(12-31-2020 05:13 AM)esayem Wrote:  Well we know that schools were being pulled into all different directions at this time. I looked at some of the old SWC minutes on a Texas Tech archive site and ECU and USL were studied, so there’s that. I think it’s related to this:

“When Jacoby became convinced in the past year that expansion was a must, SWC presidents told him to target only independents. He had 10 choices*, which he narrowed to Tulane, Louisville, Memphis State, Tulsa and Cincinnati.”

Those five plus the SWC would be the foundation of a great conference; it’s sort of the old MVC meets the SWC, plus Tulane which has history playing both the Metro and SWC teams. Southern Miss and the basketball schools from the Great Midwest are left out, as are the remaining Metro schools. I’m guessing the Metro would invite UAB and possibly add a few schools. I think DePaul ends up in the Big East or Atlantic 10. Hard to say what happens to Marquette and St. Louis, unless they join the Metro. There was Atlantic 10/Great Midwest merger talk at the time.

The SWC could have also taken the aforementioned nine and gone to 12 off the bat:

Cincinnati
Louisville
Memphis
ECU (fb-only)
Southern Miss
USL (fb-only)

Tulane
Houston
Rice
SMU
TCU
Tulsa





* By my count the ten choices were ECU, Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, So. Miss, Tulane, USL, LaTech, Arkansas St., and Tulsa. Although Northern Illinois was an Independent at the time as well.

I didn’t know about possiblely adding USL were can I find that article? Also I could see why we’d be football only, at that time our basketball progress still rebuilding from the death penalty..USL needs a 30 for 30 about it

(12-31-2020 12:30 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 11:30 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I'd like to recreate the SWC for shtz n giggles:

Texas
TAMU
Baylor
New Mexico
Arkansas
TCU
Texas Tech
Rice
Houston
SMU

This to me would be a fantastic conference to watch with a plethora of nice rivalries. Instead CFB is too greedy and tgus destroying itself.

FIFY. Also, with my corrections, that's how the conference was from 1971-is to 1990, Arkansas' last year in the league, plus New Mexico. And who knows? If they had just added another school, like New Mexico or North Texas, perhaps the league would've stayed together longer? Maybe Arkansas stays and is one of the four SWC teams in the Big 12 merger? Who knows?

I will die on the hill that Arkansas is much better fit under the original Big 12 structure than it is/was in the SEC. Arkansas was always an outlier in the SWC due to being the only non-Texas school, but was still closer to the Texas schools than the SEC counterparts.

A Big 12 with the Big 8 teams involved would've been a better set-up for Arkansas. They would suddenly have a number of games within a 3 hour drive and would still have their yearly games with their rivals.

Big 12 with Arkansas
North:
Nebraska
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Missouri
Colorado

South:
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech

Although I would be very sad for my Bears exclusion, this set-up makes a lot of sense to me. I think if they had worked on this prior to Arkansas' departure all parties would've been happier and it would have made for a more competitive conference.

(12-31-2020 05:13 AM)esayem Wrote:  Well we know that schools were being pulled into all different directions at this time. I looked at some of the old SWC minutes on a Texas Tech archive site and ECU and USL were studied, so there’s that. I think it’s related to this:

“When Jacoby became convinced in the past year that expansion was a must, SWC presidents told him to target only independents. He had 10 choices*, which he narrowed to Tulane, Louisville, Memphis State, Tulsa and Cincinnati.”

Those five plus the SWC would be the foundation of a great conference; it’s sort of the old MVC meets the SWC, plus Tulane which has history playing both the Metro and SWC teams. Southern Miss and the basketball schools from the Great Midwest are left out, as are the remaining Metro schools. I’m guessing the Metro would invite UAB and possibly add a few schools. I think DePaul ends up in the Big East or Atlantic 10. Hard to say what happens to Marquette and St. Louis, unless they join the Metro. There was Atlantic 10/Great Midwest merger talk at the time.

The SWC could have also taken the aforementioned nine and gone to 12 off the bat:

Cincinnati
Louisville
Memphis
ECU (fb-only)
Southern Miss
USL (fb-only)

Tulane
Houston
Rice
SMU
TCU
Tulsa





* By my count the ten choices were ECU, Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, So. Miss, Tulane, USL, LaTech, Arkansas St., and Tulsa. Although Northern Illinois was an Independent at the time as well.

