(05-04-2018 12:55 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 12:41 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  3 different things are being discussed here:
1. The panic in the SWC after Arkansas leaving/SMU death penalty/everyone on probation.
2. The idea of the Big 8 & SWC merging into 16.
3. The early 1994 decision by Texas and A&M leaving the SWC for Big 8 and killing it.


I'm talking about #3. TCU wasn't part of #3. As the Texas AD famously said about Rice/SMU/TCU/Houston "They had no idea what we were even doing" He even kind of chuckled about it like they probably weren't even paying attention. He actually said something funny like that.

Really? Is reading comprehension that hard??????

Very first quote from the article highlight in red just for you all.

The decision was between Baylor and TCU.

TCU wasn't in it, but it was either TCU or Baylor who got the last invite.

TCU was all over it. They were in it. The article tells the whole series of events from Arkansas and Penn St moving, to Texas and AnM becoming attached at the hip, to Kansas St pushing for a merger. The SEC looks, the PAC consideration, 16 team merger, down to the end. TCU was always in it and had the timing been different TCU politicians would have got them in.

Texas and AnM started the dominos but everyone was involved. It came down to just like I said, no to Houston, no SMU, Texas Tech was public and couldn't be left behind. Then it was Baylor or TCU. Political pressure pushed Baylor across the finish line.

Wait a minute?? Aren't you the very same wacko that has tried to derail every thread on this board that involved any conversation about Memphis coaching or recruiting?? Now you're over here in the AAC contract thread debating and slinging facts about when TCU and Baylor were first rumored to be in the discussion about joining the big12 in the nineties. YEP you just blew your cover troll. LOL,,, you are treading into some dangerous waters. Watch him mods!!!

(05-07-2018 01:33 AM)AusTxPony Wrote:  In 1991, TCU had ONE winning football season since 1971. Hard to believe it was seriously considered. And it was never in the papers that it came down to Baylor or TCU that I can remember.

^Exactly. Revisionist history. TCU wasn’t going to the Big 12 in the 90’s. This stuff is made up. This is getting out of hand.

:cloud9::pbjtime:

https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&...swc-merger

Quote:Cunningham: A&M and Texas were easy, and Texas Tech had the third-best attendance. Then we came down to the fourth school, and that was Baylor versus TCU. When you really looked at the hard data, Baylor was the better choice. They had better attendance and better records. When I called the Baylor president, he was not in, and I spoke with his wife. His wife told me that he was at a prayer meeting, and I said, "I now believe in prayer more than ever."

^^^^^^^^^^
Just to be clear here directly from the man in charge of the Big 8 add ons from the SWC.

You don't have to take my word for it, it's documented.

But trust your memories and not the facts :wingedeagle:

(05-07-2018 02:21 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 12:55 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 12:41 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  3 different things are being discussed here:
1. The panic in the SWC after Arkansas leaving/SMU death penalty/everyone on probation.
2. The idea of the Big 8 & SWC merging into 16.
3. The early 1994 decision by Texas and A&M leaving the SWC for Big 8 and killing it.


I'm talking about #3. TCU wasn't part of #3. As the Texas AD famously said about Rice/SMU/TCU/Houston "They had no idea what we were even doing" He even kind of chuckled about it like they probably weren't even paying attention. He actually said something funny like that.

Really? Is reading comprehension that hard??????

Very first quote from the article highlight in red just for you all.

The decision was between Baylor and TCU.

TCU wasn't in it, but it was either TCU or Baylor who got the last invite.

TCU was all over it. They were in it. The article tells the whole series of events from Arkansas and Penn St moving, to Texas and AnM becoming attached at the hip, to Kansas St pushing for a merger. The SEC looks, the PAC consideration, 16 team merger, down to the end. TCU was always in it and had the timing been different TCU politicians would have got them in.

Texas and AnM started the dominos but everyone was involved. It came down to just like I said, no to Houston, no SMU, Texas Tech was public and couldn't be left behind. Then it was Baylor or TCU. Political pressure pushed Baylor across the finish line.

Wait a minute?? Aren't you the very same wacko that has tried to derail every thread on this board that involved any conversation about Memphis coaching or recruiting?? Now you're over here in the AAC contract thread debating and slinging facts about when TCU and Baylor were first rumored to be in the discussion about joining the big12 in the nineties. YEP you just blew your cover troll. LOL,,, you are treading into some dangerous waters. Watch him mods!!!

Hahaha nothing like being called out by a guy who just got on the board and has like 12 respect points.

I guess you're here to take Fanhood and fever's place as my latest groupie. Strap in bubba it's always a good ride. I am well versed inrestraining orders though so don't go to far off the obsessed deep-end.

