The 80's happened. That's what. Between the steroids, rampant cheating, money laundering ect....The SWC took major PR hit after PR hit. It was much easier to shed some weight and merge with the Big8 to form a mega conference at that time.

smartest thing TCU did was to brand themselves as different from the other similar texas schools. They made a very smart move going to the MWC and standing alone in Texas.

NMSU trying to package would insure that UTEP never gets in the MWC

(03-18-2015 02:20 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  SWC failed because of the 80's. Not because of regional rivals. Arkansas leaving hurt the SWC terribly but it was the first true wave of conference expansion that caused its demise. Also we are talking about a much smaller scale of athletics as opposed to the SWC. You need regional rivals with a decent proximity for both recruiting and attendance. Take it from the Tech folks who played in the WAC for a dozen years.

When the SWC broke up...
ESPN2 was less than a year old and wouldn't reach 70 million homes for another six years.
CBS Sports Net was 8 years away.
The broadcast Fox network was barely a decade old and had just spent everything they could scrape together to get the NFL.
ESPN had signed on MLB four years earlier, the worldwide leader wouldn't reach 90 million homes for another decade. Ten years after the SWC break-up ESPN was able to charge a staggering $2.05 per month per subscriber, ten years later it is $5.50 or more.
Three years after the SWC break-up, Fox Sports reported a loss of $72 million on its regional channels.

1994 was a vastly different economic environment.

ABC bought ESPN two years after the break up was agreed to.

(03-18-2015 03:35 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  The 80's happened. That's what. Between the steroids, rampant cheating, money laundering ect....The SWC took major PR hit after PR hit. It was much easier to shed some weight and merge with the Big8 to form a mega conference at that time.

but the SWC was not alone in any of that

OU was one of the worst programs in history in the 80s with players shooting other players in the chest in the players dorm....charles let me pitch you this 8 ball of coke before I pitch the football thompson, cheating and on and on......yet they were one of the leaders of getting the Big 12 formed

it was not that programs in the SWC had issues it was that those programs and their fans and supporters were too weak and too disinterested to rebuild their programs after those issues unlike the multitude of other programs across the country that had those same issues or more

look at these list

http://athlonsports.com/college-football...l-programs

http://nebraska.247sports.com/Board/142/...t-10728382

that is a list of who is who in college sports not a list of teams that were left behind by the SWC....sure SMU is at the top and UH is on part of one of them, but their life long incidents pale on comparison to programs that are still highly desired for conference membership or that have moved recently like A&M or CU or programs that moved in the past like Miami in the middle of when they were doing all of that

The SWC took the brunt of it and were the poster children of that era. I simply disagree with you on the demise of the SWC. It did not simply dissolve due to it being a regional conference. UTEP recruits right out of the heart of Texas. Same as LA Tech. We benefit from playing a game in Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas by putting our face in those markets. UTEP does the exact same thing. TCU is in a large market close to other large markets which game them autonomy to stretch out.

(03-18-2015 03:10 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  if you have Tulane, ULM, Louisiana, and LaTech all in the same conference then the same thing happens....fans openly cheer for their conference mates to totally suck because that is the only way they feel they can offer something to recruits....and often the result is that all those programs suck and recruits go elsewhere....like to programs outside the conference and then the conference sucks

there has never been any evidence to support otherwise period and there never will be period

I like this nugget because there is some truth there.

Unless a conference is in panic mode adding teams, whether intentional or not, the preference is going to be:
1. Someone close (ie. AD's and coaches want to be able to bus reasonably as much as possible, they want some recognizable geography for fans).
2. Someone not too close. Priority one, you don't want to compete with a new conference-mate for stories on the local news, you don't want to compete for newspaper space, and you don't want to compete for talk time on local sports radio. Of some but lesser importance you don't want someone who makes their living fishing the same recruiting pool, especially if you currently hold an advantage. If you are SMU you don't mind Tulsa fishing in Dallas for recruits because SMU has a distance advantage. If you are TCU you don't want SMU in your conference because you don't have a proximity advantage and you lose the advantage of being in a better league.