I don’t know that there was an impetus to go right to 12 for 1996. They would be fine at 10:

Cincinnati
Louisville
Memphis
USM
Tulane
Rice
Houston
SMU
TCU
Tulsa

The big question is what impact would this have on the rest of the Metro and Great Midwest and what does not having a clear path to a football conference would have on the UAB and USF programs?

Do the two remnants merge (with Dayton, VCU, and VT included?) or do they rebuild separately? UAB would be an odd fit with 4 Midwestern Catholic schools.

Maybe a conference/scheduling alliance forms of USF, UCF, ECU, MTSU, Ark St, LA Tech, and ULL?

(12-31-2020 10:53 AM)Cajuns1252 Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 05:13 AM)esayem Wrote:  Well we know that schools were being pulled into all different directions at this time. I looked at some of the old SWC minutes on a Texas Tech archive site and ECU and USL were studied, so there’s that. I think it’s related to this:

“When Jacoby became convinced in the past year that expansion was a must, SWC presidents told him to target only independents. He had 10 choices*, which he narrowed to Tulane, Louisville, Memphis State, Tulsa and Cincinnati.”

Those five plus the SWC would be the foundation of a great conference; it’s sort of the old MVC meets the SWC, plus Tulane which has history playing both the Metro and SWC teams. Southern Miss and the basketball schools from the Great Midwest are left out, as are the remaining Metro schools. I’m guessing the Metro would invite UAB and possibly add a few schools. I think DePaul ends up in the Big East or Atlantic 10. Hard to say what happens to Marquette and St. Louis, unless they join the Metro. There was Atlantic 10/Great Midwest merger talk at the time.

The SWC could have also taken the aforementioned nine and gone to 12 off the bat:

Cincinnati
Louisville
Memphis
ECU (fb-only)
Southern Miss
USL (fb-only)

Tulane
Houston
Rice
SMU
TCU
Tulsa





* By my count the ten choices were ECU, Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, So. Miss, Tulane, USL, LaTech, Arkansas St., and Tulsa. Although Northern Illinois was an Independent at the time as well.

I didn’t know about possiblely adding USL were can I find that article? Also I could see why we’d be football only, at that time our basketball progress still rebuilding from the death penalty..USL needs a 30 for 30 about it

https://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/taro/ttusw...00023.html

Search “Expansion” in your browser and they come up. I think you have to request the actual article in person. It looks like there is a lot of great info there.

Jacoby pushed for Tulane in 1991 and then Memphis State in ‘93 right before he retired. I think if either or both happened, the SWC would be around in some form today.

(12-31-2020 12:11 PM)esayem Wrote:  Jacoby pushed for Tulane in 1991 and then Memphis State in ‘93 right before he retired. I think if either or both happened, the SWC would be around in some form today.

Agreed. The schools involved in the C-USA merger had numbers and leverage on the SWC schools.

With Memphis/Tulane already in the SWC, Tulsa would have been a quick add for 6 and that’s all they needed. USM and Tulane/Memphis (whoever was left out in 1991 or 1993) would give them 8. Cincinnati and Louisville would have some serious scheduling troubles if they were trying to do it all on their own and probably would have fallen in line, at a minimum as football affiliates.

This would have been a nice set up. The 10 team league would have the Cotton Bowl for their winner and the Liberty Bowl for their #2.

(12-31-2020 12:30 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:11 PM)esayem Wrote:  Jacoby pushed for Tulane in 1991 and then Memphis State in ‘93 right before he retired. I think if either or both happened, the SWC would be around in some form today.

Agreed. The schools involved in the C-USA merger had numbers and leverage on the SWC schools.

With Memphis/Tulane already in the SWC, Tulsa would have been a quick add for 6 and that’s all they needed. USM and Tulane/Memphis (whoever was left out in 1991 or 1993) would give them 8. Cincinnati and Louisville would have some serious scheduling troubles if they were trying to do it all on their own and probably would have fallen in line, at a minimum as football affiliates.

This would have been a nice set up. The 10 team league would have the Cotton Bowl for their winner and the Liberty Bowl for their #2.

