(05-11-2017 03:43 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 02:46 PM)Mav Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 08:56 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 10:02 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 06:49 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I'm trying to find something else to add to this:It's a quote from former Houston AD and then New Mexico AD, Rudy Davolos. He was one of the WAC AD's who pushed for Rice, TCU and SMU to go to the WAC. Sometime in 94 or 95 during the rumors of BYU and UNM to the Big 14, Davolos made statements about New Mexico staying in the WAC and not being interested in leaving. I also want to know if there was a vote by the Big 8/12 to add BYU/UNM or if the two backed out. If they did, they made the greatest mistake in conference realignment history IMHO.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/33840...EXICO.html

Rudy Davalos, New Mexico athletic director, reaffirmed the school's commitment to the WAC and questioned why Big Eight officials would consider expansion when they have a five-year, $60 million offer from ABC (with $30 million more from ESPN) for a 12-team league.

"That doesn't make any sense. Why would they need to expand? They've got their TV deal," Davalos said.

------------

Nowhere does it say that UNM actually had an invite from the Big 8/Big XII. But their AD basically saying "why the hell do you want us anyway, we don't add anything!" is truly bizarre in retrospect.

This post makes me think of other realignment mistakes as well:

• Rutgers not joining the Big East on inception in 1978. Would have permanently altered the football-basketball balance. If Rutgers joins, Seton Hall doesn't.
• The Big East not inviting Penn State. Again maybe this vote goes differently if Rutgers is in, though I believe Seton Hall voted for PSU. Not positive.
• Metro 16 football conference getting beaten to the punch by ACC and Big East expansions in 1990/1991. Another potentially huge impact, would have had South Carolina, the Metro football playing schools and Big East football playing schools in teh same conference. Not necessarily a mistake like UNM not going to the Big 12 though.
  

The Big 8 turning down Arkansas was a huge one.

http://www.thegazette.com/2012/01/09/wha...y-happened

Yep. Arky probably would have been joined by Texas, AtM and another a few years after joking the Big 8. Arkansas fit great with the old big 8...

Something tells me that if Arkansas joined, and then Texas joined, that Arkansas would have ended up in the SEC anyway. They despised Texas and the stranglehold they had on the SWC. Nothing really would have changed apart from Texas Tech or Baylor being left out.

(05-11-2017 05:19 PM)Mav Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 03:43 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 02:46 PM)Mav Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 08:56 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 10:02 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/33840...EXICO.html

Rudy Davalos, New Mexico athletic director, reaffirmed the school's commitment to the WAC and questioned why Big Eight officials would consider expansion when they have a five-year, $60 million offer from ABC (with $30 million more from ESPN) for a 12-team league.

"That doesn't make any sense. Why would they need to expand? They've got their TV deal," Davalos said.

------------

Nowhere does it say that UNM actually had an invite from the Big 8/Big XII. But their AD basically saying "why the hell do you want us anyway, we don't add anything!" is truly bizarre in retrospect.

This post makes me think of other realignment mistakes as well:

• Rutgers not joining the Big East on inception in 1978. Would have permanently altered the football-basketball balance. If Rutgers joins, Seton Hall doesn't.
• The Big East not inviting Penn State. Again maybe this vote goes differently if Rutgers is in, though I believe Seton Hall voted for PSU. Not positive.
• Metro 16 football conference getting beaten to the punch by ACC and Big East expansions in 1990/1991. Another potentially huge impact, would have had South Carolina, the Metro football playing schools and Big East football playing schools in teh same conference. Not necessarily a mistake like UNM not going to the Big 12 though.
  

The Big 8 turning down Arkansas was a huge one.

http://www.thegazette.com/2012/01/09/wha...y-happened

Yep. Arky probably would have been joined by Texas, AtM and another a few years after joking the Big 8. Arkansas fit great with the old big 8...

Something tells me that if Arkansas joined, and then Texas joined, that Arkansas would have ended up in the SEC anyway. They despised Texas and the stranglehold they had on the SWC. Nothing really would have changed apart from Texas Tech or Baylor being left out.

