Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Interesting Info on Southwest Conference
Author Message
Kittonhead Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,162
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 98
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Interesting Info on Southwest Conference
(02-03-2018 10:50 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  Doesn’t really matter anymore, in 2025 there will major reductions in tv money, no more big fat tv contracts for any college conferences, I predict a conference like the big-10 or the SEC will get less than half to what they are getting now, as a result there will be some more realignment taking place, college football will be in total disarray with huge legal battles, multiple fake championships, dogs sleeping with cats and the swamp will be full and deep again for all hopefulness to disappear never to be seen again...
Just say’n...

B1G is the leader in the clubhouse. If the market isn't conclusive for expansion they'll slice and dice their package to ensure they were making what they were before.

SEC isn't going to be as hot as it was 2010 when it was the last deal was signed. They should look at Florida State, Clemson, UNC and Duke for the east division.

There are rumblings in the PAC about local control of TV rights. There may be another Texoma push under a new deal that will accommodate the LHN.

B12 may hang tight at 10 to preserve the per school value as much as possible.

G5 conferences will stay around 10-12 members to maximize CFP money.
02-03-2018 03:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,957
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1023
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Interesting Info on Southwest Conference
(02-03-2018 01:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 05:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Back then, my preferred path forward was to rebuild the SWC around the core of remaining schools. I think we only needed 2 more under the existing rules. My second favorite option was to move as a group to a new conference. We could have moved to the WAC doing just that--but UH passed on that opportunity as well.

From what I understand, the UH administration at the time thought that the remaining private schools would not be good partners going forward and that we would be better off aligning with other large public schools. The fact UH passed on options 1 and 2 above in favor of a spread out conference where our fans had zero connection to anyone we played would seem to support what ive heard. Personally, as a college football fan above all else, I absolutely hated the idea of CUSA. It seemed to be much more of a basketball first conference that I didnt think would be a very good fit for the vast majority of UH fans (or the casual college football fans in the city).

But original C-USA was the best fit for UH. It was full of urban, mostly public schools with rich basketball history. Unfortunately, it developed just a little too late and the BCS system excluded it.

And you act like the WAC would have been better. Houston kept playing Rice, so they didn't have to be in the same conference as them to accomplish that. There were two more regional opponents but they didn't make UH fans jump out of their chairs and Tulane is only slightly farther away than SMU and TCU. The WAC had far flung opponents that were even farther away and worse yet in different time zones. One is 4 time zones and an ocean away.

And whether you like it or not, UH nationally got more acclaim for it's basketball history than its football history. Yeah, football is king in Texas but Houston had a better reputation in basketball and a much better chance to be nationally relevant in that sport, at least as of the mid-90's. The school let the program rot on the vine, so it's done.

The WAC wasnt my first choice, but its football membership was far more formidable than early CUSA. We hadnt had an NCAA Tournament victory since 1984. However, in football we had been ranked in the top 10 just a few years prior to joining CUSA (1990). Tossing football under the bus to get in a basketball conference seemed like a bad marketing decision to me. Besides, it was unnecessary. The WAC would have served both interests well.

In 1996, The WAC wasnt a bad basketball conference and it was miles better than CUSA in football. I do agree that CUSA was probably a better institutional match.
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2018 10:49 AM by Attackcoog.)
02-03-2018 07:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,441
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 349
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #23
RE: Interesting Info on Southwest Conference
(02-03-2018 07:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-03-2018 01:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 05:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Back then, my preferred path forward was to rebuild the SWC around the core of remaining schools. I think we only needed 2 more under the existing rules. My second favorite option was to move as a group to a new conference. We could have moved to the WAC doing just that--but UH passed on that opportunity as well.

From what I understand, the UH administration at the time thought that the remaining private schools would not be good partners going forward and that we would be better off aligning with other large public schools. The fact UH passed on options 1 and 2 above in favor of a spread out conference where our fans had zero connection to anyone we played would seem to support what ive heard. Personally, as a college football fan above all else, I absolutely hated the idea of CUSA. It seemed to be much more of a basketball first conference that I didnt think would be a very good fit for the vast majority of UH fans (or the casual college football fans in the city).

But original C-USA was the best fit for UH. It was full of urban, mostly public schools with rich basketball history. Unfortunately, it developed just a little too late and the BCS system excluded it.