This would’ve been awesome!

I do remember that Memphis was NOT highly thought of...Tulane and Tulsa were...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(12-31-2020 08:41 PM)michael.stevens.3110 Wrote:  I do remember that Memphis was NOT highly thought of...Tulane and Tulsa were...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Maybe in terms of football, sure. Memphis hoops was strong even back then though.

In those days they still feigned a little bit of giving priority to Academics


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(01-01-2021 10:25 PM)michael.stevens.3110 Wrote:  In those days they still feigned a little bit of giving priority to Academics


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Fair enough. I didn’t realize we were considering academics in my thread.

Sorry. That may have come off wrong. If you’re going by what actually happened with them having to vacate final four appearances because of NCAA violations, I can respect that. Just be better at explaining yourself, please? Thank you.

As for North Texas, they were pretty decent when they tried to get into the SWC. If they hadn’t spent so much on their pitch, they never would’ve had to move down to I-AA. (Then again, if they had been allowed to join the SWC, they wouldn’t have had to move down either.) Of course, the SWC isn’t at fault for North Texas’ self-demotion; they took a risk and it didn’t pay off. But to say they didn’t deserve consideration, in my opinion, is laughable.

(12-31-2020 02:48 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 01:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:47 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 10:45 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 10:15 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  That would’ve been a nice ten-team football league, good enough for a nine-game round-robin schedule.

I don't think UTEP for that series of moves, they were pretty locked in with the WAC back then.

Southern Miss would have been more likely as they would have fit nicely with Memphis and Tulane. UAB maybe instead of Southern Miss if basketball was more important. Would have been a solid conference. I was just thinking earlier today with all the Boise talk about what a different world it would have been if the three Texas schools and Tulsa had gone east instead of west.

I know Tulsa was looking at what would become CUSA and the Super WAC at the same time roughly and we favored going with the private Texas schools which ever way they went.

That would have been a good hoops league too.

At least half of the programs I named in my original post have some history with each other, including the four real SWC schools left from the Big 12 merger. Either they've shared a league with the SWC 4 or played them quite a few times before the mid-90s. And even then, schools like UTEP, New Mexico, and NMSU have history together as well.

Here's an example of what I mean: The last conference Houston was in before going Independent (and ultimately joining the SWC) was the Missouri Valley Conference back when it was an all-sports conference. (Currently, the MVFC is a separate entity from the MVC as a whole, though some all-sports MVC members are football members of the football MVC.) From 1957 to 1959, Houston, Cincinnati, North Texas, and Tulsa were in the MVC. (Houston's tenure was from 1951-1959.)

Sure---but you actually want to be in a quality conference. You want teams that you actually WANT to be in a conference with. I mean, when UT/Aggie/Baylor/Tech made their announcement to leave for the Big-12, North Texas was playing D1-AA football. I think LaTech had only been D1-A for a few years in 94. Point is, those types of schools would not likely have been considered acceptable options for the SWC leftovers who were long time D1 members---and had been competing in a top level power conference just a few months before. If it was me, I have at least tried to strip away BYU and front ridge schools from the WAC to join the SWC 4. Failing that---the group posted by someone earlier is probably your best outcome. Those are all schools that have been around a while at the top level of football. Respectable academics. Not a bad basketball conference either.



Rice
TCU
SMU
Houston
Tulane
Memphis
Louisville
Cincinnati
Tulsa or S Miss to get to 9. Nine was a good number for a 8 game full round robin conference.

Of course. And it's a shame, too. North Texas was a good program before they spent a hell of a lot of money trying to get into the SWC in the '70s. That made them go I-AA for about twenty years. (Which brings me to this, but only as a reminder: In my original scenario, the Mean Green are invited to join the SWC.)

But once again, this is all hypothetical. I'm going back to the early '70s, fellow Coog.

If we were to go off of what actually happened up until the announcement of the Big 12, of course, we'd have to go in a different direction. Therefore, your league is a good league, too. In fact, why not make it even better and invite both Southern Miss and Tulsa? It would be a good 9-game round robin league. (And a decent hoops league, too.) This is probably what should've happened. But what would we call it? Conference USA? SWC? A completely different name like the American Southwest Conference? (That name might already exist, but I'm not sure.) The Southwest 10? (Semantics, of course. Still, a name matters, too.)

