Let’s pretend for a moment that Vanderbilt also decides to follow GT and Tulane and exits the SEC in the early 1960’s for competitive and academic reasons.

I venture to say they soldier on with 9 schools—no immediate expansion.

The 1990 rolls around, Penn St has just joined the Big 10 and somebody in the SEC office found the ncaa rule about CCGs. They are shopping for 3 schools.

Does this change the disposition of the schools the SEC is courting?

On the eastern flank, East target #1 Florida St likely still looks at the situation and decides to go to the ACC, leading East target #2, Clemson, to also stay put.

On the Western side, this is where I think things could have gotten interesting. I don’t know the details of why Texas and A&M didn’t budge in 1990 but perhaps the 14 or 16 member mega conference was a turn off. This move would only mean a conference of 12, with all 3 new adds coming from the west. Texas & A&M could have brought a friend—Arkansas, Tech, or Baylor. Ann Richards isn’t governor yet so Baylor has no sway. Maybe West Texas politicians require Tech to be in the deal, maybe they don’t. But your SEC could have looked like this:

East: Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Auburn
West: Ole Miss, Miss St, LSU, Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M

The impact:

The Big 8 can only add 2nd rate Texas schools and/or BYU/Utah is they try to expand their footprint.

SC and Vanderbilt are both out there wandering for a different home; both are likely trying to get out of the Metro. SC maybe succeeds in returning to the ACC, maybe they don’t.

(08-06-2022 08:05 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s pretend for a moment that Vanderbilt also decides to follow GT and Tulane and exits the SEC in the early 1960’s for competitive and academic reasons.

I venture to say they soldier on with 9 schools—no immediate expansion.

The 1990 rolls around, Penn St has just joined the Big 10 and somebody in the SEC office found the ncaa rule about CCGs. They are shopping for 3 schools.

Does this change the disposition of the schools the SEC is courting?

On the eastern flank, East target #1 Florida St likely still looks at the situation and decides to go to the ACC, leading East target #2, Clemson, to also stay put.

On the Western side, this is where I think things could have gotten interesting. I don’t know the details of why Texas and A&M didn’t budge in 1990 but perhaps the 14 or 16 member mega conference was a turn off. This move would only mean a conference of 12, with all 3 new adds coming from the west. Texas & A&M could have brought a friend—Arkansas, Tech, or Baylor. Ann Richards isn’t governor yet so Baylor has no sway. Maybe West Texas politicians require Tech to be in the deal, maybe they don’t. But your SEC could have looked like this:

East: Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Auburn
West: Ole Miss, Miss St, LSU, Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M

The impact:

The Big 8 can only add 2nd rate Texas schools and/or BYU/Utah is they try to expand their footprint.

SC and Vanderbilt are both out there wandering for a different home; both are likely trying to get out of the Metro. SC maybe succeeds in returning to the ACC, maybe they don’t.

This scenario is pretty correct. Vanderbilt would end up where Tulane is now: floating from conference to conference, but on the outside looking in at what might have been with the growth of the SEC.

I think you're right regarding FSU and Clemson: FSU goes to the ACC as they did in real life, and Clemson stays there.

UT, A&M, and Arkansas go to the SEC to form a 12 team conference. South Carolina finds a way back to the ACC.

The Big 8 goes west to grab BYU for sure, and probably Utah. BYU's stock was high in 1990. Ty Detmer won a Heisman Trophy at BYU that year. They were six years removed from a national championship, and had a bigger national brand relative to today. Athletically, Utah was not what they are today, but had a traditionally strong basketball program, and is a state flagship.

How the Big 8 gets into Texas is a headscratcher. Houston was having a great run in the SWC (Run-and-shoot, Andre Ware Heisman Trophy in 1989) that ended in scandal. SMU was in the death penalty. TCU was rebuilding from a back-breaking probation. That leaves two schools with bigger fan bases, but not located in metro areas: Texas Tech and Baylor. Those are the two schools that made it into the Big 12, and they make it into the Big 8 in this scenario. They would be definite second bananas to UT/A&M and the SEC, but they would be in the Big 8 and the Big 8 would be in Texas.