Tulane and USM co-existed well because Tulane was telling south Louisiana kids you can be close to home and play in the Superdome and in many cases, remind them they would drive past the Superdome on their way to USM. Tulane would have much of that eroded if UL Lafayette were in the AAC thus, they would not support the Cajuns for AAC.

It's like the moon and earth. If the moon were closer, much of the areas near the oceans wouldn't be habitable by large numbers of people because of flood and salt water would go further up streams near the ocean. If it were further away the earth wouldn't have the tilt in its orbit and poles would be much colder and the equator much hotter reducing the band of land mass that can support the production of food.

If your choice is between adding a school that is too close and one that it too far, most will opt for the more distant school because the travel costs are considered a bargain over harming your home market.

(03-18-2015 04:03 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  The SWC took the brunt of it and were the poster children of that era. I simply disagree with you on the demise of the SWC. It did not simply dissolve due to it being a regional conference. UTEP recruits right out of the heart of Texas. Same as LA Tech. We benefit from playing a game in Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas by putting our face in those markets. UTEP does the exact same thing. TCU is in a large market close to other large markets which game them autonomy to stretch out.

As the sports editor of the Arkansas Gazette once said, "The biggest cheating problem in the SWC was that the schools were so close together everyone knew when cheating happened and either joined them in it or reported them."

I don't think it is coincidence that during that era every SWC program went on probation except Rice and Arkansas and then Arkansas got busted in track and football after joining the SEC. They were just far enough away from the rest of the SWC to not draw anyone's ire or not get noticed.

If the SWC had signed a 20 year grant of rights and massive exit penalty in the wake of the Arkansas departure and leaving not been economically practical, the whole thing might have looked vastly different in 2011 because the TV model changed so dramatically in how networks made their money and how content was distributed, but in 1993-94 the whole ball of wax was getting a contract with ABC, CBS, or NBC as the CFA TV deal fell apart. During the CFA period, CBS had the CFA, ABC had Big 10 and Pac-10, and NBC had Notre Dame. When the CFA broke up SEC and Big East went to CBS. ABC picked up the WAC. According to one report the Big 8 and SWC discovered CBS wasn't prepared to offer much and NBC wasn't bidding at all. They went to ABC and got an offer. The two leagues talked and came back offering a joint package that would include each league member playing one game against the other league. ABC offered the same jointly as what each could make on their own. Afterward the Big 8 asked what the number would be if they added four SWC (including UT and TAMU) and the number was the same, then asked what if its just UT and TAMU and the number was still the same. That got the ball rolling.

But that was a different world without carriage fees.

(03-18-2015 01:54 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  UTEP and UTSA to the MWC

Rice and Texas State to the AAC

the idea of building a program for success because you play a bunch of close regional rivals is a failed one and that is for P5 and G5 conferences alike and through history it has failed every time it has been tried and still fails today period the end

the SWC failed completely because of this

name a time in history when all 4 or even 3 of the 4 California schools in the PAC 12 were all good in any sport at the same time....NEVER at best you will have two that are really good and or one that is great and one that is really good and two that are horrible

name a time when any of the 4 Texas teams in the Big 12 have all been good at the same time or even all 4 decent or even 3 of them decent at the same time....NEVER......again at best you have one or two that are really good or one that is great and one really good and the other two are horrible

name a time when 4 Texas teams in CUSA (when it was Rice, UH, SMU and UTEP or now with Rice, UTSA, UTEP and north Texas state)......NEVER.....in the G5 conferences usually you have ONE of the four that are really good or even near great and the others are bad to horrible

name a time when the Ohio schools in the MAC have all been good or even decent at the same time....NEVER.....again at best you usually have one that is good or really good and the rest are really bad to horrible

name a time when the 4 NC schools in the ACC have ever been good at the same time in anything.....NEVER.....again at best one is good to really good and one is decent and the other two are horrible

now reverse that....UTEP had their best years when they were outside of a conference with many Texas teams