Arkansas was also talking to the SEC at that time. Things worked out quite well from there

(05-11-2017 03:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 02:46 PM)Mav Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 08:56 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 10:02 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 06:49 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I'm trying to find something else to add to this:It's a quote from former Houston AD and then New Mexico AD, Rudy Davolos. He was one of the WAC AD's who pushed for Rice, TCU and SMU to go to the WAC. Sometime in 94 or 95 during the rumors of BYU and UNM to the Big 14, Davolos made statements about New Mexico staying in the WAC and not being interested in leaving. I also want to know if there was a vote by the Big 8/12 to add BYU/UNM or if the two backed out. If they did, they made the greatest mistake in conference realignment history IMHO.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/33840...EXICO.html

Rudy Davalos, New Mexico athletic director, reaffirmed the school's commitment to the WAC and questioned why Big Eight officials would consider expansion when they have a five-year, $60 million offer from ABC (with $30 million more from ESPN) for a 12-team league.

"That doesn't make any sense. Why would they need to expand? They've got their TV deal," Davalos said.

------------

Nowhere does it say that UNM actually had an invite from the Big 8/Big XII. But their AD basically saying "why the hell do you want us anyway, we don't add anything!" is truly bizarre in retrospect.

This post makes me think of other realignment mistakes as well:

• Rutgers not joining the Big East on inception in 1978. Would have permanently altered the football-basketball balance. If Rutgers joins, Seton Hall doesn't.
• The Big East not inviting Penn State. Again maybe this vote goes differently if Rutgers is in, though I believe Seton Hall voted for PSU. Not positive.
• Metro 16 football conference getting beaten to the punch by ACC and Big East expansions in 1990/1991. Another potentially huge impact, would have had South Carolina, the Metro football playing schools and Big East football playing schools in teh same conference. Not necessarily a mistake like UNM not going to the Big 12 though.
  

The Big 8 turning down Arkansas was a huge one.

http://www.thegazette.com/2012/01/09/wha...y-happened

Goes further than that.

A few years after Neinas left the Big 8 and the NCAA lost the TV lawsuit, UA Athletic Director Frank Broyles orchestrated a meeting with Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, LSU, Missouri and Nebraska to try to form a new conference. Broyles argued they would be better off concentrating good TV value in one league and negotiating their own TV deal instead of working through the CFA.

There wasn't much interest but LSU went back to the SEC Commissioner Harvey Schiller and reported on the meeting and the idea of breaking from the CFA.

Wow. I don't think I knew about the proposed new Big 7:
Nebraska
Missouri
Oklahoma
Texas
Texas A&M
Arkansas
LSU
---that's a mighty fine football conference!

(05-11-2017 05:39 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 05:19 PM)Mav Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 03:43 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 02:46 PM)Mav Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 08:56 AM)megadrone Wrote:  This post makes me think of other realignment mistakes as well:

• Rutgers not joining the Big East on inception in 1978. Would have permanently altered the football-basketball balance. If Rutgers joins, Seton Hall doesn't.
• The Big East not inviting Penn State. Again maybe this vote goes differently if Rutgers is in, though I believe Seton Hall voted for PSU. Not positive.
• Metro 16 football conference getting beaten to the punch by ACC and Big East expansions in 1990/1991. Another potentially huge impact, would have had South Carolina, the Metro football playing schools and Big East football playing schools in teh same conference. Not necessarily a mistake like UNM not going to the Big 12 though.
  

The Big 8 turning down Arkansas was a huge one.

http://www.thegazette.com/2012/01/09/wha...y-happened

Yep. Arky probably would have been joined by Texas, AtM and another a few years after joking the Big 8. Arkansas fit great with the old big 8...

Something tells me that if Arkansas joined, and then Texas joined, that Arkansas would have ended up in the SEC anyway. They despised Texas and the stranglehold they had on the SWC. Nothing really would have changed apart from Texas Tech or Baylor being left out.

Arkansas was also talking to the SEC at that time. Things worked out quite well from there

not really Arkansas has fallen off dramatically in basketball in the SEC SEC SEC since the very early years coming off the success in the SWC and in football they are generally a fair to middlin' football program in the SEC SEC SEC

their last 25 years in the SWC from 67 to 91 they were ranked in 14 of those 25 seasons with 7 times in the top 10 in at least 1 poll and 2 times in the top 5

in their 25 seasons in the SEC SEC SEC they have been ranked 5 times with only 1 in the top 10/top 5 @ #5 the other 4 were outside the top 10

they won it all in 1994 and were runners up in 95 in the early years being in the SEC SEC SEC, but since then they were in the Elite 8 in 1996 and they have not been to even a sweet 16 since 1996

they have won the SEC SEC SEC tournament one time in 2000 where as in the last 25 years in the SWC they won it 6 times

they went to the final 4 two times in those last 25 years and have gone only 2 times in the SEC SEC SEC in 25 years again in 1994 and 1995

they went to the Elite 8 four times in the last 25 years of the SWC and only two times in the 25 years in the SEC SEC SEC

six times to the Sweet 16 (25 SWC) Vs four (25 SEC SEC SEC)