This Big 8 would not be sustainable. Nebraska, Colorado, and Oklahoma would have found ways out.

I could see the Big 8 feeling pressured to grow—depending on when that pressure comes they could be looking at BYU, Utah, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, and Houston as their candidate pool. The question is would that pressure be immediate or would they wait until 1994–it makes a big impact on whether the SWC makes a rebuild effort. The 1990s tv contracts were definitely market based so I can definitely see a desire to get into Texas, even if it meant the 3rd and 4th best programs. I definitely see a Big 12 occurring by 2005.

We might have seen a scrappy Metro football league in the 90s for a while with SC and Vandy helping to bolster it—and maybe no Metro split and then re-merger as C-USA.

SC probably gets BC’s slot in the ACC at some point.

The 2010 reassignment I think still hits the Big 8/12 hard. Colorado and Utah still end up in the PAC 12. Nebraska ends up in the Big 10. Oklahoma and probably Missouri go to the SEC unless the Big 10 sees value in grabbing them first.

We probably see Big 8/12 remnants and the Big East football programs merge.

By 2014, your line ups probably look eerily similar to where they really ended up with the exceptions of:

SEC: Texas & Oklahoma instead of Vanderbilt and SC
PAC 12: same
Big 10: same
ACC: SC instead of Louisville (Pitt & Syracuse still get added, BC replaces Maryland)

Big 12 East: UConn, USF, WVU, Cincinnati, Louisville, Iowa St, K St
Big 12 West: BYU, Houston, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, Kansas

Miami and FSU preferred joining the Big East and ACC over joining the SEC. If Miami or FSU had wanted to join the SEC in 1990, they would definitely been invited rather than South Carolina. College football tv money in general was much smaller in 1990 than it is now, so the TV discrepancy between the SEC and conferences like the ACC and Big East was much less big.


If the SEC had been at 9 teams in 1990, they probably would have just expanded to 10 teams with Arkansas and that would have been it. The expansion candidates other than South Carolina would have been terrible, and even South Carolina wouldn’t be a team to expand to 11 with. When the Big 8 expanded to 12 teams four years later, that would have been the first conference championship game.

Texas and Texas A&M didn’t move to the SEC in 1990 because of politics. Richards and Bullock weren’t in office yet, but Texas Tech and Baylor still had a lot of state legislators at that time. Plus the schools that would ultimately become the SWC “Forgotten Four” actually had more political power in 1990 than they had in 1994. The governor in 1990 was an SMU grad (who had basically run SMU’s slush fund), the Speaker of the State House in 1990 was a TCU grad and the president of the State Senate in 1990 was a University of Houston grad. By 1994, the TCU grad who was Speaker of the House and the Houston grad who was president of the Senate had both retired, while the SMU grad who was governor wasn’t governor anymore because of his role in the football scandal.


I don’t really see any reason why Texas and Texas A&M would have joined an SEC that didn’t include Vanderbilt, even though they didn’t join an SEC that did include Vanderbilt.


You seem to think that the SEC actually preferred South Carolina as the 12th SEC member to schools like Texas, aTm, Miami and FSU. You don’t seem to realize that the SEC only added South Carolina because they couldn’t get those other targets.

(08-06-2022 02:53 PM)Poster Wrote:  Texas and Texas A&M didn’t move to the SEC in 1990 because of politics. Richards and Bullock weren’t in office yet, but Texas Tech and Baylor still had a lot of state legislators at that time. Plus the schools that would ultimately become the SWC “Forgotten Four” actually had more political power in 1990 than they had in 1994. The governor in 1990 was an SMU grad (who had basically run SMU’s slush fund), the Speaker of the State House in 1990 was a TCU grad and the president of the State Senate in 1990 was a University of Houston grad. By 1994, the TCU grad who was Speaker of the House and the Houston grad who was president of the Senate had both retired, while the SMU grad who was governor wasn’t governor anymore because of his role in the football scandal.