(05-07-2018 12:14 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&...swc-merger

Quote:Cunningham: A&M and Texas were easy, and Texas Tech had the third-best attendance. Then we came down to the fourth school, and that was Baylor versus TCU. When you really looked at the hard data, Baylor was the better choice. They had better attendance and better records. When I called the Baylor president, he was not in, and I spoke with his wife. His wife told me that he was at a prayer meeting, and I said, "I now believe in prayer more than ever."

^^^^^^^^^^
Just to be clear here directly from the man in charge of the Big 8 add ons from the SWC.

You don't have to take my word for it, it's documented.

But trust your memories and not the facts

Did you read your own article? Your own article says exactly what I said----


Chuck Neinas, Big Eight commissioner from 1971–80, executive director of the CFA from 1980–97: ESPN did not want all the members. They wanted eight from the Big Eight and they'd take four from the Southwest Conference. Obviously, the two they wanted most were Texas and Texas A&M. I received a call from Loren Matthews, who was a key executive with ESPN with whom I had developed a good relationship. And Loren told me, he said, "Here's my problem. We want the Big Eight, but we don't want all of the Southwest Conference." I said, "Well, just let me make some phone calls, and I'm sure they'll get back to you." So I called DeLoss Dodds at Texas, Donnie Duncan at Oklahoma and Bill Byrne at Nebraska, and the rest is history.

With that, the issue became more political. Rumors still flew that Texas was headed to the Pac-10 and Texas A&M to the SEC. David Sibley, a Baylor graduate who was a Texas state senator from 1991–2000, wanted answers, and he and Rob Junell, then the chairman of the Texas House Appropriations Committee, decided to take action. They confirmed that Texas A&M still had interest in the SEC, but Texas's preference for the Big Eight and the looming ABC/ESPN compromise dictated the future of the SWC.


STAPLES: COULD TV NETWORKS EXERCISE "NUCLEAR OPTION" TO HALT BIG 12 EXPANSION?

Sibley: We had a brief conversation, and it ended with Junell saying, "Cut loose the dogs of war." At the time, Bob Bullock was the lieutenant governor, and he was a Baylor Law graduate. The speaker of the house was from Texas Tech, and [Junell] was from Texas Tech. And then the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee was a Texas Tech person, John Montford. And then there I was, representing Waco and a Baylor graduate.

Junell and Sibley mobilized on Thursday or Friday, Sibley says, and by Sunday, a group was assembled in Bullock's office to strike a deal. The lieutenant governor, along with Sibley, Montford, Cunningham and Clayton (the former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives and an A&M graduate) agreed: in addition to Texas and Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor would make the cut.

Sibley: The interesting part of this is that if this had happened two years earlier, the lieutenant governor would have been a University of Houston person and the speaker of the house would have been a TCU person. It really was an interesting confluence of events.



By the way---if you read the article---it cant all be true because the players involved effectively do not agree on what happened. One says Houston was to be the fourth---another says it was between TCU and Baylor. What many fail to realize is it actually wasnt going to be anyone other than UT and A&M until Bullock and Richards got involved (and frankly, Bullock was actually the more significant player). I also applaud this article because its one of the few that actually goes to the very start of the talks where it was to be a complete merger with all 16 teams. At the original meeting, 15 chools voted in favor of a full merger with only Texas failing to support it. What people dont understand is that these negotiations led to a series of meetings that went on for nearly 3 years with the other schools trying to come up with a series of benchmarks that would have to be met in order for all SWC schools to be included in the merger. I know for a fact these meetings were going on as late as Dec of 1993. Thats one of the reasons that Houston, SMU, TCU, and Rice were completely shocked by the early 1994 revelation that the SWC was going to be gutted. So, yeah---in a way, TCU was considered for inclusion of the Big12---just like every other SWC school was.

(05-03-2018 08:02 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 04:29 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 04:05 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 03:45 PM)michael.stevens.3110 Wrote:  

(05-03-2018 03:32 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  Close. There was a bit of a fight about which way this would go. Texas AnM and Texas pulling the Oklahoma schools or Nebraska and OU pulling the Texas schools. Once it was decided that Texas would be better shedding some of the "dead weight" (read competition) they still needed a voting block. Tech was a default choice and large state institution. They needed 12 so it left one spot open. Houston, SMU, TCU, Baylor we're all canidates. Arkansas was approached but quickly turned it down leaving only the Texas schools. The gov of Texas was a bear alum and threatened to veto the whole thing (Texas, AnM, and Tech needed state approval, legislation if I remember right) if Baylor wasn't in. I believe TCU was the preferred option before the govs involvement.