And you act like the WAC would have been better. Houston kept playing Rice, so they didn't have to be in the same conference as them to accomplish that. There were two more regional opponents but they didn't make UH fans jump out of their chairs and Tulane is only slightly farther away than SMU and TCU. The WAC had far flung opponents that were even farther away and worse yet in different time zones. One is 4 time zones and an ocean away.

And whether you like it or not, UH nationally got more acclaim for it's basketball history than its football history. Yeah, football is king in Texas but Houston had a better reputation in basketball and a much better chance to be nationally relevant in that sport, at least as of the mid-90's. The school let the program rot on the vine, so it's done.

The WAC wasnt my first choice, but its football membership was far more formidable than early CUSA. We hadnt had an NCAA Tournament victory since 1984. We had been ranked in the top 10 just a few years prior to joining CUSA (1990). In 1996, The WAC wasnt a bad basketball conference and it was miles better than CUSA in football. I do agree that CUSA was probably a better institutional match.


You are right.
I hate seeing the revisionist history with regards to the WAC when CUSA formed in 1995. The WAC had been around a long time and wasn’t miles behind the SWC or PAC 10. It was a well respected conference in football and basketball. CUSA was an experiment that ended up surprisingly good but at the time it was considered a very bad football group. Original CUSA:
Southern Miss- the top team.
Louisville- just started to emerge as a football team, but then Howard quit and there was concerns they’d go back to a 1-10 type team.
Memphis- very bad football then.
Tulane- very bad football then.
Cincinnati- very bad football team
Houston- very bad football then, but had history and 3 peer SWC schools going WAC
In 1995 Houston’s decision to join with those 5 schools who were mid major (except USM) was very very surprising.
02-03-2018 11:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,441
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 349
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #24
RE: Interesting Info on Southwest Conference
(02-03-2018 12:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-03-2018 10:30 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(02-03-2018 10:21 AM)megadrone Wrote:  Still, somewhat sad that the Metro 16 plan didn't go through. I think it was a little ahead of its time but with the Eastern independents and the football schools already in the Metro it would have been a great conference. Houston would have been a fit there if there was room, if there wasn't room Houston probably would have gone to the WAC with the SWC private schools.

The Metro 16 was an interesting plan but I still think it would be vulnerable as its best schools would still have had better options elsewhere.

South Carolina, Penn St, and the schools who jumped from the Big East to the ACC would all still probably end up bailing.

I don't know that Pitt, Syracuse, and BC would have ever been more than football affiliates. The convenience and allure of the Big East basketball set up that had was simply too good to abandon.

The Big East swiped the Metro idea anyway. The original Big East football lineup was the "North Division" of the Metro proposal with the Big East including Miami instead of Cincinnati.

Basically. Doubt it was intentional though.
02-04-2018 12:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,831
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 636
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Interesting Info on Southwest Conference
(02-03-2018 12:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-03-2018 10:30 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(02-03-2018 10:21 AM)megadrone Wrote:  Still, somewhat sad that the Metro 16 plan didn't go through. I think it was a little ahead of its time but with the Eastern independents and the football schools already in the Metro it would have been a great conference. Houston would have been a fit there if there was room, if there wasn't room Houston probably would have gone to the WAC with the SWC private schools.

The Metro 16 was an interesting plan but I still think it would be vulnerable as its best schools would still have had better options elsewhere.

South Carolina, Penn St, and the schools who jumped from the Big East to the ACC would all still probably end up bailing.

I don't know that Pitt, Syracuse, and BC would have ever been more than football affiliates. The convenience and allure of the Big East basketball set up that had was simply too good to abandon.

The Big East swiped the Metro idea anyway. The original Big East football lineup was the "North Division" of the Metro proposal with the Big East including Miami instead of Cincinnati.

Big East sat on the sidelines until the Super Metro fell apart. Louisville reportedly balked at sharing hoops revenue fully because Florida State and Miami weren't willing to share bowl revenue.

Once Super Metro died, the Big East entered the equation.
02-04-2018 08:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,831
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 636
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Interesting Info on Southwest Conference
(02-03-2018 07:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-03-2018 01:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 05:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Back then, my preferred path forward was to rebuild the SWC around the core of remaining schools. I think we only needed 2 more under the existing rules. My second favorite option was to move as a group to a new conference. We could have moved to the WAC doing just that--but UH passed on that opportunity as well.