I don’t really see any reason why Texas and Texas A&M would have joined an SEC that didn’t include Vanderbilt, even though they didn’t join an SEC that did include Vanderbilt.


You seem to think that the SEC actually preferred South Carolina as the 12th SEC member to schools like Texas, aTm, Miami and FSU. You don’t seem to realize that the SEC only added South Carolina because they couldn’t get those other targets.

Good points. The SEC of 1990 was different from the one of today. They had 10 teams, but were basically equal to the Big 8 and the ACC. The choice of the SEC was not as cut and dry then as it is today. It was not a no-brainer. The superiority of the SEC that exists today did not exist then.

(08-06-2022 03:01 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 02:53 PM)Poster Wrote:  Texas and Texas A&M didn’t move to the SEC in 1990 because of politics. Richards and Bullock weren’t in office yet, but Texas Tech and Baylor still had a lot of state legislators at that time. Plus the schools that would ultimately become the SWC “Forgotten Four” actually had more political power in 1990 than they had in 1994. The governor in 1990 was an SMU grad (who had basically run SMU’s slush fund), the Speaker of the State House in 1990 was a TCU grad and the president of the State Senate in 1990 was a University of Houston grad. By 1994, the TCU grad who was Speaker of the House and the Houston grad who was president of the Senate had both retired, while the SMU grad who was governor wasn’t governor anymore because of his role in the football scandal.


I don’t really see any reason why Texas and Texas A&M would have joined an SEC that didn’t include Vanderbilt, even though they didn’t join an SEC that did include Vanderbilt.


You seem to think that the SEC actually preferred South Carolina as the 12th SEC member to schools like Texas, aTm, Miami and FSU. You don’t seem to realize that the SEC only added South Carolina because they couldn’t get those other targets.

Good points. The SEC of 1990 was different from the one of today. They had 10 teams, but were basically equal to the Big 8 and the ACC. The choice of the SEC was not as cut and dry then as it is today. It was not a no-brainer. The superiority of the SEC that exists today did not exist then.

The SEC was definitely considered superior to the ACC in football in 1990. In fact, the main reason why Bobby Bowden wanted to join the ACC was because it wasn’t as good as the SEC.

What I’m saying is that TV money in general was a lot smaller in 1990. Adjusted for inflation, college football TV contracts were probably something like 20% as big in 1990 as they are in 2022. With these much smaller tv contracts, the difference between the ACC and SEC tv contracts would be much less big.

(08-06-2022 02:53 PM)Poster Wrote:  Texas and Texas A&M didn’t move to the SEC in 1990 because of politics. Richards and Bullock weren’t in office yet, but Texas Tech and Baylor still had a lot of state legislators at that time. Plus the schools that would ultimately become the SWC “Forgotten Four” actually had more political power in 1990 than they had in 1994. The governor in 1990 was an SMU grad (who had basically run SMU’s slush fund), the Speaker of the State House in 1990 was a TCU grad and the president of the State Senate in 1990 was a University of Houston grad. By 1994, the TCU grad who was Speaker of the House and the Houston grad who was president of the Senate had both retired, while the SMU grad who was governor wasn’t governor anymore because of his role in the football scandal.


I don’t really see any reason why Texas and Texas A&M would have joined an SEC that didn’t include Vanderbilt, even though they didn’t join an SEC that did include Vanderbilt.


You seem to think that the SEC actually preferred South Carolina as the 12th SEC member to schools like Texas, aTm, Miami and FSU. You don’t seem to realize that the SEC only added South Carolina because they couldn’t get those other targets.

Interesting stuff about the political situation in Texas at the time.

I’m not saying SC was the favorite at all. They were the fall back plan when Texas, A&M, Florida St, and Clemson weren’t available.

The decision to stay in the SWC in 1990 I think was twofold—partly Texas politics and partly the fact that the the 14 and 16 member options the SEC was mulling were a little too radical (allegedly Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Clemson, and FSU). If the SEC is at 9 and only 3 I get to 12 maybe the move becomes a bit more palatable for the Aggies and Longhorns so long as they can clear the political hurdles and Arkansas’s spot could probably have been parlayed into a little brother invite if need be.