There was an option voted on that included TCU and BYU .. But , They were not ready to go to 14 ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Actually it was New Mexico and BYU. Not TCU.

Lol I will need to see a citation on that. I was in Oklahoma when this all happened and had just moved from NM.

How it broke down was TCU was the preferred option for team 12.

SMU still was recovering from the death penalty and the stink of cheat was too strong for a small private.

Baylor was in Waco, the rural areas already belong to Texas and AnM so they wanted a presence in the major cities.

Houston was considered below Texas and AnM. AnM and Texas also already had strong representation in the city any way and didn't want to fight for recruits with the local school.

Texas Tech as a state ran school, a non-threat and West Texas dominate team just fit perfect.

As the legislature became more involved it became obvious who ever was left out was screwed and alumni began to work their magic in the political realm and athletic success became secondary. Arkansas almost immeaditely rejecting the future big xii's offer really put the ball in the politicians court.

Houston with out the connections needed never stood a chance leaving 3 private schools as an option. The gov being a Baylor alum and threatening to sabotage the whole thing by vetoing it was what got Baylor in. The legislature was too divided to overcome the veto.

The Big xii took two positives and two anchors. OU and Texas dominated the decision making process (Texas dragging Baylor and Tech along as proxy votes, OU often dragging OSU with them). Because OU most often sided with Texas, it lead to Colorado, AnM, and Nebraska feeling like their voice didn't matter and leaving for greener pastures.

There’s a lot of citations articles on this subject but I’ll just go with Wikipedia under “Big 12 Conference’ for now:

“Reports confirmed that BYU and the University of New Mexico were actively considered for Big 12 membership. In anticipation of the possibility of expansion to 14 by 1996 the new conference trademarked both “Big 12” and Big 14”. The idea was that BYU and New Mexico would raise the conference footprint to 20% of the nation’s TV households while also giving the Northern Division another football powerhouse in BYU.....UNM AD Rudy Davalos, former AD at Houston, questioned the logic of the Big 12 adding UNM. Davalos publicity expressed a commitment to the WAC. TCU’s AD, Frank Winddegger was told by colleagues that TCU was discussed as a package deal with BYU, with the idea even going to a vote—but the expansion vote was narrowly defeated.”

That was never a serious proposal, it was discussed, but since the mid 1980s there had been talk of adding BYU. New Mexico's population base was small. Albuquerque is smaller than OKC or Tulsa and is by far the biggest city in NM. The rumor started in the Houston chronicle and BYU was never approached about the offer formally although Big 8 officials admitted they were considered seriously for an invite.

Here is an actual link about it from the deseret news

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/3244...8-SWC.html

Quote:R.J. Snow, BYU vice president over athletics, when asked to comment on the Chronicle story, said, "I have not been involved or know of anybody (at BYU) who has been involved" with current realignment discussions in the Southwest and Big Eight conferences.

(05-07-2018 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 12:14 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&...swc-merger

Quote:Cunningham: A&M and Texas were easy, and Texas Tech had the third-best attendance. Then we came down to the fourth school, and that was Baylor versus TCU. When you really looked at the hard data, Baylor was the better choice. They had better attendance and better records. When I called the Baylor president, he was not in, and I spoke with his wife. His wife told me that he was at a prayer meeting, and I said, "I now believe in prayer more than ever."

^^^^^^^^^^
Just to be clear here directly from the man in charge of the Big 8 add ons from the SWC.

You don't have to take my word for it, it's documented.

But trust your memories and not the facts

Did you read your own artcile? Your own article says exactly what I said----


Chuck Neinas, Big Eight commissioner from 1971–80, executive director of the CFA from 1980–97: ESPN did not want all the members. They wanted eight from the Big Eight and they'd take four from the Southwest Conference. Obviously, the two they wanted most were Texas and Texas A&M. I received a call from Loren Matthews, who was a key executive with ESPN with whom I had developed a good relationship. And Loren told me, he said, "Here's my problem. We want the Big Eight, but we don't want all of the Southwest Conference." I said, "Well, just let me make some phone calls, and I'm sure they'll get back to you." So I called DeLoss Dodds at Texas, Donnie Duncan at Oklahoma and Bill Byrne at Nebraska, and the rest is history.

With that, the issue became more political. Rumors still flew that Texas was headed to the Pac-10 and Texas A&M to the SEC. David Sibley, a Baylor graduate who was a Texas state senator from 1991–2000, wanted answers, and he and Rob Junell, then the chairman of the Texas House Appropriations Committee, decided to take action. They confirmed that Texas A&M still had interest in the SEC, but Texas's preference for the Big Eight and the looming ABC/ESPN compromise dictated the future of the SWC.