From what I understand, the UH administration at the time thought that the remaining private schools would not be good partners going forward and that we would be better off aligning with other large public schools. The fact UH passed on options 1 and 2 above in favor of a spread out conference where our fans had zero connection to anyone we played would seem to support what ive heard. Personally, as a college football fan above all else, I absolutely hated the idea of CUSA. It seemed to be much more of a basketball first conference that I didnt think would be a very good fit for the vast majority of UH fans (or the casual college football fans in the city).

But original C-USA was the best fit for UH. It was full of urban, mostly public schools with rich basketball history. Unfortunately, it developed just a little too late and the BCS system excluded it.

And you act like the WAC would have been better. Houston kept playing Rice, so they didn't have to be in the same conference as them to accomplish that. There were two more regional opponents but they didn't make UH fans jump out of their chairs and Tulane is only slightly farther away than SMU and TCU. The WAC had far flung opponents that were even farther away and worse yet in different time zones. One is 4 time zones and an ocean away.

And whether you like it or not, UH nationally got more acclaim for it's basketball history than its football history. Yeah, football is king in Texas but Houston had a better reputation in basketball and a much better chance to be nationally relevant in that sport, at least as of the mid-90's. The school let the program rot on the vine, so it's done.

The WAC wasnt my first choice, but its football membership was far more formidable than early CUSA. We hadnt had an NCAA Tournament victory since 1984. However, in football we had been ranked in the top 10 just a few years prior to joining CUSA (1990). In 1996, The WAC wasnt a bad basketball conference and it was miles better than CUSA in football. I do agree that CUSA was probably a better institutional match.
CUSA was founded on the idea of building the best possible basketball league while also providing a home for football and a means to broker television in the wake of the CFA collapse but the vision was to create an elite basketball league that permitted the members to remain independent(ish) by having six non-conference scheduling dates.
02-04-2018 08:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 4,285
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 133
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #27
RE: Interesting Info on Southwest Conference
(02-02-2018 01:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-02-2018 12:58 PM)esayem Wrote:  I found this cool resource: https://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/taro/ttusw...00023.html

It has a ton of info on the Southwest Conference. Simple searches provided some interesting tidbits:

"Conference Expansion
East Carolina University General Information, 1993-1994
University of Southwestern Louisiana General Information, 1994"

"Tulane Proposal to Join the SWC, 1991"

"Conference Expansion, 1990"

"Conference Expansion, 1992"


I knew about the second one when Tulane was narrowly denied admission, but the ECU and USL bit is particularly interesting. They must have been some of the few independents after C-USA was formed. I know the SWC only considered inviting independents.

Two of the latter expansion files (1994) were likely related to the left behinds looking at possible options for rebuilding the conference. Interest in doing so was fairly low with the UH administration (which I always thought was a mistake) and the 4 remaining teams couldnt reach a consensus on who to invite. In the end, they went their separate ways a let the conference die.

The Cajuns make sense because they are regional, but ECU really surprised me. Although, they did not have their football commitment to C-USA and weren't in a major b-ball conference. Besides the future C-USA schools, ND, and the academies, I believe Tulsa, Louisiana Tech, Arkansas State, and Northern Illinois were the only other independents the SWC could have recruited (although three of those teams and UL joined the Big West for football).

Had Tulane been admitted back in 1991, a lot would have changed. I am pretty sure they were one vote shy and actually had the support of Texas.
(This post was last modified: 02-04-2018 11:03 AM by esayem.)
02-04-2018 11:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 4,285
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 133
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #28
RE: Interesting Info on Southwest Conference
I've been reading some more articles from this time and I've come up with this info:

• The SWC attempted to work together after the "Big 12 Four" left by inviting reps from some football-independent schools to an airport meeting in Dallas. Houston reps did not attend. Louisville and Cincinnati did not attend either, although they were "interested" and invited. Southern Miss was not invited, but was interested (lack of market says the S. Miss rep). Memphis, Tulane, Tulsa, and New Mexico reps attended.

• It seems that some programs that didn't send reps (Louisville and Houston) were holding out for a Big XII invite because Mizzou was not shy about flirting with the Big 10 (they were basically begging). Kansas was even mentioned as an outside candidate for Big 10 expansion, and of course, Colorado was eyeing the Pac-10.

• I read one article from early 1994 where Houston was included instead of Baylor for the initial Big 8 "raid". Of course, everyone knows the political maneuver by Baylor strong-arming their way in.