13 NCAAs (25 SWC) Vs 14 (25 SEC SEC SEC)

so really only making it to the NCAAs has improved by 1 in the 25 years in the SEC SEC SEC Vs the final 25 in the SWC

and for 19 of those SWC years it was when 53 or fewer teams were invited to the NCAAs

so sure the NC came while in the SEC SEC SEC as did the runner up to that, but that was clearly built from the days in the SWC and that faded fast and has not come close to recovering after Strollin' Nolen was fired

so for Arkansas in terms of actual on the field success in football the final 25 years in the SEC were much better than the first 25 in the SEC SEC SEC and while you can point to the NC in 1994 that was built on the success in the SWC and being in the SEC SEC SEC and the massive improvements in facilities ect since then has not come close to that early success

(05-11-2017 06:13 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 03:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 02:46 PM)Mav Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 08:56 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 10:02 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/33840...EXICO.html

Rudy Davalos, New Mexico athletic director, reaffirmed the school's commitment to the WAC and questioned why Big Eight officials would consider expansion when they have a five-year, $60 million offer from ABC (with $30 million more from ESPN) for a 12-team league.

"That doesn't make any sense. Why would they need to expand? They've got their TV deal," Davalos said.

------------

Nowhere does it say that UNM actually had an invite from the Big 8/Big XII. But their AD basically saying "why the hell do you want us anyway, we don't add anything!" is truly bizarre in retrospect.

This post makes me think of other realignment mistakes as well:

• Rutgers not joining the Big East on inception in 1978. Would have permanently altered the football-basketball balance. If Rutgers joins, Seton Hall doesn't.
• The Big East not inviting Penn State. Again maybe this vote goes differently if Rutgers is in, though I believe Seton Hall voted for PSU. Not positive.
• Metro 16 football conference getting beaten to the punch by ACC and Big East expansions in 1990/1991. Another potentially huge impact, would have had South Carolina, the Metro football playing schools and Big East football playing schools in teh same conference. Not necessarily a mistake like UNM not going to the Big 12 though.
  

The Big 8 turning down Arkansas was a huge one.

http://www.thegazette.com/2012/01/09/wha...y-happened

Goes further than that.

A few years after Neinas left the Big 8 and the NCAA lost the TV lawsuit, UA Athletic Director Frank Broyles orchestrated a meeting with Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, LSU, Missouri and Nebraska to try to form a new conference. Broyles argued they would be better off concentrating good TV value in one league and negotiating their own TV deal instead of working through the CFA.

There wasn't much interest but LSU went back to the SEC Commissioner Harvey Schiller and reported on the meeting and the idea of breaking from the CFA.

Wow. I don't think I knew about the proposed new Big 7:
Nebraska
Missouri
Oklahoma
Texas
Texas A&M
Arkansas
LSU
---that's a mighty fine football conference!

It was actually 8 but I can't remember if OKSt or KU was #8. I really think OKSt was #8 but I'm not in the mood to dig through the garage to find my box of old newspaper articles.

(05-11-2017 03:25 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 02:46 PM)Mav Wrote:  http://www.thegazette.com/2012/01/09/wha...y-happened

Neinas himself probably killed that one, simply by being professional and collegial with his colleagues in the Southwest Conference.

Maybe it was different enough back then. It's not a clear issue, considering the Big Ten was working with Penn State, and that was done completely in secret for nearly a decade before PSU blabbed about the upcoming vote.

With respect to the Big 10 and Penn State, maybe that started when the Big East didn't take Penn State, and then expanded with Pitt. That really killed Paterno's conference, and he wasn't happy with how the Eastern 8 evolved. Again, I go back to Rutgers not going into the Big East on inception -- not to overvalue Rutgers importance to the conference but it would have brought the need for football in the Big East to the foreground a little sooner, and possibly have Penn State in the Big East instead of the Big 10.