(08-06-2022 03:09 PM)Poster Wrote:  The SEC was definitely considered superior to the ACC in football in 1990. In fact, the main reason why Bobby Bowden wanted to join the ACC was because it wasn’t as good as the SEC.

What I’m saying is that TV money in general was a lot smaller in 1990. Adjusted for inflation, college football TV contracts were probably something like 20% as big in 1990 as they are in 2022. With these much smaller tv contracts, the difference between the ACC and SEC tv contracts would be much less big.

Agreed. I wasn't thinking about on-the-field power (the SEC was definitely better than the ACC), but about off the field income. It wasn't a no-brainer then to go to the SEC like it is today.

I sometimes reflect on the "Vanderbilt-SEC relationship" of the 1970s compared to the "Vanderbilt-SEC relationship" of today. It's a very different dynamic at this point (as would be expected). There was a certain charm to the 1970 VU, when Memorial Magic was a huge deal for our hoops program and our small football stadium didn't seem so underwhelming and outdated (as it is today).

Leaving the SEC in the 1960s (F-Muskie's hypothetical) could have been a possible disaster for Vanderbilt, though I suppose we could have ended up in the ACC at some point.

(08-06-2022 04:01 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I sometimes reflect on the "Vanderbilt-SEC relationship" of the 1970s compared to the "Vanderbilt-SEC relationship" of today. It's a very different dynamic at this point (as would be expected). There was a certain charm to the 1970 VU, when Memorial Magic was a huge deal for our hoops program and our small football stadium didn't seem so underwhelming and outdated (as it is today).

Leaving the SEC in the 1960s (F-Muskie's hypothetical) could have been a possible disaster for Vanderbilt, though I suppose we could have ended up in the ACC at some point.

Vanderbilt independence probably goes about as well as it did for Tulane.

At first, I think they build an Indy schedule with other academic minded indies:

Tulane, GT, Richmond, William & Mary, Villanova, Holy Cross, Army, Navy

Along with some academically focused ACC and SWC schools:

Rice, SMU, Duke, WF, UNC, UVA

And maybe some SEC holdovers:

Ole Miss, Tennessee, Kentucky

Basketball and Olympic sports end up in the Metro. Depending on the timing of Big 8 expansion, Tulane and Vandy either join the SWC in the early 90s or become part of a Metro/C-USA football league.

One thing is for sure—once they leave the SEC, there’s no going back.

I think Vandy would be in the AAC today.

(08-07-2022 07:40 AM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  I think Vandy would be in the AAC today.

I agree. They probably join around the same time as Tulane.

(08-07-2022 06:50 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 04:01 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I sometimes reflect on the "Vanderbilt-SEC relationship" of the 1970s compared to the "Vanderbilt-SEC relationship" of today. It's a very different dynamic at this point (as would be expected). There was a certain charm to the 1970 VU, when Memorial Magic was a huge deal for our hoops program and our small football stadium didn't seem so underwhelming and outdated (as it is today).

Leaving the SEC in the 1960s (F-Muskie's hypothetical) could have been a possible disaster for Vanderbilt, though I suppose we could have ended up in the ACC at some point.

Vanderbilt independence probably goes about as well as it did for Tulane.

At first, I think they build an Indy schedule with other academic minded indies:

Tulane, GT, Richmond, William & Mary, Villanova, Holy Cross, Army, Navy

Along with some academically focused ACC and SWC schools:

Rice, SMU, Duke, WF, UNC, UVA

And maybe some SEC holdovers:

Ole Miss, Tennessee, Kentucky

Basketball and Olympic sports end up in the Metro. Depending on the timing of Big 8 expansion, Tulane and Vandy either join the SWC in the early 90s or become part of a Metro/C-USA football league.

One thing is for sure—once they leave the SEC, there’s no going back.