• My own hypothesis is that the UNM rep relayed the idea of WAC expansion at this meeting. Houston was the original prime target, funny enough because they were definitely not looking west. Houston reps kept quiet during this time with designs to be included in the Great Midwest and Metro merger. I remember specifically reading a line where they suffered their worst basketball season to date, 8-19 or something. Basketball was on their mind and the Great Midwest was hot.

• BYU was on the shortlist for the Big XII, but they ended up not being invited due to lack of suitable partner (money-wise).

• I have no idea where ECU and USL came from in those meetings. Mystifying. If I lived near Lubbock, I suppose I'd check out the archives.
02-06-2018 04:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 13,496
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 428
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #29
RE: Interesting Info on Southwest Conference
(02-06-2018 04:30 PM)esayem Wrote:  • It seems that some programs that didn't send reps (Louisville and Houston) were holding out for a Big XII invite because Mizzou was not shy about flirting with the Big 10 (they were basically begging). Kansas was even mentioned as an outside candidate for Big 10 expansion, and of course, Colorado was eyeing the Pac-10.

Colorado was invited to join the Pac-10 in 1994, and their board of regents ultimately turned it down due to heavy pressure from the AD and football coach. So it wouldn't be surprising if Houston and others thought that there might be a vacancy they could fill, or even that the Big XII might want to have more than 12 members.

It also wouldn't be surprising if the WAC went after the SWC schools to cut off the possibility that UNM and UTEP might leave the WAC to join a new SWC.
02-06-2018 05:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
templefootballfan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,759
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 62
I Root For: TU & BGSU & TEX
Location: CLAYMONT DE
Post: #30
RE: Interesting Info on Southwest Conference
BW schools wre still out there, [UNLV, Nev, UtahSt, NMST]
Boise moved up that yr
UCF & UAB also moved up

at the time BW was trying to be Cal BB only
No Tex & Idaho were also out there
02-06-2018 06:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
templefootballfan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,759
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 62
I Root For: TU & BGSU & TEX
Location: CLAYMONT DE
Post: #31
RE: Interesting Info on Southwest Conference
WAC had the right idea,
promblem was, WAC wanted to set pernament div
niether div wanted to give up BYU
BYU wasn't happy on either div
west cut them out range schools, east cut them off Cal schools
nobody wanted to be cut off from SDST
nobody wanted to go to Haw
02-06-2018 06:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,831
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 636
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Interesting Info on Southwest Conference
(02-06-2018 06:16 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  BW schools wre still out there, [UNLV, Nev, UtahSt, NMST]
Boise moved up that yr
UCF & UAB also moved up

at the time BW was trying to be Cal BB only
No Tex & Idaho were also out there

Arkansas State, Louisiana, Louisiana Tech and Northern Illinois were in the Big West for the 1993, 1994, and 1995 seasons. A-State went back in for 1999 and 2000.
02-06-2018 06:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
templefootballfan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,759
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 62
I Root For: TU & BGSU & TEX
Location: CLAYMONT DE
Post: #33
RE: Interesting Info on Southwest Conference
i saw that, they were already mentioned
02-06-2018 06:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
loki_the_bubba Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,255
Joined: Jul 2010
Reputation: 112
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Interesting Info on Southwest Conference
Houston
Rice
SMU
TCU

UTEP
New Mexico

Tulane
So Miss

Does it survive to today? Probably not.

Add Cincy, Louisville, Memphis, and ??? to get to 12.
Then does it survive? Maybe, but probably not.
02-06-2018 06:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,865
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 266
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #35
RE: Interesting Info on Southwest Conference
If the SWC 4 wanted to stick together something like this could have worked.

TCU, SMU, Rice, Houston, Memphis, Tulane

Louisville, Cincy, Dayton, St. Louis, DePaul, Marquette
02-06-2018 08:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,441
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 349
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #36
RE: Interesting Info on Southwest Conference
(02-06-2018 06:34 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  WAC had the right idea,
promblem was, WAC wanted to set pernament div
niether div wanted to give up BYU
BYU wasn't happy on either div
west cut them out range schools, east cut them off Cal schools
nobody wanted to be cut off from SDST
nobody wanted to go to Haw