Darrell Royal as Texas AD talked about adding North Texas in the late 70s.

Hindsight is 20-20

Truthfully, I don’t think UNT would have changed the SWC calculus much. Houston wanted separation from the private SWC schools and C-USA offered them out. I think the only difference would have been that UNT would have gone to the WAC-16 in place of Tulsa.

Tulsa’s fate from 1996-2004 would be hard to pinpoint in this scenario.

Maybe they get hooked up with C-USA as a football affiliate.

There’s also a possibility that Tulsa comes to the WAC in 2000 or 2001 to help fill in the gaps left by the MWC spin-off (at the expense of LA Tech).

Where I ultimately see this heading is that in 2005, C-USA is:

West: Tulsa, UNT, SMU, Rice, Houston, Tulane
East: Memphis, USM, UAB, ECU, Marshall, UCF

WAC: UTEP, NMSU, Utah St, Boise, Idaho, Nevada, SJSU, Fresno St, Hawaii

SBC: Ark St, LA Tech, ULM, ULL, Troy, MTSU, FAU, FIU non-fb: WKU, USA, UALR, UNO, Denver (ULM had to be admitted as a full member to meet the requirement that the conference have 8 full members who sponsor fb)

(01-02-2021 10:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 02:48 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 01:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:47 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 10:45 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  I don't think UTEP for that series of moves, they were pretty locked in with the WAC back then.

Southern Miss would have been more likely as they would have fit nicely with Memphis and Tulane. UAB maybe instead of Southern Miss if basketball was more important. Would have been a solid conference. I was just thinking earlier today with all the Boise talk about what a different world it would have been if the three Texas schools and Tulsa had gone east instead of west.

I know Tulsa was looking at what would become CUSA and the Super WAC at the same time roughly and we favored going with the private Texas schools which ever way they went.

That would have been a good hoops league too.

At least half of the programs I named in my original post have some history with each other, including the four real SWC schools left from the Big 12 merger. Either they've shared a league with the SWC 4 or played them quite a few times before the mid-90s. And even then, schools like UTEP, New Mexico, and NMSU have history together as well.

Here's an example of what I mean: The last conference Houston was in before going Independent (and ultimately joining the SWC) was the Missouri Valley Conference back when it was an all-sports conference. (Currently, the MVFC is a separate entity from the MVC as a whole, though some all-sports MVC members are football members of the football MVC.) From 1957 to 1959, Houston, Cincinnati, North Texas, and Tulsa were in the MVC. (Houston's tenure was from 1951-1959.)

Sure---but you actually want to be in a quality conference. You want teams that you actually WANT to be in a conference with. I mean, when UT/Aggie/Baylor/Tech made their announcement to leave for the Big-12, North Texas was playing D1-AA football. I think LaTech had only been D1-A for a few years in 94. Point is, those types of schools would not likely have been considered acceptable options for the SWC leftovers who were long time D1 members---and had been competing in a top level power conference just a few months before. If it was me, I have at least tried to strip away BYU and front ridge schools from the WAC to join the SWC 4. Failing that---the group posted by someone earlier is probably your best outcome. Those are all schools that have been around a while at the top level of football. Respectable academics. Not a bad basketball conference either.



Rice
TCU
SMU
Houston
Tulane
Memphis
Louisville
Cincinnati
Tulsa or S Miss to get to 9. Nine was a good number for a 8 game full round robin conference.

Of course. And it's a shame, too. North Texas was a good program before they spent a hell of a lot of money trying to get into the SWC in the '70s. That made them go I-AA for about twenty years. (Which brings me to this, but only as a reminder: In my original scenario, the Mean Green are invited to join the SWC.)

But once again, this is all hypothetical. I'm going back to the early '70s, fellow Coog.

If we were to go off of what actually happened up until the announcement of the Big 12, of course, we'd have to go in a different direction. Therefore, your league is a good league, too. In fact, why not make it even better and invite both Southern Miss and Tulsa? It would be a good 9-game round robin league. (And a decent hoops league, too.) This is probably what should've happened. But what would we call it? Conference USA? SWC? A completely different name like the American Southwest Conference? (That name might already exist, but I'm not sure.) The Southwest 10? (Semantics, of course. Still, a name matters, too.)