STAPLES: COULD TV NETWORKS EXERCISE "NUCLEAR OPTION" TO HALT BIG 12 EXPANSION?

Sibley: We had a brief conversation, and it ended with Junell saying, "Cut loose the dogs of war." At the time, Bob Bullock was the lieutenant governor, and he was a Baylor Law graduate. The speaker of the house was from Texas Tech, and [Junell] was from Texas Tech. And then the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee was a Texas Tech person, John Montford. And then there I was, representing Waco and a Baylor graduate.

Junell and Sibley mobilized on Thursday or Friday, Sibley says, and by Sunday, a group was assembled in Bullock's office to strike a deal. The lieutenant governor, along with Sibley, Montford, Cunningham and Clayton (the former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives and an A&M graduate) agreed: in addition to Texas and Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor would make the cut.

Sibley: The interesting part of this is that if this had happened two years earlier, the lieutenant governor would have been a University of Houston person and the speaker of the house would have been a TCU person. It really was an interesting confluence of events.



By the way---if you read the article---it cant all be true because the players involved effectively do not agree on what happened. One says Houston was to be the fourth---another says it was between TCU and Baylor. What many fail to realize is it actually wasnt going to be anyone other than UT and A&M until Bullock and Richards got involved (and frankly, Bullock was actually the more significant player). I also applaud this article because its one of the few that actually goes to the very start of the talks where it was to be a complete merger with all 16 teams. At the original meeting, 15 chools voted in favor of a full merger with only Texas failing to support it. What people dont understand is that these negotiations led to a series of meetings that went on for nearly 3 years with the other schools trying to come up with a series of benchmarks that would have to be met in order for all SWC schools to be included in the merger. I know for a fact these meetings were going on as late as Dec of 1993. Thats one of the reasons that Houston, SMU, TCU, and Rice were completely shocked by the early 1994 revelation that the SWC was going to be gutted.

You can stop now. You obviously struggle with being wrong. The entire section you just quoted from says exactly what I said in the very beginning.

Texas and AnM got attached at the hip because of politics. Tech came along for the ride because they are a big state school, reliable vote, and politics. TCU was going, but Texas never wanted to be in the big xii and negotiations dragged out. ESPN set the limit at four. When the vote finally happened the politics dictated Baylor go not TCU.

That's it end of story. As far as performance, do you have any idea how bad Tech was before Leach got there?

There is no contradiction in the article, they all say the same thing. The article is written talking about the merger in chronological order, not by person. So it begins with Penn St joining the big 10 and Arkansas bailing to the sec. It finishes with Baylor getting the last spot and TCU committing to proving they belong for the next round.

The collapse of the SWC occurred over time and it had many mutations before settling. First just Texas, then UT and Texas AnM were leaving. They originally were going separate ways, then the legislature told them to move together. Than the Big 8 was in trouble. Than the talk of a full merger. ESPN nixed that idea, it could only be 4. Then it was UT, AnM, Tech, and ??? SMU was the obvious choice but the death penalty was killing them still. Houston wasn't a fit. Rice had no shot. Then it was TCU and finally with the politics having turned in the state it became Baylor with the upper hand.

Or you know exactly what I have said this entire thread. Baylor got picked over TCU.

Can't wait for the thread, 20 years from now, on how ECU got into the SEC over USF with a UCF fan arguing that the Bulls were never in contention.

(05-07-2018 12:22 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 02:21 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 12:55 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 12:41 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  3 different things are being discussed here:
1. The panic in the SWC after Arkansas leaving/SMU death penalty/everyone on probation.
2. The idea of the Big 8 & SWC merging into 16.
3. The early 1994 decision by Texas and A&M leaving the SWC for Big 8 and killing it.


I'm talking about #3. TCU wasn't part of #3. As the Texas AD famously said about Rice/SMU/TCU/Houston "They had no idea what we were even doing" He even kind of chuckled about it like they probably weren't even paying attention. He actually said something funny like that.

Really? Is reading comprehension that hard??????

Very first quote from the article highlight in red just for you all.

The decision was between Baylor and TCU.

TCU wasn't in it, but it was either TCU or Baylor who got the last invite.

TCU was all over it. They were in it. The article tells the whole series of events from Arkansas and Penn St moving, to Texas and AnM becoming attached at the hip, to Kansas St pushing for a merger. The SEC looks, the PAC consideration, 16 team merger, down to the end. TCU was always in it and had the timing been different TCU politicians would have got them in.