WOW! Actually this ^ isn’t it.....at all. Totally fabricated revisionist history.
When the permanent divisions were going to be publicly announced in 1998, Air Force was to be put in with BYU, Utah, SDSU, UNLV, SJSU, Fresno & Hawaii.
The other side was to be Wyoming & Colorado St with The SWC 3, Tulsa, UNM and UTEP.
-Air Force threw a fit. To salvage things, both New Mexico and UTEP offered to swap spots with Air Force to appease them.
-Air Force organized the Denver airport meeting with Wyoming, Colorado St, BYU & Utah. Those 5 invited UNM, SDSU & UNM to form the MWC. This was June, 1998.
-there were no issues with anyone being “unhappy with being cut off from San Diego St.”
-there was no one saying they didn’t want to play at Hawaii.
-BYU wasn’t “unhappy with either division”
02-06-2018 10:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,221
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 37
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Interesting Info on Southwest Conference
I think the schools that merged to form C-USA probably made the right call by not including Tulsa, SMU, TCU, and Rice in 1995. There mission was primarily basketball and a life support football conference was a bi-product that came by necessity. The WAC 16 looked like the better football league for the SWC schools at the time anyway.

When the WAC 16 broke up the need for a football focus was far more evident. That's how TCU landed in C-USA for a hot minute on their road to yet a better football conference in the MWC.

By the time Rice, Tulsa, and SMU joined C-USA in 2005 football was the undisputed king, hence C-USA's abandonment of the hybrid model.
02-06-2018 10:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,004
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 33
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #38
RE: Interesting Info on Southwest Conference
(02-06-2018 10:31 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(02-06-2018 06:34 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  WAC had the right idea,
promblem was, WAC wanted to set pernament div
niether div wanted to give up BYU
BYU wasn't happy on either div
west cut them out range schools, east cut them off Cal schools
nobody wanted to be cut off from SDST
nobody wanted to go to Haw

WOW! Actually this ^ isn’t it.....at all. Totally fabricated revisionist history.
When the permanent divisions were going to be publicly announced in 1998, Air Force was to be put in with BYU, Utah, SDSU, UNLV, SJSU, Fresno & Hawaii.
The other side was to be Wyoming & Colorado St with The SWC 3, Tulsa, UNM and UTEP.
-Air Force threw a fit. To salvage things, both New Mexico and UTEP offered to swap spots with Air Force to appease them.
-Air Force organized the Denver airport meeting with Wyoming, Colorado St, BYU & Utah. Those 5 invited UNM, SDSU & UNM to form the MWC. This was June, 1998.
-there were no issues with anyone being “unhappy with being cut off from San Diego St.”
-there was no one saying they didn’t want to play at Hawaii.
-BYU wasn’t “unhappy with either division”

This is hindsight talking, but I wonder if they had added, say, Nevada instead of Tulsa, would the 16-team WAC have survived?

Pod 1: Rice, SMU, TCU, UTEP
Pod 2: Air Force, CSU, UNM, Wyoming
Pod 3: BYU, Nevada, UNLV, Utah
Pod 4: Fresno, Hawaii, SDSU, SJSU

The pod system works well, and if they instead wanted permanent divisions, you've got a nice split between East (1 & 2) and West (3 & 4).
02-06-2018 10:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,441
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 349
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #39
RE: Interesting Info on Southwest Conference
(02-06-2018 10:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think the schools that merged to form C-USA probably made the right call by not including Tulsa, SMU, TCU, and Rice in 1995. There mission was primarily basketball and a life support football conference was a bi-product that came by necessity. The WAC 16 looked like the better football league for the SWC schools at the time anyway.

When the WAC 16 broke up the need for a football focus was far more evident. That's how TCU landed in C-USA for a hot minute on their road to yet a better football conference in the MWC.

By the time Rice, Tulsa, and SMU joined C-USA in 2005 football was the undisputed king, hence C-USA's abandonment of the hybrid model.

CUSA didn’t not include Rice, SMU, Tulsa and TCU at all. Those 4 jumped at the chance to join the WAC. CUSA didn’t have any say in it at all.
02-06-2018 11:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 19,136
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Houston
Location: Zamunda
Post: #40
RE: Interesting Info on Southwest Conference
The WAC-16 was destined to fail. It broke up too many rivalries, was spread across too many time zones (Hawai'i alone was a pain) and had way too much deadweight. They tried to go the big TV market route but added too many teams that were worthless in their home markets or any market for that matter. So what if you had San Francisco, Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston, the teams there didn't have enough pull.
02-07-2018 03:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.