Darrell Royal as Texas AD talked about adding North Texas in the late 70s.

They probably would've been a good addition, too. Too bad they were told no by the league.

(01-02-2021 11:25 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Truthfully, I don’t think UNT would have changed the SWC calculus much. Houston wanted separation from the private SWC schools and C-USA offered them out. I think the only difference would have been that UNT would have gone to the WAC-16 in place of Tulsa.

Tulsa’s fate from 1996-2004 would be hard to pinpoint in this scenario.

Maybe they get hooked up with C-USA as a football affiliate.

There’s also a possibility that Tulsa comes to the WAC in 2000 or 2001 to help fill in the gaps left by the MWC spin-off (at the expense of LA Tech).

Where I ultimately see this heading is that in 2005, C-USA is:

West: Tulsa, UNT, SMU, Rice, Houston, Tulane
East: Memphis, USM, UAB, ECU, Marshall, UCF

WAC: UTEP, NMSU, Utah St, Boise, Idaho, Nevada, SJSU, Fresno St, Hawaii

SBC: Ark St, LA Tech, ULM, ULL, Troy, MTSU, FAU, FIU non-fb: WKU, USA, UALR, UNO, Denver (ULM had to be admitted as a full member to meet the requirement that the conference have 8 full members who sponsor fb)

I think the only difference is the eastward sprawl would have been minimized. I doubt a Texas based conference would have looked to add Marshall for instance.

So, the original SWC rebuild would be something like---

Houston
Rice
SMU
TCU
Louisville
Cinci
Tulane
S Miss

They might have been imaginative enough to add a couple of non-football schools to super-charge basketball.

When Cinci and Louisville get nabbed by the Big East---Im guessing Tulsa and LaTech probably come aboard. ArkSt would be an option (rebuilds the old SWC footprint). UAB had some basketball credentials back then---they might have been in the mix as well. In the end---its not an earthshattering difference one way or another. The only way a Southwest Conference rebuild creates a really different long term path is if the SWC leftovers are able to convince BYU and some WAC front range schools to shift east and rebuild the SWC. That might be a conference that had some heft.

Houston
Rice
SMU
TCU
Tulane
Tulsa

BYU
New Mexico
Wyoming
Colorado St
Air Force
Utah
Tulane
Tulsa

That might could have gained some real traction long term.

(01-02-2021 05:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-02-2021 11:25 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Truthfully, I don’t think UNT would have changed the SWC calculus much. Houston wanted separation from the private SWC schools and C-USA offered them out. I think the only difference would have been that UNT would have gone to the WAC-16 in place of Tulsa.

Tulsa’s fate from 1996-2004 would be hard to pinpoint in this scenario.

Maybe they get hooked up with C-USA as a football affiliate.

There’s also a possibility that Tulsa comes to the WAC in 2000 or 2001 to help fill in the gaps left by the MWC spin-off (at the expense of LA Tech).

Where I ultimately see this heading is that in 2005, C-USA is:

West: Tulsa, UNT, SMU, Rice, Houston, Tulane
East: Memphis, USM, UAB, ECU, Marshall, UCF

WAC: UTEP, NMSU, Utah St, Boise, Idaho, Nevada, SJSU, Fresno St, Hawaii

SBC: Ark St, LA Tech, ULM, ULL, Troy, MTSU, FAU, FIU non-fb: WKU, USA, UALR, UNO, Denver (ULM had to be admitted as a full member to meet the requirement that the conference have 8 full members who sponsor fb)

I think the only difference is the eastward sprawl would have been minimized. I doubt a Texas based conference would have looked to add Marshall for instance.

So, the original SWC rebuild would be something like---

Houston
Rice
SMU
TCU
Louisville
Cinci
Tulane
S Miss

They might have been imaginative enough to add a couple of non-football schools to super-charge basketball.

When Cinci and Louisville get nabbed by the Big East---Im guessing Tulsa and LaTech probably come aboard. ArkSt would be an option (rebuilds the old SWC footprint). UAB had some basketball credentials back then---they might have been in the mix as well. In the end---its not an earthshattering difference one way or another. The only way a Southwest Conference rebuild creates a really different long term path is if the SWC leftovers are able to convince BYU and some WAC front range schools to shift east and rebuild the SWC. That might be a conference that had some heft.