Texas and AnM started the dominos but everyone was involved. It came down to just like I said, no to Houston, no SMU, Texas Tech was public and couldn't be left behind. Then it was Baylor or TCU. Political pressure pushed Baylor across the finish line.

Wait a minute?? Aren't you the very same wacko that has tried to derail every thread on this board that involved any conversation about Memphis coaching or recruiting?? Now you're over here in the AAC contract thread debating and slinging facts about when TCU and Baylor were first rumored to be in the discussion about joining the big12 in the nineties. YEP you just blew your cover troll. LOL,,, you are treading into some dangerous waters. Watch him mods!!!

Hahaha nothing like being called out by a guy who just got on the board and has like 12 respect points.

I guess you're here to take Fanhood and fever's place as my latest groupie. Strap in bubba it's always a good ride. I am well versed inrestraining orders though so don't go to far off the obsessed deep-end.

Sure guy. Guess we'll all have to wait until the next AAC contract thread to get into that topic. Congrats you've derailed another

(05-07-2018 01:00 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 12:14 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&...swc-merger

Quote:Cunningham: A&M and Texas were easy, and Texas Tech had the third-best attendance. Then we came down to the fourth school, and that was Baylor versus TCU. When you really looked at the hard data, Baylor was the better choice. They had better attendance and better records. When I called the Baylor president, he was not in, and I spoke with his wife. His wife told me that he was at a prayer meeting, and I said, "I now believe in prayer more than ever."

^^^^^^^^^^
Just to be clear here directly from the man in charge of the Big 8 add ons from the SWC.

You don't have to take my word for it, it's documented.

But trust your memories and not the facts

Did you read your own artcile? Your own article says exactly what I said----


Chuck Neinas, Big Eight commissioner from 1971–80, executive director of the CFA from 1980–97: ESPN did not want all the members. They wanted eight from the Big Eight and they'd take four from the Southwest Conference. Obviously, the two they wanted most were Texas and Texas A&M. I received a call from Loren Matthews, who was a key executive with ESPN with whom I had developed a good relationship. And Loren told me, he said, "Here's my problem. We want the Big Eight, but we don't want all of the Southwest Conference." I said, "Well, just let me make some phone calls, and I'm sure they'll get back to you." So I called DeLoss Dodds at Texas, Donnie Duncan at Oklahoma and Bill Byrne at Nebraska, and the rest is history.

With that, the issue became more political. Rumors still flew that Texas was headed to the Pac-10 and Texas A&M to the SEC. David Sibley, a Baylor graduate who was a Texas state senator from 1991–2000, wanted answers, and he and Rob Junell, then the chairman of the Texas House Appropriations Committee, decided to take action. They confirmed that Texas A&M still had interest in the SEC, but Texas's preference for the Big Eight and the looming ABC/ESPN compromise dictated the future of the SWC.


STAPLES: COULD TV NETWORKS EXERCISE "NUCLEAR OPTION" TO HALT BIG 12 EXPANSION?

Sibley: We had a brief conversation, and it ended with Junell saying, "Cut loose the dogs of war." At the time, Bob Bullock was the lieutenant governor, and he was a Baylor Law graduate. The speaker of the house was from Texas Tech, and [Junell] was from Texas Tech. And then the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee was a Texas Tech person, John Montford. And then there I was, representing Waco and a Baylor graduate.

Junell and Sibley mobilized on Thursday or Friday, Sibley says, and by Sunday, a group was assembled in Bullock's office to strike a deal. The lieutenant governor, along with Sibley, Montford, Cunningham and Clayton (the former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives and an A&M graduate) agreed: in addition to Texas and Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor would make the cut.

Sibley: The interesting part of this is that if this had happened two years earlier, the lieutenant governor would have been a University of Houston person and the speaker of the house would have been a TCU person. It really was an interesting confluence of events.



By the way---if you read the article---it cant all be true because the players involved effectively do not agree on what happened. One says Houston was to be the fourth---another says it was between TCU and Baylor. What many fail to realize is it actually wasnt going to be anyone other than UT and A&M until Bullock and Richards got involved (and frankly, Bullock was actually the more significant player). I also applaud this article because its one of the few that actually goes to the very start of the talks where it was to be a complete merger with all 16 teams. At the original meeting, 15 chools voted in favor of a full merger with only Texas failing to support it. What people dont understand is that these negotiations led to a series of meetings that went on for nearly 3 years with the other schools trying to come up with a series of benchmarks that would have to be met in order for all SWC schools to be included in the merger. I know for a fact these meetings were going on as late as Dec of 1993. Thats one of the reasons that Houston, SMU, TCU, and Rice were completely shocked by the early 1994 revelation that the SWC was going to be gutted.