The Rutgers AD, meanwhile, felt committed to Paterno's eastern conference, and to the Eastern 8, and didn't accept the Big East invite. He also wanted an all-sports home and thought football would have been taken care of in Paterno's conference. Who knew? We (the Rutgers faithful) blast him for that decision, but maybe he was a little ahead of his time.

(05-12-2017 08:39 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 03:25 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 02:46 PM)Mav Wrote:  http://www.thegazette.com/2012/01/09/wha...y-happened

Neinas himself probably killed that one, simply by being professional and collegial with his colleagues in the Southwest Conference.

Maybe it was different enough back then. It's not a clear issue, considering the Big Ten was working with Penn State, and that was done completely in secret for nearly a decade before PSU blabbed about the upcoming vote.

With respect to the Big 10 and Penn State, maybe that started when the Big East didn't take Penn State, and then expanded with Pitt. That really killed Paterno's conference, and he wasn't happy with how the Eastern 8 evolved. Again, I go back to Rutgers not going into the Big East on inception -- not to overvalue Rutgers importance to the conference but it would have brought the need for football in the Big East to the foreground a little sooner, and possibly have Penn State in the Big East instead of the Big 10.

The Rutgers AD, meanwhile, felt committed to Paterno's eastern conference, and to the Eastern 8, and didn't accept the Big East invite. He also wanted an all-sports home and thought football would have been taken care of in Paterno's conference. Who knew? We (the Rutgers faithful) blast him for that decision, but maybe he was a little ahead of his time.

If Paterno wasn't a greedy untrustworthy individual that conference would have been a great Northeastern conference. Who knows, maybe they could have gotten a nice Miami/FSU duo to join.

(05-12-2017 08:39 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 03:25 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 02:46 PM)Mav Wrote:  http://www.thegazette.com/2012/01/09/wha...y-happened

Neinas himself probably killed that one, simply by being professional and collegial with his colleagues in the Southwest Conference.

Maybe it was different enough back then. It's not a clear issue, considering the Big Ten was working with Penn State, and that was done completely in secret for nearly a decade before PSU blabbed about the upcoming vote.

With respect to the Big 10 and Penn State, maybe that started when the Big East didn't take Penn State, and then expanded with Pitt. That really killed Paterno's conference, and he wasn't happy with how the Eastern 8 evolved. Again, I go back to Rutgers not going into the Big East on inception -- not to overvalue Rutgers importance to the conference but it would have brought the need for football in the Big East to the foreground a little sooner, and possibly have Penn State in the Big East instead of the Big 10.

The Rutgers AD, meanwhile, felt committed to Paterno's eastern conference, and to the Eastern 8, and didn't accept the Big East invite. He also wanted an all-sports home and thought football would have been taken care of in Paterno's conference. Who knew? We (the Rutgers faithful) blast him for that decision, but maybe he was a little ahead of his time.

Everything I've read on Jordan's conversations with Ikenberry and the other Big Ten school leaders were before and concurrent to the Big East stuff. It really comes off like this secret mission Jordan was on, maybe undermining whatever work Paterno was trying to do?

I doubt there would have been a very long/sustained all-sports conference relationship for both Penn State and Pitt even if PSU had the Big East votes. Some think Jordan would have pulled rank and ripped the Lions out of the Big East for the Big Ten anyway, and others think the lines between the Big Ten and Pitt would have resumed.

Big Ten-Penn State is a shocking move, because you had the conference working on Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Pitt for a good number of years...then, you get Penn State out of nowhere, especially when they looked to keep the northeast or mid-Atlantic their base. PSU moves to the midwest, and Pitt commits to the northeast...it was not what folks thought at the time. And still to this day, because you have people at Penn State who never liked the Big Ten and wanted the ACC, even before the ACC took the rest of the Big East's original footprint for its own, making it old-school Penn State turf even more.

(05-11-2017 05:19 PM)Mav Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 03:43 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 02:46 PM)Mav Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 08:56 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(05-09-2017 10:02 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/33840...EXICO.html

Rudy Davalos, New Mexico athletic director, reaffirmed the school's commitment to the WAC and questioned why Big Eight officials would consider expansion when they have a five-year, $60 million offer from ABC (with $30 million more from ESPN) for a 12-team league.

"That doesn't make any sense. Why would they need to expand? They've got their TV deal," Davalos said.

------------

Nowhere does it say that UNM actually had an invite from the Big 8/Big XII. But their AD basically saying "why the hell do you want us anyway, we don't add anything!" is truly bizarre in retrospect.