TCU made their name by specifically moving AWAY from conferences that had all Texas teams.....and yes TCU is doing well in the Big 12, but Texas is also not very good at all, Texas Tech is horrible and only Baylor is also doing well....so again only 2 out of the 4 are good to decent.....and the first two years in the Big 12 for TCU admittedly they had some issued with 205 of the team getting the boot, but Texas still sucked, Texas Tech was only decent and Baylor was the only good team.....so again 2 out of the 4 were bad and one was just OK (Tech) and Baylor was getting traction and becoming good

when you cram yourself in with other similar programs and you offer nothing to differentiate yourself from other programs in your conference then you open up other teams especially outside your conference to offer that differentiation

and then ALL of those close members lose recruits to programs that offer something different....and at best two of the programs gain traction....they get the recruits looking to play for a winner and the other two programs get labeled as a perennial loser and the only thing they offer is the chance to play for a bad team VS a good team in the same conference and it becomes difficult for those programs to climb out of it

when you are bad on your own or with one other partner in your state in the same conference you offer the chance for a recruit to stay in state, but perhaps they have family in the west (or the east) or perhaps they want to see more of the west (or east) and they can choose your program based on your program/conference mates offering that VS your your program offering what three others offer only with losing

also conferences that are too closely aligned with a single area offer nothing to draw a diverse range of viewers.....no one cares if 8 Texas teams beat up on each other because few if any of those games have meaning to the conference and programs in their area

when 2 teams in Texas play each other and 2 teams in Ohio play each other and then all those teams play or play every few years....well what goes on with those teams in Texas matters to fans in Ohio because of conference standing....and those teams matter because if they are good that helps teams in Ohio look better or if your fellow Ohio conference beats one or both of those decent to good Texas teams then when you play your Ohio conference mate you are playing a better team and your won over them has more meaning

when 4 teams in Ohio beat each other up and 4 teams in Texas beat each other up......no one on Texas or Ohio cares about those other 4 teams because it is pretty much meaningless to anything that goes on in that conference as far as divisional standing or bowl game selection

if you go 2 in Texas and 2 in Ohio for each conference then it matters more....and not only that of some of those Ohio teams and some of those Texas teams play each other in the OOC then it still matters from a "how our conference looks against other conferences" stand point and from a "how good will teams we play in conference be when we play them" standpoint

this is the MAIN issue the Big 12 faces with 9 conference games and trying to get into the playoffs (it is NOT THE CCG OR LACK OF)......it is the Big 12 trying to gain "conference strength" through beating up on each other instead of beating up on other conferences.....this damages the Big 12 strength, weakens and lessens the opportunity for the Big 12 to damage other conference members and other conferences strength of schedule and it limits the chance for the Big 12 to play games that draw the viewership from outside the conference

when Clemson and SC play that matters to the SEC and ACC.....when Florida and Miami or Free Seafood play that matters to the SEC and ACC.....when Georgia and Georgia Tech play that matters to the SEC and ACC.....when Texas and OU play that matters to the Big 12 unless both are really good and are competing for a playoff spot

programs have a better chance in the long term to distance from more programs in their area and to expand their range and to offer something besides "we are the good team or we are the bad team in a bunch of similar programs in the same conference"

there is not one single example in the history of conferences when this has not been true at the P5 and G5 level and there are examples of programs that offered something different and that went away from regionalism that have had success and continue to have success

I stop reading when you said Texas State to the AAC

(03-18-2015 04:03 PM)pilot172000 Wrote:  The SWC took the brunt of it and were the poster children of that era. I simply disagree with you on the demise of the SWC. It did not simply dissolve due to it being a regional conference. UTEP recruits right out of the heart of Texas. Same as LA Tech. We benefit from playing a game in Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas by putting our face in those markets. UTEP does the exact same thing. TCU is in a large market close to other large markets which game them autonomy to stretch out.

