-31-2015 10:55 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 04:50 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  

This thread...shows up once a month and never gets better.

Agreed.

Then how about either make it better or just not click on it.

(01-31-2015 11:33 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 10:55 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 04:50 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  

This thread...shows up once a month and never gets better.

Agreed.

Then how about either make it better or just not click on it.

A far better idea would be to quit rehashing irrelevant old crap that no longer matters in the grand scheme of things. It's a dead issue that won't ever happen. So why talk about it? It's like discussing the possibility of Mickey Mouse playing PG for UCF, with Goofy as his wingman.

Would Donald Duck be the head coach?

(01-31-2015 01:41 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Would Donald Duck be the head coach?

Nope. He's a backup with communication difficulties.

I get the nostalgia. We often pine for "the good old days" (whether they were actually good or not)

But the old days of 8 team leagues built around the handful of other football/basketball playing schools within a days bus/train ride are over and gone and never coming back.

Remember the past but live in the present

(01-31-2015 01:39 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 11:33 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 10:55 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 04:50 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  

This thread...shows up once a month and never gets better.

Agreed.

Then how about either make it better or just not click on it.

A far better idea would be to quit rehashing irrelevant old crap that no longer matters in the grand scheme of things. It's a dead issue that won't ever happen. So why talk about it? It's like discussing the possibility of Mickey Mouse playing PG for UCF, with Goofy as his wingman.

If you don't want to talk about it then don't click on the thread. It's actually that simple. Others have wanted to banter about it. So how does it hurt you if others choose to?

(01-31-2015 03:49 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 01:39 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 11:33 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 10:55 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 04:50 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  

This thread...shows up once a month and never gets better.

Agreed.

Then how about either make it better or just not click on it.

A far better idea would be to quit rehashing irrelevant old crap that no longer matters in the grand scheme of things. It's a dead issue that won't ever happen. So why talk about it? It's like discussing the possibility of Mickey Mouse playing PG for UCF, with Goofy as his wingman.

If you don't want to talk about it then don't click on the thread. It's actually that simple. Others have wanted to banter about it. So how does it hurt you if others choose to?

Because such fundamental stupidity should be a punishable offense.

(01-31-2015 05:32 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 03:49 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 01:39 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 11:33 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 10:55 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Agreed.

Then how about either make it better or just not click on it.

A far better idea would be to quit rehashing irrelevant old crap that no longer matters in the grand scheme of things. It's a dead issue that won't ever happen. So why talk about it? It's like discussing the possibility of Mickey Mouse playing PG for UCF, with Goofy as his wingman.

If you don't want to talk about it then don't click on the thread. It's actually that simple. Others have wanted to banter about it. So how does it hurt you if others choose to?

Because such fundamental stupidity should be a punishable offense.

Who the hell died and made you judge of all things. Just because you don't like a topic and want to be an ass about it doesn't make your views correct. Other people have enjoyed this topic.

(01-31-2015 05:32 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 03:49 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 01:39 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 11:33 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(01-31-2015 10:55 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Agreed.

Then how about either make it better or just not click on it.

A far better idea would be to quit rehashing irrelevant old crap that no longer matters in the grand scheme of things. It's a dead issue that won't ever happen. So why talk about it? It's like discussing the possibility of Mickey Mouse playing PG for UCF, with Goofy as his wingman.

If you don't want to talk about it then don't click on the thread. It's actually that simple. Others have wanted to banter about it. So how does it hurt you if others choose to?

Because such fundamental stupidity should be a punishable offense.

lol...That's pretty much the definition of clicking on a thread that doesn't interest you.....and then griping about it's clearly marked content.....

In one last time before the lock.

(01-31-2015 02:43 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I get the nostalgia. We often pine for "the good old days" (whether they were actually good or not)

But the old days of 8 team leagues built around the handful of other football/basketball playing schools within a days bus/train ride are over and gone and never coming back.

Remember the past but live in the present

It's not 8 teams but the MAC certainly qualifies as a bus league or very close to it.

I don't understand the hostility. We used to have conversations like this all the time on this forum and Bit....you of all people know that is true. I don't know why you are so defensive. You know this would never happen if it left West Virginia out in the cold. They would end up in the ACC or SEC.

Okay, in again. Putting my signature too:

_Caltex2_

(02-01-2015 10:35 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  In one last time before the lock.

(01-31-2015 02:43 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I get the nostalgia. We often pine for "the good old days" (whether they were actually good or not)

But the old days of 8 team leagues built around the handful of other football/basketball playing schools within a days bus/train ride are over and gone and never coming back.

Remember the past but live in the present

It's not 8 teams but the MAC certainly qualifies as a bus league or very close to it.

I meant the power conferences.

It might actually behoove the G5 to go back to the regional bus league model

(02-01-2015 01:22 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 10:35 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  In one last time before the lock.

(01-31-2015 02:43 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I get the nostalgia. We often pine for "the good old days" (whether they were actually good or not)

But the old days of 8 team leagues built around the handful of other football/basketball playing schools within a days bus/train ride are over and gone and never coming back.

Remember the past but live in the present

It's not 8 teams but the MAC certainly qualifies as a bus league or very close to it.

I meant the power conferences.

It might actually behoove the G5 to go back to the regional bus league model

As the Big Ten expanded into a new region, as will the MAC. The MAC is a very stable G5 league. It understands it's identity and it is fine with that. They make sensible decisions within their constraints.

The MAC profits from it's relationship with The Big Ten. Why not expand into the market that the Big Ten recently has shown to covet?

(02-01-2015 01:22 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(02-01-2015 10:35 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  In one last time before the lock.

(01-31-2015 02:43 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I get the nostalgia. We often pine for "the good old days" (whether they were actually good or not)

But the old days of 8 team leagues built around the handful of other football/basketball playing schools within a days bus/train ride are over and gone and never coming back.

Remember the past but live in the present

It's not 8 teams but the MAC certainly qualifies as a bus league or very close to it.

I meant the power conferences.

It might actually behoove the G5 to go back to the regional bus league model

The G5 could do that, but it would just decrease their TV earnings even more. The best thing that could happen long run for the G5 is that the rules governing divisional football play are reformed like the Big-12 and ACC desire. If that happens, very large national G5 conferences with multiple pods could be built.

Such large conferences would be able to maintain footprints in many states, while building small more geographically coherent pods. If divisional/pod play dominates the schedule (with a bit of cross over play to tie the league together), then pods would generally mimic bus leagues while the overall league footprint would mimic bigger conferences. That would massively reduce travel expenses while still providing the larger footprint networks prefer. I could see the number of G5 conferences decreasing as pod inspired mergers create mega-G5 leagues.