This post makes me think of other realignment mistakes as well:

• Rutgers not joining the Big East on inception in 1978. Would have permanently altered the football-basketball balance. If Rutgers joins, Seton Hall doesn't.
• The Big East not inviting Penn State. Again maybe this vote goes differently if Rutgers is in, though I believe Seton Hall voted for PSU. Not positive.
• Metro 16 football conference getting beaten to the punch by ACC and Big East expansions in 1990/1991. Another potentially huge impact, would have had South Carolina, the Metro football playing schools and Big East football playing schools in teh same conference. Not necessarily a mistake like UNM not going to the Big 12 though.
  

The Big 8 turning down Arkansas was a huge one.

http://www.thegazette.com/2012/01/09/wha...y-happened

Yep. Arky probably would have been joined by Texas, AtM and another a few years after joking the Big 8. Arkansas fit great with the old big 8...

Something tells me that if Arkansas joined, and then Texas joined, that Arkansas would have ended up in the SEC anyway. They despised Texas and the stranglehold they had on the SWC. Nothing really would have changed apart from Texas Tech or Baylor being left out.

Get that straight from Tom Osborne?

Broyles was practically begging Texas and Texas A&M to come with them to the SEC.

(05-12-2017 09:46 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 08:39 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 03:25 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 02:46 PM)Mav Wrote:  http://www.thegazette.com/2012/01/09/wha...y-happened

Neinas himself probably killed that one, simply by being professional and collegial with his colleagues in the Southwest Conference.

Maybe it was different enough back then. It's not a clear issue, considering the Big Ten was working with Penn State, and that was done completely in secret for nearly a decade before PSU blabbed about the upcoming vote.

With respect to the Big 10 and Penn State, maybe that started when the Big East didn't take Penn State, and then expanded with Pitt. That really killed Paterno's conference, and he wasn't happy with how the Eastern 8 evolved. Again, I go back to Rutgers not going into the Big East on inception -- not to overvalue Rutgers importance to the conference but it would have brought the need for football in the Big East to the foreground a little sooner, and possibly have Penn State in the Big East instead of the Big 10.

The Rutgers AD, meanwhile, felt committed to Paterno's eastern conference, and to the Eastern 8, and didn't accept the Big East invite. He also wanted an all-sports home and thought football would have been taken care of in Paterno's conference. Who knew? We (the Rutgers faithful) blast him for that decision, but maybe he was a little ahead of his time.

Everything I've read on Jordan's conversations with Ikenberry and the other Big Ten school leaders were before and concurrent to the Big East stuff. It really comes off like this secret mission Jordan was on, maybe undermining whatever work Paterno was trying to do?

I doubt there would have been a very long/sustained all-sports conference relationship for both Penn State and Pitt even if PSU had the Big East votes. Some think Jordan would have pulled rank and ripped the Lions out of the Big East for the Big Ten anyway, and others think the lines between the Big Ten and Pitt would have resumed.

Big Ten-Penn State is a shocking move, because you had the conference working on Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Pitt for a good number of years...then, you get Penn State out of nowhere, especially when they looked to keep the northeast or mid-Atlantic their base. PSU moves to the midwest, and Pitt commits to the northeast...it was not what folks thought at the time. And still to this day, because you have people at Penn State who never liked the Big Ten and wanted the ACC, even before the ACC took the rest of the Big East's original footprint for its own, making it old-school Penn State turf even more.

Well I would say the B1G has the most valuable part of that turf. They own 3 of the 4 cities on the I-95 corridor.

(05-12-2017 09:46 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 08:39 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 03:25 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 02:46 PM)Mav Wrote:  http://www.thegazette.com/2012/01/09/wha...y-happened

Neinas himself probably killed that one, simply by being professional and collegial with his colleagues in the Southwest Conference.

Maybe it was different enough back then. It's not a clear issue, considering the Big Ten was working with Penn State, and that was done completely in secret for nearly a decade before PSU blabbed about the upcoming vote.

With respect to the Big 10 and Penn State, maybe that started when the Big East didn't take Penn State, and then expanded with Pitt. That really killed Paterno's conference, and he wasn't happy with how the Eastern 8 evolved. Again, I go back to Rutgers not going into the Big East on inception -- not to overvalue Rutgers importance to the conference but it would have brought the need for football in the Big East to the foreground a little sooner, and possibly have Penn State in the Big East instead of the Big 10.