You can stop now. You obviously struggle with being wrong. The entire section you just quoted from says exactly what I said in the very beginning.

Texas and AnM got attached at the hip because of politics. Tech came along for the ride because they are a big state school, reliable vote, and politics. TCU was going, but Texas never wanted to be in the big xii and negotiations dragged out. ESPN set the limit at four. When the vote finally happened the politics dictated Baylor go not TCU.

That's it end of story. As far as performance, do you have any idea how bad Tech was before Leach got there?

There is no contradiction in the article, they all say the same thing. The article is written talking about the merger in chronological order, not by person. So it begins with Penn St joining the big 10 and Arkansas bailing to the sec. It finishes with Baylor getting the last spot and TCU committing to proving they belong for the next round.

The collapse of the SWC occurred over time and it had many mutations before settling. First just Texas, then UT and Texas AnM were leaving. They originally were going separate ways, then the legislature told them to move together. Than the Big 8 was in trouble. Than the talk of a full merger. ESPN nixed that idea, it could only be 4. Then it was UT, AnM, Tech, and ??? SMU was the obvious choice but the death penalty was killing them still. Houston wasn't a fit. Rice had no shot. Then it was TCU and finally with the politics having turned in the state it became Baylor with the upper hand.

Or you know exactly what I have said this entire thread. Baylor got picked over TCU.

T tech was grossly awful in nearly forever till they were politically tagged $$$ behind closed doors to the big12.

Sports and enrollment wise University Of Houston has always been larger than tech... If you still believe baylor n tech were favorable over the others you wrong yet again.

Houston vs UT games had grown into a heated rivalry, what hurt us then more than anything was our pitiful administration who neglected our facilities hence.

I was to lazy but here are a few Texas State schools years enrollments.


List of public universities in Texas by fall enrollment

Texas A&M University (2017) 62,915 (16) 60, 435 (15) 60, 507 (14) 58, 219

The University of Texas at Austin (2017) 51,427 (16) 51,281 (15) 51,312 (14) 52,059 (13) 52,213

University of Houston (2017) 45,364 (16) 43,774 (15) 40,914 (14) 39,540 (13) 40,747

Texas Tech University (2017) 37,010 (16) 36,225 (15) 34,843 (14) 32,797 (13) 32,611


So NO, tech was not chosen b/c they were a big State chool and also no to your sold claim baylor over TCU. lol

All the evidence supports Brofessor TU4ever. It's okay to admit you were wrong. Don't be ashamed.

(05-07-2018 05:46 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  All the evidence supports Brofessor TU4ever. It's okay to admit you were wrong. Don't be ashamed.

Groupie gonna groupie

(05-07-2018 01:33 AM)AusTxPony Wrote:  In 1991, TCU had ONE winning football season since 1971. Hard to believe it was seriously considered. And it was never in the papers that it came down to Baylor or TCU that I can remember. I always thought it should have been Houston, since there were no other privates in the Big 8.

Pretty much any way you cut it, Baylor was the least productive football team in the old SWC - along with Rice. TCU had some good years, but Houston was a power in the80's IIRC.

(05-07-2018 10:42 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 05:46 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  All the evidence supports Brofessor TU4ever. It's okay to admit you were wrong. Don't be ashamed.

Groupie gonna groupie

(05-09-2018 04:18 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 01:33 AM)AusTxPony Wrote:  In 1991, TCU had ONE winning football season since 1971. Hard to believe it was seriously considered. And it was never in the papers that it came down to Baylor or TCU that I can remember. I always thought it should have been Houston, since there were no other privates in the Big 8.

Pretty much any way you cut it, Baylor was the least productive football team in the old SWC - along with Rice. TCU had some good years, but Houston was a power in the80's IIRC.

No one will say it, but Houston was left out because of recruiting. Tech is a tag along political vote and someone Texas knew it could count on for a vote in big xii. Houston was left out so UT and AnM could scoop up Houston high school talent and hurt Houston's program. They made more sense than any of the privates. It was really always a play by Texas for what they wanted, it still is.

(05-07-2018 05:35 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 01:00 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 12:14 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  :cloud9::pbjtime:

https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&...swc-merger

Quote:Cunningham: A&M and Texas were easy, and Texas Tech had the third-best attendance. Then we came down to the fourth school, and that was Baylor versus TCU. When you really looked at the hard data, Baylor was the better choice. They had better attendance and better records. When I called the Baylor president, he was not in, and I spoke with his wife. His wife told me that he was at a prayer meeting, and I said, "I now believe in prayer more than ever."

