08-13-2019, 07:01 AM
(08-12-2019 10:11 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote: [ -> ](08-12-2019 07:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ](08-12-2019 07:30 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote: [ -> ]The old WAC was part of the cartel back then. It even had a National Champion in 1984.
Arizona, Arizona State and Utah are now in a power conference. Wyoming, Colorado State, New Mexico, UTEP and BYU are on the outside looking in. You can include San Diego State, Fresno State and Hawaii which were members after 1981. The WAC was the Western version of the ACC (before Florida State). It had a seat in the big table until the beginning of the BCS predecessor, the Alliance and the WAC-16 fiasco.
If they were in the cartel then why weren’t they part of the bowl alliance/coalition in the 1990s? Because they weren’t
If you read my last paragraph I answered your question. The Alliance and BCS didn’t include the WAC.....that and its expansion to 16 was what caused eight schools to form a new conference. Limited money, little to no exposure, lost rivalries and not being an AQ league in the new BCS didn’t make sense for a 16 team league to stay together. The question is, had the WAC decided not to expand and stay at nine or ten (Fresno State joined in 1992), would they have been included in the Alliance/BCS? Probably not but we will never know.
Rice, Tulane and SMU are old money schools that were once in a power conference. Houston was more of a newcomer and they were part of the cartel from 1976-1996.
The Big Ten and Pac 10 weren’t part of the Bowl Alliance either.
Actually, it was going to 16 that influenced the Cotton Bowl bid, which was also left out of the Bowl Alliance in place of the Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta bowls.
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/3691...RIAGE.html
Regardless, the Bowl Alliance sucked.