The Rutgers AD, meanwhile, felt committed to Paterno's eastern conference, and to the Eastern 8, and didn't accept the Big East invite. He also wanted an all-sports home and thought football would have been taken care of in Paterno's conference. Who knew? We (the Rutgers faithful) blast him for that decision, but maybe he was a little ahead of his time.

Everything I've read on Jordan's conversations with Ikenberry and the other Big Ten school leaders were before and concurrent to the Big East stuff. It really comes off like this secret mission Jordan was on, maybe undermining whatever work Paterno was trying to do?

I doubt there would have been a very long/sustained all-sports conference relationship for both Penn State and Pitt even if PSU had the Big East votes. Some think Jordan would have pulled rank and ripped the Lions out of the Big East for the Big Ten anyway, and others think the lines between the Big Ten and Pitt would have resumed.

Big Ten-Penn State is a shocking move, because you had the conference working on Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Pitt for a good number of years...then, you get Penn State out of nowhere, especially when they looked to keep the northeast or mid-Atlantic their base. PSU moves to the midwest, and Pitt commits to the northeast...it was not what folks thought at the time. And still to this day, because you have people at Penn State who never liked the Big Ten and wanted the ACC, even before the ACC took the rest of the Big East's original footprint for its own, making it old-school Penn State turf even more.

It was in Penn State's interest to have all their sports in a conference somewhere. The Eastern 8 didn't fit that bill, and Penn State had already left it once when the Big East vote came along.

If Penn State had a secure home for football, though, who knows what the Big 10 would have done? Would they have expanded and would Penn State have given them serious talks? A Big East football conference formed in 1982 or 83 without Pitt would have given Penn State a lot of what Paterno wanted -- Syracuse, Boston College or Rutgers couldn't have told PSU to pound sand like Pitt could have. If Villanova isn't invited to the Big East and is still in the Eastern 8, Temple could be invited to the Big East along with WVU and there's 6 of the 7 1A football playing schools in the Big East -- probably enough to get the conference off the ground and a pretty good football package from ESPN at the time.

Again, my biggest point in how critical this was or how it hinged on other events was Rutgers position. The Rutgers AD was closely aligned with PSU and Paterno (Temple and WVU were also aligned for Paterno's conference), and that might have been enough to tip the scale for Penn State entry into the Big East, Pitt to the ACC or Big 10 (they got the Big East invite after Penn State was turned down) and things happen differently over the course of the next 20 years.

It's a lot of reflection and alternative history stuff -- great for fan fiction :-) If only, if only, if only...the two major Northeastern basketball conferences (Big East and Eastern 8/Atlantic 10) had built their membership along football lines.

Very interesting stuff about Arkansas. However, it worked out pretty well for them.

Consider the counterfactual: West Virginia. Is there really any difference between Arkansas and West Virginia? Similar market size and quality, similar schools, similar athletics. But Arkansas is in an infinitely better conference situation.

(05-12-2017 11:49 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Consider the counterfactual: West Virginia. Is there really any difference between Arkansas and West Virginia?

Between Arkansas football and West Virginia football? Yes, there's a difference, look at Arkansas' performance prior to joining the SEC.

The three Arkansas head coaches from 1958-89 - Broyles, Holtz, and Hatfield - had a combined record of 259-96-8. That's a winning percentage of better than 72%. That stretch includes a national title, 10 SWC titles, and 19 AP top-20 final rankings including 12 final rankings in the top 10.

In that same time period, West Virginia football had 7 AP top-20 final rankings including only one in the top 10.

(05-12-2017 11:47 AM)megadrone Wrote:  Again, my biggest point in how critical this was or how it hinged on other events was Rutgers position. The Rutgers AD was closely aligned with PSU and Paterno (Temple and WVU were also aligned for Paterno's conference), and that might have been enough to tip the scale for Penn State entry into the Big East, Pitt to the ACC or Big 10 (they got the Big East invite after Penn State was turned down) and things happen differently over the course of the next 20 years.

I think, as some step back from it, it always a doomed venture. At the core was a group that wasn't interested in football, and that always drove a wedge once football sponsorship started. It wasn't just Penn State, it was not getting Army or Navy aboard, and, honestly, doing business with Miami was a mistake. Miami was always for the ACC, and the Big East was a consolation...and the Big East didn't need that kind of sentiment within its borders. Also, doing business with them made all of these other programs bat-**** crazy that they NEEDED to be in Florida, and that simply added to the little-man complex the conference had. That these schools commanded no pull in recruiting their own home territory. They did, but, doing business in Florida was somehow easier. Ok then.