you can disagree on the demise of the SWC all you wish the reasons for that were many

but again what you cannot do is ever point to a time when the 4 California schools in the PAC 12 have all been good or even decent at the same time.....you cannot point to a time when even 3 of them have been decent to good at the same time

you cannot do that for any of the teams in the SWC over 2 or 3 of them at the same time and that was 8 teams

you cannot point to a time when all 4 Texas teams in the Big 12 were good or even close to good and there is not a time when even 3 of them were good to decent

you cannot point to a time when all 4 NC teams in the ACC were all good to decent or even when 3 of them were good o decent

you cannot point to a time when the 5 teams in the MAC were all good to decent and or a time when even 4 of them were good to decent

but you can point to a conference like the SEC that is easily the top conference over the last decade and a half for football and that actively keeps more than 2 and often more than 1 team from being in the conference from the same state even when there are plenty of choices like Miami, Clemson, FSU, Texas or others that they could try and add or when they could have tried to add 4 Texas team when the SWC broke up instead of mostly talking to A&M and a little to Texas

and you can point to the Big 10 not looking at Cincy even though Cincy is a much better basketball program over the long haul than Rutgers or Maryland and clearly a better football program over the long haul and recently than either of those programs

and the same reason Iowa would really now want to add ISU to the Big 10 unless it was a last chance choice

and it is not because of "markets" Cincy is not a small market and Rutgers in no way shape or form delivers the NY market or even the NJ market and Maryland does not deliver the DC market

there is simply no evidence that grouping a large number of teams in a very small geographic area much less the same state results in a quality conference with potential to have a large number of teams with sustained success and there is absolutely nothing but 100% evidence to show that large numbers of teams in a small area and especially the same state end up diluting each other and the conference and viewership and that teams sift to the top and bottom and it is hard to reverse that sifting of teams and there is ample evidence that conferences that spread their footprint and limit teams in the same area have more success and that teams that seek to differentiate themselves from other similar teams in their state have more success and that includes Latech in the far west

so even if you are remotely correct that the main reason the SWC failed was not because too many teams were going after the same recruits, the same news coverage, the same viewers and the same causal fans there is still ample evidence through all of football history from numerous other P5 and G5 conferences to support the idea that many teams in the same state in the same conference end up feeding on each other and diluting the conference

(03-17-2015 11:50 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  NMSU's AD said he would propose to Stull going as a package deal to the MWC when he meets him soon.

I don't believe for a minute the MWC would want NMSU as a conference member so I understand why the AD would want to tie his wagon to UTEP. Would UTEP be willing to assist NMSU or just simply go it alone?

My personal opinion has always been UTEP should be in the MWC. Add to the fact this isn't the same CUSA UTEP wanted to be a part of, it makes perfect sense for UTEP to go to the MWC.

I would think that the MWC would be more interested in UTSA then NMSU.

(03-18-2015 07:37 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 02:15 AM)SApuro Wrote:  UTSA turned down the MWC once and opted for a Texas friendly conference.

UTEP needs to do the same. Be grateful for having a quality conference to call home.

But, San Antonio is in the heart of Texas. El Paso is barely in Texas. There is a huge difference. It would be a serious blow to CUSA basketball, but if I was involved with UTEP, I'd want to move to the MWC.

We would miss that first round NIT team

(03-18-2015 10:00 AM)WIowl Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 02:15 AM)SApuro Wrote:  UTSA turned down the MWC once and opted for a Texas friendly conference.

UTEP needs to do the same. Be grateful for having a quality conference to call home.

NMSU on the other hand is a year out from being thrown out by SBC so of course they are going to push new membership....anywhere.

Sorry, if UTEP moves, Rice needs to try and tag along. I still belive the Rice admin would rather return with our traditional rivals (SMU and Houston, and a fellow AAU school in Tulane), but if the AAC door is closed, we need to move to the MWC. CUSA is untentable for Rice in the long term (rivals, academics).

"Well, bye"

UNCC has no place to tell Rice what to do

(03-18-2015 04:36 PM)Rabonchild Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 07:37 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 02:15 AM)SApuro Wrote:  UTSA turned down the MWC once and opted for a Texas friendly conference.