Houston
Rice
SMU
TCU
Tulane
Tulsa

BYU
New Mexico
Wyoming
Colorado St
Air Force
Utah
Tulane
Tulsa

That might could have gained some real traction long term.

This isn't what happened.

I mean that would have been interesting but when Arkansas left for the SEC Tulsa started to consider a conference and by 1994 we were pretty active. Tulsa had its choice of CUSA and the WAC. As I pointed out earlier the Tulsa administration at that time wanted to be with the Texas private schools so unless they split up (they were acting cohesively at the time) we were going where ever they were. The WAC 16 with the core of the original WAC conference and then adding three of the SWC schools and a dedicated tag along seemed more stable than CUSA which was just starting, which is is why the privates went west in my opinion.

(01-02-2021 06:12 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(01-02-2021 05:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-02-2021 11:25 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Truthfully, I don’t think UNT would have changed the SWC calculus much. Houston wanted separation from the private SWC schools and C-USA offered them out. I think the only difference would have been that UNT would have gone to the WAC-16 in place of Tulsa.

Tulsa’s fate from 1996-2004 would be hard to pinpoint in this scenario.

Maybe they get hooked up with C-USA as a football affiliate.

There’s also a possibility that Tulsa comes to the WAC in 2000 or 2001 to help fill in the gaps left by the MWC spin-off (at the expense of LA Tech).

Where I ultimately see this heading is that in 2005, C-USA is:

West: Tulsa, UNT, SMU, Rice, Houston, Tulane
East: Memphis, USM, UAB, ECU, Marshall, UCF

WAC: UTEP, NMSU, Utah St, Boise, Idaho, Nevada, SJSU, Fresno St, Hawaii

SBC: Ark St, LA Tech, ULM, ULL, Troy, MTSU, FAU, FIU non-fb: WKU, USA, UALR, UNO, Denver (ULM had to be admitted as a full member to meet the requirement that the conference have 8 full members who sponsor fb)

I think the only difference is the eastward sprawl would have been minimized. I doubt a Texas based conference would have looked to add Marshall for instance.

So, the original SWC rebuild would be something like---

Houston
Rice
SMU
TCU
Louisville
Cinci
Tulane
S Miss

They might have been imaginative enough to add a couple of non-football schools to super-charge basketball.

When Cinci and Louisville get nabbed by the Big East---Im guessing Tulsa and LaTech probably come aboard. ArkSt would be an option (rebuilds the old SWC footprint). UAB had some basketball credentials back then---they might have been in the mix as well. In the end---its not an earthshattering difference one way or another. The only way a Southwest Conference rebuild creates a really different long term path is if the SWC leftovers are able to convince BYU and some WAC front range schools to shift east and rebuild the SWC. That might be a conference that had some heft.

Houston
Rice
SMU
TCU
Tulane
Tulsa

BYU
New Mexico
Wyoming
Colorado St
Air Force
Utah
Tulane
Tulsa

That might could have gained some real traction long term.

This isn't what happened.

I mean that would have been interesting but when Arkansas left for the SEC Tulsa started to consider a conference and by 1994 we were pretty active. Tulsa had its choice of CUSA and the WAC. As I pointed out earlier the Tulsa administration at that time wanted to be with the Texas private schools so unless they split up (they were acting cohesively at the time) we were going where ever they were. The WAC 16 with the core of the original WAC conference and then adding three of the SWC schools and a dedicated tag along seemed more stable than CUSA which was just starting, which is is why the privates went west in my opinion.

Well--of course that isnt what happened. That said, all 4 SWC leftovers were invited to the WAC. Three accepted. UH opted throw in with the Great Midwest/Metro mash-up that was hoping to be a big market Big East/basketball first type conference. To be fair, if Tulsa had a choice between the WAC and CUSA, its because Houston turned down the WAC invite.

FWIW---I absolutely hated that decision by the UH administration. My first preference was to rebuild the SWC around the remaining core with some WAC schools. My second preference was to go to the WAC with the other SWC schools in order to preserve some of the our familiar SWC opponents--plus the WAC seemed like a fun solid football league with BYU--and schools like Fresno making some noise. As a football first guy---I absolutely hated the idea of going to a basketball first conference that had a football league tacked on just for convenience.