This all sounds about right. Vanderbilt and Tulane/Rice/SMU have a lot in common. We would actually be well suited for the future AAC.

Texas, Texas A&M, FSU, and Miami would still have been prime targets. Ultimately, for reasons stated above, I don’t think it’s politically feasible to get UT/A&M by themselves in 1990 and FSU/Miami would still make the choices they made to go ACC/Big East. So I think Arkansas and SC still get invited.

As to the #12, I initially thought Virginia Tech, but Beamer had only been in Blacksburg for three years and hadn’t really done anything special yet. West Virginia was a much stronger and established independent under Nehlen, I think they get the spot. From there, I guess the question is who the BE adds as #8 for FB, although 8 may not have been required at that point.

(08-07-2022 10:18 AM)Just Joe Wrote:  Texas, Texas A&M, FSU, and Miami would still have been prime targets. Ultimately, for reasons stated above, I don’t think it’s politically feasible to get UT/A&M by themselves in 1990 and FSU/Miami would still make the choices they made to go ACC/Big East. So I think Arkansas and SC still get invited.

As to the #12, I initially thought Virginia Tech, but Beamer had only been in Blacksburg for three years and hadn’t really done anything special yet. West Virginia was a much stronger and established independent under Nehlen, I think they get the spot. From there, I guess the question is who the BE adds as #8 for FB, although 8 may not have been required at that point.

They just would have taken Arkansas and stopped at 10. All the choices except for South Carolina would have been bad, and even South Carolina wouldn’t have been valuable enough to take as #11 without adding a #12.


Va Tech was a joke in those days. WVU would have been considered a poor geographic fit in those days (they’re almost in Pittsburgh), and they might have preferred the Big East to the SEC anyway. I’m not going to get started on anybody else.


I guess South Carolina would have gone to the Big East in place of Temple. The Big 12 would have been the first conference with a title game in 1996.

(08-07-2022 11:50 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(08-07-2022 10:18 AM)Just Joe Wrote:  Texas, Texas A&M, FSU, and Miami would still have been prime targets. Ultimately, for reasons stated above, I don’t think it’s politically feasible to get UT/A&M by themselves in 1990 and FSU/Miami would still make the choices they made to go ACC/Big East. So I think Arkansas and SC still get invited.

As to the #12, I initially thought Virginia Tech, but Beamer had only been in Blacksburg for three years and hadn’t really done anything special yet. West Virginia was a much stronger and established independent under Nehlen, I think they get the spot. From there, I guess the question is who the BE adds as #8 for FB, although 8 may not have been required at that point.

They just would have taken Arkansas and stopped at 10. All the choices except for South Carolina would have been bad, and even South Carolina wouldn’t have been valuable enough to take as #11 without adding a #12.


Va Tech was a joke in those days. WVU would have been considered a poor geographic fit in those days (they’re almost in Pittsburgh), and they might have preferred the Big East to the SEC anyway. I’m not going to get started on anybody else.


I guess South Carolina would have gone to the Big East in place of Temple. The Big 12 would have been the first conference with a title game in 1996.

The entire point of that expansion was getting to 12 for a title game. A D-1A conference title game was Roy Kramer’s baby, taking advantage of and obscure NCAA rule created for smaller conferences. They were going to 12.

The SWC was on its death bed. What if, instead of 12, the SEC jumped to 14? Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, and Texas A&M. The XII/XIV still happens with a full Big 8 and SWC merger. Maybe BYU and Utah are added as well. Nebraska, unhappy with the new XII and still dominating, applies and joins the B1G and New Mexico lands in the XIV. South Carolina joins the Big East instead of Temple.

Same: ACC (9), PAC (10)

B1G
East: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Purdue
West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC
East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi St, Tennessee
West: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, Texas A&M

XIV
North: BYU, Colorado, Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Missouri, Utah
South: Baylor, Houston, New Mexico, Rice, SMU, TCU, Texas Tech

Big East
Boston College, Miami, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, South Carolina, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

CUSA
Central Florida, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Louisville, Memphis, South Florida, Southern Miss, Temple, Tulane, UAB

Others sort out as well.