And Rutgers could have the best story of them all. From turning down the Big East to then being voted against by the school who got in because of that rebuff (thanks for everything, Seton Hall...total class all the way, you winners!), and then working it like nobody could to stay in the Big Ten conversation. What could have been if this, if that...unbelievable.

The ripples from these decisions definitely found their way to the Big 8/12, because the thinning of the eastern independents probably forced the Big XII to move a little faster than maybe needed. Arkansas, Texas, Colorado, A&M, and maybe even Nebraska all had backup plans, but you had schools in the mid-south (like Memphis State) who were pushing against SWC to open their doors. With the WAC core still favorites among the northern Big 8 schools. And now today...can the Big XII even approach western expansion when it gobbled up an embittered West Virginia, who can't seem to find their way back to their old mates in the ACC and SEC?

If BYU and New Mexico are not in the WAC, you wonder if the WAC even bothers expanding to 14 schools, as you still have issues with divisions:

Pacific - San Diego State, San Jose State, Fresno State, UNLV, Hawaii, Utah, Wyoming
Mountain - Tulsa, TCU, SMU, Rice, UTEP, Colorado State, Air Force

It would have made more sense to go to 12 - by not adding Tulsa and for example, SMU - and then Wyoming joins the Mountain Division. It's possible the Mountain West may have never formed, especially if SMU and Tulsa got picked up by C-USA in 1996. TCU and Rice probably still exit for C-USA in 2005, but then that opens up spots for Nevada and Boise State. At that point you are very close to today's Mountain West, as Utah State would replace Utah. Replacing Big East/Big 14 bound TCU might be a little trickier given that Idaho and New Mexico State were the only in-footprint I-A options.

It's also possible Big West football keeps on ticking a few more seasons in football as well, unless if everyone still insisted on joining the Sun Belt in 2001.

(05-12-2017 11:47 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 09:46 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 08:39 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 03:25 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-11-2017 02:46 PM)Mav Wrote:  http://www.thegazette.com/2012/01/09/wha...y-happened

Neinas himself probably killed that one, simply by being professional and collegial with his colleagues in the Southwest Conference.

Maybe it was different enough back then. It's not a clear issue, considering the Big Ten was working with Penn State, and that was done completely in secret for nearly a decade before PSU blabbed about the upcoming vote.

With respect to the Big 10 and Penn State, maybe that started when the Big East didn't take Penn State, and then expanded with Pitt. That really killed Paterno's conference, and he wasn't happy with how the Eastern 8 evolved. Again, I go back to Rutgers not going into the Big East on inception -- not to overvalue Rutgers importance to the conference but it would have brought the need for football in the Big East to the foreground a little sooner, and possibly have Penn State in the Big East instead of the Big 10.

The Rutgers AD, meanwhile, felt committed to Paterno's eastern conference, and to the Eastern 8, and didn't accept the Big East invite. He also wanted an all-sports home and thought football would have been taken care of in Paterno's conference. Who knew? We (the Rutgers faithful) blast him for that decision, but maybe he was a little ahead of his time.

Everything I've read on Jordan's conversations with Ikenberry and the other Big Ten school leaders were before and concurrent to the Big East stuff. It really comes off like this secret mission Jordan was on, maybe undermining whatever work Paterno was trying to do?

I doubt there would have been a very long/sustained all-sports conference relationship for both Penn State and Pitt even if PSU had the Big East votes. Some think Jordan would have pulled rank and ripped the Lions out of the Big East for the Big Ten anyway, and others think the lines between the Big Ten and Pitt would have resumed.

Big Ten-Penn State is a shocking move, because you had the conference working on Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Pitt for a good number of years...then, you get Penn State out of nowhere, especially when they looked to keep the northeast or mid-Atlantic their base. PSU moves to the midwest, and Pitt commits to the northeast...it was not what folks thought at the time. And still to this day, because you have people at Penn State who never liked the Big Ten and wanted the ACC, even before the ACC took the rest of the Big East's original footprint for its own, making it old-school Penn State turf even more.

It was in Penn State's interest to have all their sports in a conference somewhere. The Eastern 8 didn't fit that bill, and Penn State had already left it once when the Big East vote came along.