(01-02-2021 06:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-02-2021 06:12 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(01-02-2021 05:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-02-2021 11:25 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Truthfully, I don’t think UNT would have changed the SWC calculus much. Houston wanted separation from the private SWC schools and C-USA offered them out. I think the only difference would have been that UNT would have gone to the WAC-16 in place of Tulsa.

Tulsa’s fate from 1996-2004 would be hard to pinpoint in this scenario.

Maybe they get hooked up with C-USA as a football affiliate.

There’s also a possibility that Tulsa comes to the WAC in 2000 or 2001 to help fill in the gaps left by the MWC spin-off (at the expense of LA Tech).

Where I ultimately see this heading is that in 2005, C-USA is:

West: Tulsa, UNT, SMU, Rice, Houston, Tulane
East: Memphis, USM, UAB, ECU, Marshall, UCF

WAC: UTEP, NMSU, Utah St, Boise, Idaho, Nevada, SJSU, Fresno St, Hawaii

SBC: Ark St, LA Tech, ULM, ULL, Troy, MTSU, FAU, FIU non-fb: WKU, USA, UALR, UNO, Denver (ULM had to be admitted as a full member to meet the requirement that the conference have 8 full members who sponsor fb)

I think the only difference is the eastward sprawl would have been minimized. I doubt a Texas based conference would have looked to add Marshall for instance.

So, the original SWC rebuild would be something like---

Houston
Rice
SMU
TCU
Louisville
Cinci
Tulane
S Miss

They might have been imaginative enough to add a couple of non-football schools to super-charge basketball.

When Cinci and Louisville get nabbed by the Big East---Im guessing Tulsa and LaTech probably come aboard. ArkSt would be an option (rebuilds the old SWC footprint). UAB had some basketball credentials back then---they might have been in the mix as well. In the end---its not an earthshattering difference one way or another. The only way a Southwest Conference rebuild creates a really different long term path is if the SWC leftovers are able to convince BYU and some WAC front range schools to shift east and rebuild the SWC. That might be a conference that had some heft.

Houston
Rice
SMU
TCU
Tulane
Tulsa

BYU
New Mexico
Wyoming
Colorado St
Air Force
Utah
Tulane
Tulsa

That might could have gained some real traction long term.

This isn't what happened.

I mean that would have been interesting but when Arkansas left for the SEC Tulsa started to consider a conference and by 1994 we were pretty active. Tulsa had its choice of CUSA and the WAC. As I pointed out earlier the Tulsa administration at that time wanted to be with the Texas private schools so unless they split up (they were acting cohesively at the time) we were going where ever they were. The WAC 16 with the core of the original WAC conference and then adding three of the SWC schools and a dedicated tag along seemed more stable than CUSA which was just starting, which is is why the privates went west in my opinion.

Well--of course that isnt what happened. That said, all 4 SWC leftovers were invited to the WAC. Three accepted. UH opted throw in with the Great Midwest/Metro mash-up that was hoping to be a big market Big East/basketball first type conference. To be fair, if Tulsa had a choice between the WAC and CUSA, its because Houston turned down the WAC invite.

FWIW---I absolutely hated that decision by the UH administration. My first preference was to rebuild the SWC around the remaining core with some WAC schools. My second preference was to go to the WAC with the other SWC schools in order to preserve some of the our familiar SWC opponents--plus the WAC seemed like a fun solid football league with BYU--and schools like Fresno making some noise. As a football first guy---I absolutely hated the idea of going to a basketball first conference that had a football league tacked on just for convenience.

Ummmm, what? I don't believe you were given a choice. You had little in common with the private schools that were left, and despite Houston's desire, you were reluctantly added to the SWC.to start with. You hadn't been good in basketball in a decade and your football had just been caught cheating twice, was in the middle of like a four or five year run of terrible that stretched until the early 2000s.

But good job trying to rewrite that history, I'll take any source for you turning down the WAC.

I’m pretty sure Houston had zero interest in the WAC and had already made up their minds that they were going to C-USA.