UTEP needs to do the same. Be grateful for having a quality conference to call home.

But, San Antonio is in the heart of Texas. El Paso is barely in Texas. There is a huge difference. It would be a serious blow to CUSA basketball, but if I was involved with UTEP, I'd want to move to the MWC.

We would miss that first round NIT team

Oh hey, when did you join CUSA? Nice to meet you.

Neither UTEP or Rice are going anywhere.

(03-18-2015 09:03 AM)Herd_fever Wrote:  NMSU brings little value in anything.

Correction, it brings NOTHING!

I've grown to love cusa. I love the fact that I have 2 chances of attending a college football then a pro football game in the same weekend. My wife and I did it this year with the Ootsa game. Who knows who we play next year that we can try it again. Not a sure thing though, it's a hassle at the Dallas game. But at least we have a choice.

I've kind of lost any love in playing Mwc schools, it's not that important anymore. But being a UTEP fan first I'll take whatever conference we're in. Cusa basketball will get better and as far as I know this year cusa won the Great Five trophy for bowl wins. It's a growing conference and still has growing pangs.

(03-18-2015 02:08 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 09:08 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 09:04 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 08:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Speaking only for myself, I would rather have UTEP in CUSA than the MWC. I see some kinship for UTEP with the MWC - at least UTEP is in the Mountain time zone. But I think an analysis of travel would show that UTEP is better off in CUSA. Trips to Houston, SA and Denton are better than trips to Boise et al, and the NM rivalries can be continued as OOC. At least the letters behind El Paso are T and X.

It's not the trips to Houston, SA, and Denton that are the issue. It's the trips to Bowling Green, Murfreesboro, Norfolk, Charlotte, Huntington.

Which is why 16 might be good for all of us. Get the divisions as tight as possible. Football travel means little since if 14 member then only 2 out of division games with only 1 on the road. Basketball is set with 2 games per trip. imho the other sports should be restricted to divisional play only until the post season.

I agree.

You can only limit interdivisional play so much before what you've actually created is 2 8-team conferences with a scheduling agreement. Maybe that's the way to go, but there's no point in having 16 schools in the same conference if the motivation behind it is to have people NOT play each other.

(03-18-2015 04:36 PM)Rabonchild Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 07:37 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 02:15 AM)SApuro Wrote:  UTSA turned down the MWC once and opted for a Texas friendly conference.

UTEP needs to do the same. Be grateful for having a quality conference to call home.

But, San Antonio is in the heart of Texas. El Paso is barely in Texas. There is a huge difference. It would be a serious blow to CUSA basketball, but if I was involved with UTEP, I'd want to move to the MWC.

We would miss that first round NIT team

Remind me, how did Charlotte fair this season, and which postseason tournament are they playing?

(03-18-2015 06:54 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 02:08 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 09:08 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 09:04 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 08:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Speaking only for myself, I would rather have UTEP in CUSA than the MWC. I see some kinship for UTEP with the MWC - at least UTEP is in the Mountain time zone. But I think an analysis of travel would show that UTEP is better off in CUSA. Trips to Houston, SA and Denton are better than trips to Boise et al, and the NM rivalries can be continued as OOC. At least the letters behind El Paso are T and X.

It's not the trips to Houston, SA, and Denton that are the issue. It's the trips to Bowling Green, Murfreesboro, Norfolk, Charlotte, Huntington.

Which is why 16 might be good for all of us. Get the divisions as tight as possible. Football travel means little since if 14 member then only 2 out of division games with only 1 on the road. Basketball is set with 2 games per trip. imho the other sports should be restricted to divisional play only until the post season.

I agree.

You can only limit interdivisional play so much before what you've actually created is 2 8-team conferences with a scheduling agreement. Maybe that's the way to go, but there's no point in having a 16 schools in the same conference if the motivation behind it is to have people NOT play each other.

And 1 NCAA bid among the 16 schools. Dumbest thing I've ever heard.