EDIT: Vanderbilt ends up in CUSA

(08-07-2022 09:36 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(08-07-2022 06:50 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 04:01 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I sometimes reflect on the "Vanderbilt-SEC relationship" of the 1970s compared to the "Vanderbilt-SEC relationship" of today. It's a very different dynamic at this point (as would be expected). There was a certain charm to the 1970 VU, when Memorial Magic was a huge deal for our hoops program and our small football stadium didn't seem so underwhelming and outdated (as it is today).

Leaving the SEC in the 1960s (F-Muskie's hypothetical) could have been a possible disaster for Vanderbilt, though I suppose we could have ended up in the ACC at some point.

Vanderbilt independence probably goes about as well as it did for Tulane.

At first, I think they build an Indy schedule with other academic minded indies:

Tulane, GT, Richmond, William & Mary, Villanova, Holy Cross, Army, Navy

Along with some academically focused ACC and SWC schools:

Rice, SMU, Duke, WF, UNC, UVA

And maybe some SEC holdovers:

Ole Miss, Tennessee, Kentucky

Basketball and Olympic sports end up in the Metro. Depending on the timing of Big 8 expansion, Tulane and Vandy either join the SWC in the early 90s or become part of a Metro/C-USA football league.

One thing is for sure—once they leave the SEC, there’s no going back.

This all sounds about right. Vanderbilt and Tulane/Rice/SMU have a lot in common. We would actually be well suited for the future AAC.

I suppose, after being raided by the SEC, the 6 SWC teams would have an expansion pool of:

Tulane, Vanderbilt, Tulsa
USM, Memphis, Louisville, Cincinnati

Now, there’s a good chance that at least the first two private schools would get added.
However, if Tech and Houston were to get picked up by the Big 8 right away, they could go full Magnolia:

SMU
TCU
Baylor
Rice
Tulsa
Tulane
Vanderbilt
Air Force
Navy*
Army*

That would have been been kind of fun.

(08-07-2022 04:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-07-2022 09:36 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(08-07-2022 06:50 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 04:01 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I sometimes reflect on the "Vanderbilt-SEC relationship" of the 1970s compared to the "Vanderbilt-SEC relationship" of today. It's a very different dynamic at this point (as would be expected). There was a certain charm to the 1970 VU, when Memorial Magic was a huge deal for our hoops program and our small football stadium didn't seem so underwhelming and outdated (as it is today).

Leaving the SEC in the 1960s (F-Muskie's hypothetical) could have been a possible disaster for Vanderbilt, though I suppose we could have ended up in the ACC at some point.

Vanderbilt independence probably goes about as well as it did for Tulane.

At first, I think they build an Indy schedule with other academic minded indies:

Tulane, GT, Richmond, William & Mary, Villanova, Holy Cross, Army, Navy

Along with some academically focused ACC and SWC schools:

Rice, SMU, Duke, WF, UNC, UVA

And maybe some SEC holdovers:

Ole Miss, Tennessee, Kentucky

Basketball and Olympic sports end up in the Metro. Depending on the timing of Big 8 expansion, Tulane and Vandy either join the SWC in the early 90s or become part of a Metro/C-USA football league.

One thing is for sure—once they leave the SEC, there’s no going back.

This all sounds about right. Vanderbilt and Tulane/Rice/SMU have a lot in common. We would actually be well suited for the future AAC.

I suppose, after being raided by the SEC, the 6 SWC teams would have an expansion pool of:

Tulane, Vanderbilt, Tulsa
USM, Memphis, Louisville, Cincinnati

Now, there’s a good chance that at least the first two private schools would get added.
However, if Tech and Houston were to get picked up by the Big 8 right away, they could go full Magnolia:

SMU
TCU
Baylor
Rice
Tulsa
Tulane
Vanderbilt
Air Force
Navy*
Army*

That would have been been kind of fun.

And that's a hypothetical league in which Vanderbilt could compete in football.