If Penn State had a secure home for football, though, who knows what the Big 10 would have done? Would they have expanded and would Penn State have given them serious talks? A Big East football conference formed in 1982 or 83 without Pitt would have given Penn State a lot of what Paterno wanted -- Syracuse, Boston College or Rutgers couldn't have told PSU to pound sand like Pitt could have. If Villanova isn't invited to the Big East and is still in the Eastern 8, Temple could be invited to the Big East along with WVU and there's 6 of the 7 1A football playing schools in the Big East -- probably enough to get the conference off the ground and a pretty good football package from ESPN at the time.

Again, my biggest point in how critical this was or how it hinged on other events was Rutgers position. The Rutgers AD was closely aligned with PSU and Paterno (Temple and WVU were also aligned for Paterno's conference), and that might have been enough to tip the scale for Penn State entry into the Big East, Pitt to the ACC or Big 10 (they got the Big East invite after Penn State was turned down) and things happen differently over the course of the next 20 years.

It's a lot of reflection and alternative history stuff -- great for fan fiction :-) If only, if only, if only...the two major Northeastern basketball conferences (Big East and Eastern 8/Atlantic 10) had built their membership along football lines.

"82, 83.....probably enough to get a pretty good football package from espn at the time"

I don't think ESPN was an option. The WAC had a contract with ESPN in the 80's but the rest of the conferences played on OTA channels. ESPN wasn't a player until way later.

(05-12-2017 03:47 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  If BYU and New Mexico are not in the WAC, you wonder if the WAC even bothers expanding to 14 schools, as you still have issues with divisions:

Pacific - San Diego State, San Jose State, Fresno State, UNLV, Hawaii, Utah, Wyoming
Mountain - Tulsa, TCU, SMU, Rice, UTEP, Colorado State, Air Force

It would have made more sense to go to 12 - by not adding Tulsa and for example, SMU - and then Wyoming joins the Mountain Division. It's possible the Mountain West may have never formed, especially if SMU and Tulsa got picked up by C-USA in 1996. TCU and Rice probably still exit for C-USA in 2005, but then that opens up spots for Nevada and Boise State. At that point you are very close to today's Mountain West, as Utah State would replace Utah. Replacing Big East/Big 14 bound TCU might be a little trickier given that Idaho and New Mexico State were the only in-footprint I-A options.

It's also possible Big West football keeps on ticking a few more seasons in football as well, unless if everyone still insisted on joining the Sun Belt in 2001.

"TCU and Rice probably exit for CUSA in 2005"

TCU was already in CUSA, and left CUSA for the MWC in 2005.

Nebraska blocked Arkansas from joining the Big 8. Heard that from Frank Broyles during a radio interview several years ago. They where afraid that if Arkansas was allowed as a member it would hurt their rivalry with Oklahoma. So that worked out.

The Big 8 would have been awesome. I don't know what would have happened as far as the merger. I would like to think that it would not have happened and the Big 8 would stay those 9 teams.

(05-12-2017 05:00 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Nebraska blocked Arkansas from joining the Big 8. Heard that from Frank Broyles during a radio interview several years ago. They where afraid that if Arkansas was allowed as a member it would hurt their rivalry with Oklahoma. So that worked out.

The Big 8 would have been awesome. I don't know what would have happened as far as the merger. I would like to think that it would not have happened and the Big 8 would stay those 9 teams.

Texas and TAMU were still looking to get out of the SWC, so maybe those two with TTU joined to form the Big XII. Or even more interesting, TAMU joined the SEC as it's 11th member (instead of Arkansas) and Baylor still scoots their way into the Big XII.

(05-12-2017 05:39 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 05:00 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Nebraska blocked Arkansas from joining the Big 8. Heard that from Frank Broyles during a radio interview several years ago. They where afraid that if Arkansas was allowed as a member it would hurt their rivalry with Oklahoma. So that worked out.

The Big 8 would have been awesome. I don't know what would have happened as far as the merger. I would like to think that it would not have happened and the Big 8 would stay those 9 teams.

Texas and TAMU were still looking to get out of the SWC, so maybe those two with TTU joined to form the Big XII. Or even more interesting, TAMU joined the SEC as it's 11th member (instead of Arkansas) and Baylor still scoots their way into the Big XII.

I would like to have seen A&M go to the SEC, and Texas go to the PAC. This might have allowed the SWC to remain active with maybe New Mexico added.