^^^^^^^^^^
Just to be clear here directly from the man in charge of the Big 8 add ons from the SWC.

You don't have to take my word for it, it's documented.

But trust your memories and not the facts :wingedeagle:

Did you read your own artcile? Your own article says exactly what I said----


Chuck Neinas, Big Eight commissioner from 1971–80, executive director of the CFA from 1980–97: ESPN did not want all the members. They wanted eight from the Big Eight and they'd take four from the Southwest Conference. Obviously, the two they wanted most were Texas and Texas A&M. I received a call from Loren Matthews, who was a key executive with ESPN with whom I had developed a good relationship. And Loren told me, he said, "Here's my problem. We want the Big Eight, but we don't want all of the Southwest Conference." I said, "Well, just let me make some phone calls, and I'm sure they'll get back to you." So I called DeLoss Dodds at Texas, Donnie Duncan at Oklahoma and Bill Byrne at Nebraska, and the rest is history.

With that, the issue became more political. Rumors still flew that Texas was headed to the Pac-10 and Texas A&M to the SEC. David Sibley, a Baylor graduate who was a Texas state senator from 1991–2000, wanted answers, and he and Rob Junell, then the chairman of the Texas House Appropriations Committee, decided to take action. They confirmed that Texas A&M still had interest in the SEC, but Texas's preference for the Big Eight and the looming ABC/ESPN compromise dictated the future of the SWC.


STAPLES: COULD TV NETWORKS EXERCISE "NUCLEAR OPTION" TO HALT BIG 12 EXPANSION?

Sibley: We had a brief conversation, and it ended with Junell saying, "Cut loose the dogs of war." At the time, Bob Bullock was the lieutenant governor, and he was a Baylor Law graduate. The speaker of the house was from Texas Tech, and [Junell] was from Texas Tech. And then the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee was a Texas Tech person, John Montford. And then there I was, representing Waco and a Baylor graduate.

Junell and Sibley mobilized on Thursday or Friday, Sibley says, and by Sunday, a group was assembled in Bullock's office to strike a deal. The lieutenant governor, along with Sibley, Montford, Cunningham and Clayton (the former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives and an A&M graduate) agreed: in addition to Texas and Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor would make the cut.

Sibley: The interesting part of this is that if this had happened two years earlier, the lieutenant governor would have been a University of Houston person and the speaker of the house would have been a TCU person. It really was an interesting confluence of events.



By the way---if you read the article---it cant all be true because the players involved effectively do not agree on what happened. One says Houston was to be the fourth---another says it was between TCU and Baylor. What many fail to realize is it actually wasnt going to be anyone other than UT and A&M until Bullock and Richards got involved (and frankly, Bullock was actually the more significant player). I also applaud this article because its one of the few that actually goes to the very start of the talks where it was to be a complete merger with all 16 teams. At the original meeting, 15 chools voted in favor of a full merger with only Texas failing to support it. What people dont understand is that these negotiations led to a series of meetings that went on for nearly 3 years with the other schools trying to come up with a series of benchmarks that would have to be met in order for all SWC schools to be included in the merger. I know for a fact these meetings were going on as late as Dec of 1993. Thats one of the reasons that Houston, SMU, TCU, and Rice were completely shocked by the early 1994 revelation that the SWC was going to be gutted.

You can stop now. You obviously struggle with being wrong. The entire section you just quoted from says exactly what I said in the very beginning.

Texas and AnM got attached at the hip because of politics. Tech came along for the ride because they are a big state school, reliable vote, and politics. TCU was going, but Texas never wanted to be in the big xii and negotiations dragged out. ESPN set the limit at four. When the vote finally happened the politics dictated Baylor go not TCU.

That's it end of story. As far as performance, do you have any idea how bad Tech was before Leach got there?

There is no contradiction in the article, they all say the same thing. The article is written talking about the merger in chronological order, not by person. So it begins with Penn St joining the big 10 and Arkansas bailing to the sec. It finishes with Baylor getting the last spot and TCU committing to proving they belong for the next round.

The collapse of the SWC occurred over time and it had many mutations before settling. First just Texas, then UT and Texas AnM were leaving. They originally were going separate ways, then the legislature told them to move together. Than the Big 8 was in trouble. Than the talk of a full merger. ESPN nixed that idea, it could only be 4. Then it was UT, AnM, Tech, and ??? SMU was the obvious choice but the death penalty was killing them still. Houston wasn't a fit. Rice had no shot. Then it was TCU and finally with the politics having turned in the state it became Baylor with the upper hand.

Or you know exactly what I have said this entire thread. Baylor got picked over TCU.

T tech was grossly awful in nearly forever till they were politically tagged $$$ behind closed doors to the big12.

Sports and enrollment wise University Of Houston has always been larger than tech... If you still believe baylor n tech were favorable over the others you wrong yet again.

Houston vs UT games had grown into a heated rivalry, what hurt us then more than anything was our pitiful administration who neglected our facilities hence.

I was to lazy but here are a few Texas State schools years enrollments.


List of public universities in Texas by fall enrollment

Texas A&M University (2017) 62,915 (16) 60, 435 (15) 60, 507 (14) 58, 219

The University of Texas at Austin (2017) 51,427 (16) 51,281 (15) 51,312 (14) 52,059 (13) 52,213

University of Houston (2017) 45,364 (16) 43,774 (15) 40,914 (14) 39,540 (13) 40,747

Texas Tech University (2017) 37,010 (16) 36,225 (15) 34,843 (14) 32,797 (13) 32,611


So NO, tech was not chosen b/c they were a big State chool and also no to your sold claim baylor over TCU. lol

Hey good job. You basically argued with sports illustrated and the actual people who were behind closed doors making the decision.

Your proof enrollment numbers are from 30 years after it happened.

1992 Texas Tech enrollment: 20,000 (traditional)
1992 Houston enrollment 21,000 (commuter)

So you were 1000 more undergrads in a city crawling with Texas and AnM fans, but we're a commuter school with poor facilities and direct competition in a hot Ed of recruiting. Wonder why they didn't take you?

Look you can believe what you want. The article clearly states Baylor was picked of TCU. SMU, Rice, and Houston were eliminated when ESPN said only 4. Till you can provide proof saying otherwise the accepted national narrative of Baylor getting in over TCU on political moves will stand.

(05-07-2018 01:53 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 12:22 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-07-2018 02:21 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 12:55 PM)TU4ever Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 12:41 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  3 different things are being discussed here:
1. The panic in the SWC after Arkansas leaving/SMU death penalty/everyone on probation.
2. The idea of the Big 8 & SWC merging into 16.
3. The early 1994 decision by Texas and A&M leaving the SWC for Big 8 and killing it.


I'm talking about #3. TCU wasn't part of #3. As the Texas AD famously said about Rice/SMU/TCU/Houston "They had no idea what we were even doing" He even kind of chuckled about it like they probably weren't even paying attention. He actually said something funny like that.

Really? Is reading comprehension that hard??????

Very first quote from the article highlight in red just for you all.

The decision was between Baylor and TCU.

TCU wasn't in it, but it was either TCU or Baylor who got the last invite.

TCU was all over it. They were in it. The article tells the whole series of events from Arkansas and Penn St moving, to Texas and AnM becoming attached at the hip, to Kansas St pushing for a merger. The SEC looks, the PAC consideration, 16 team merger, down to the end. TCU was always in it and had the timing been different TCU politicians would have got them in.

Texas and AnM started the dominos but everyone was involved. It came down to just like I said, no to Houston, no SMU, Texas Tech was public and couldn't be left behind. Then it was Baylor or TCU. Political pressure pushed Baylor across the finish line.

Wait a minute?? Aren't you the very same wacko that has tried to derail every thread on this board that involved any conversation about Memphis coaching or recruiting?? Now you're over here in the AAC contract thread debating and slinging facts about when TCU and Baylor were first rumored to be in the discussion about joining the big12 in the nineties. YEP you just blew your cover troll. LOL,,, you are treading into some dangerous waters. Watch him mods!!!

Hahaha nothing like being called out by a guy who just got on the board and has like 12 respect points.

I guess you're here to take Fanhood and fever's place as my latest groupie. Strap in bubba it's always a good ride. I am well versed inrestraining orders though so don't go to far off the obsessed deep-end.

Sure guy. Guess we'll all have to wait until the next AAC contract thread to get into that topic. Congrats you've derailed another

As long as it's one about an imaginary interview on radio announcing a mythical conference negotiating team sure.

We'll see if your still here mid Jan '18 or if your as fictional then as the title of this thread now.

Time to negotiate. Are they buying what we're selling?

Apologize if posted elsewhere, but has Wichita State's % of league revenue ever been defined? Thanks.

(05-07-2018 05:46 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  All the evidence supports Brofessor TU4ever. It's okay to admit you were wrong. Don't be ashamed.

LOL. Is that you TU4ever? Attackcoog and other knowledgeable people in this thread disagree with you.... or both of you and so do I. TU4ever makes some valid points, but it appears Attackcoog and the other posters are not wrong and have nothing to admit. Me thinks the shoe is on the other foot.

Actually, what difference does it make...it is ancient history.