Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
Author Message
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
If SMU, TCU and Rice had been so inclined, Tulsa would have jumped on the bus to save the SWC and despite their commitment to CUSA, I suspect Tulane would have been on board as well. That would have gotten them to five pretty quickly.

At that point you start having to see if you can lure in UTEP and New Mexico or try to convince someone like USM to come over. SW Louisiana was the only eastern Big West that was any good at that point and seems unlike that either of Tulane and Rice would have supported them. NMSU was good in hoops and baseball but adding them likely sinks your chance to get UTEP and New Mexico.
05-30-2018 11:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 16,258
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1202
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #62
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
Well, we know that both UL Lafayette and ECU were looked at by the SWC due to their records being available in Lubbock and online. That leads me to believe the left-behinds considered those two, and Tulane and Tulsa. ECU wasn’t immediately invited to C-USA, so they were on the table. As were the Cajuns, and others such as LaTech and NMSU. UNM and UTEP weren’t going anywhere at the time.
(This post was last modified: 05-30-2018 11:43 AM by esayem.)
05-30-2018 11:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #63
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-30-2018 11:38 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If SMU, TCU and Rice had been so inclined, Tulsa would have jumped on the bus to save the SWC and despite their commitment to CUSA, I suspect Tulane would have been on board as well. That would have gotten them to five pretty quickly.

At that point you start having to see if you can lure in UTEP and New Mexico or try to convince someone like USM to come over. SW Louisiana was the only eastern Big West that was any good at that point and seems unlike that either of Tulane and Rice would have supported them. NMSU was good in hoops and baseball but adding them likely sinks your chance to get UTEP and New Mexico.

I think that Bleacher Report article is mistaken. There was an article linked here awhile back that said SMU, TCU, and Rice had at least one meeting with Tulsa, Tulane, and several others about trying to keep the SWC going, but couldn't get enough schools on board for whatever reason.
05-30-2018 12:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MissouriStateBears Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,625
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 88
I Root For: Missouri State
Location:
Post: #64
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-30-2018 11:38 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If SMU, TCU and Rice had been so inclined, Tulsa would have jumped on the bus to save the SWC and despite their commitment to CUSA, I suspect Tulane would have been on board as well. That would have gotten them to five pretty quickly.

At that point you start having to see if you can lure in UTEP and New Mexico or try to convince someone like USM to come over. SW Louisiana was the only eastern Big West that was any good at that point and seems unlike that either of Tulane and Rice would have supported them. NMSU was good in hoops and baseball but adding them likely sinks your chance to get UTEP and New Mexico.

I think the key would have been could they have kept Houston and got Memphis State to join. I'm sure Tulsa, Tulane and Southern Miss would have signed up for that. Along with the SWC getting the Liberty Bowl slot for its champion.
05-30-2018 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #65
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-30-2018 09:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here's an old piece from 1994 when the expansion news broke. You have to wonder what they were thinking if this passage is in fact true. If you make the same for 10 as you do for 16---why go to 16? Sounds like going to 12 was the only move that might pay off (and thats only if the CCG paid enough for all existing members to break even or better).

A new football television contract, which according to wire service reports is close to $25 million for five years, is in the process of being finalized, outgoing commissioner Joe Kearney said. He also stated that the dollar figure is the same whether the league has 10 or 16 schools. There will be additional money for a playoff game.


https://www.deseretnews.com/article/3488...TO-16.html


Also ran across an article discussing who really killed the SWC. The article's premise is that while the exits of Texas, A&M, Tech, and Baylor seriously maimed the SWC---it was the remaining teams that actually killed it by not rebuilding. It expains that there were some pretty decent options from which to rebuild had Rice, Houston, SMU, and TCU worked together on the project. The interesting add on to the article is this---did the same decision to let the SWC die also essentially lead to the death of WAC football? lol...are Houston, SMU, TCU, and Rice essentially responsible for the death of 2 conferences? I think maybe they kinda are (of course, I have long advocated the position that those 4 made a HUGE mistake by not rebuilding the SWC).

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/3825...conference

Houston basically said they weren't interested.

SWC, before the 4 left, was already talking to Tulsa, Tulane and Memphis. Maybe Louisville as well. The SWC could easily have become-SMU, Rice, TCU, UH, Tulsa, Tulane, Memphis, Louisville, So. Miss and Cincinnati. In other words, just add the 6 original CUSA football schools and Tulsa.
05-30-2018 01:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,737
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-30-2018 11:38 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If SMU, TCU and Rice had been so inclined, Tulsa would have jumped on the bus to save the SWC and despite their commitment to CUSA, I suspect Tulane would have been on board as well. That would have gotten them to five pretty quickly.

At that point you start having to see if you can lure in UTEP and New Mexico or try to convince someone like USM to come over. SW Louisiana was the only eastern Big West that was any good at that point and seems unlike that either of Tulane and Rice would have supported them. NMSU was good in hoops and baseball but adding them likely sinks your chance to get UTEP and New Mexico.

I think Tulsa and Tulane would have come aboard---which, at the time, was all you'd need to keep the conference alive. I like the idea of offering BYU, New Mexico, Wyoming, Air Force, Colorado St and Utah. That would be decent stand alone conference with reasonable travel. If that failed, Memphis, S Miss, Louisville, and Cinci would have been another way to go. Arkansas St and LaTech were also both available at the time as well. There were enough pieces to rebuild a fairly solid--- geographically reasonable---SWC. That was always my first choice back then. My second was moving to the WAC with Rice, TCU, and SMU. As a football first guy---I absolutely hated the idea of going to the basketball first newly forming CUSA.
(This post was last modified: 05-30-2018 01:59 PM by Attackcoog.)
05-30-2018 01:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #67
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-30-2018 01:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-30-2018 11:38 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If SMU, TCU and Rice had been so inclined, Tulsa would have jumped on the bus to save the SWC and despite their commitment to CUSA, I suspect Tulane would have been on board as well. That would have gotten them to five pretty quickly.

At that point you start having to see if you can lure in UTEP and New Mexico or try to convince someone like USM to come over. SW Louisiana was the only eastern Big West that was any good at that point and seems unlike that either of Tulane and Rice would have supported them. NMSU was good in hoops and baseball but adding them likely sinks your chance to get UTEP and New Mexico.

I think Tulsa and Tulane would have come aboard---which, at the time, was all you'd need to keep the conference alive. I like the idea of offering BYU, New Mexico, Wyoming, Air Force, Colorado St and Utah. That would be decent stand alone conference with reasonable travel. If that failed, Memphis, S Miss, Louisville, and Cinci would have been another way to go. Arkansas St and LaTech were also both available at the time as well. There were enough pieces to rebuild a fairly solid--- geographically reasonable---SWC. That was always my first choice back then. My second was moving to the WAC with Rice, TCU, and SMU. As a football first guy---I absolutely hated the idea of going to the basketball first newly forming CUSA.

A-State and LaTech were available but weren't getting the call both were pretty bad when the SWC was raided
05-30-2018 02:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Online
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,790
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 789
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #68
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
If Houston, SMU, Rice, and TCU would have worked together to save the SWC Tulsa, Tulane, and USM all likely would have said yes and at that point even just 1 more saves the league.

Ideally you bring in Memphis, Louisville, and Cincinnati for 10 and you're set, that is if you can convince them to kill C-USA in its cradle.

If they say no there were plenty of back up options albeit some are far less exciting than those first 3: UTEP, UNM, ULL, LA Tech, and Ark St

If you land the 3 preferred picks then you potentially still get a C-USA but one that features the 3 schools left out of the real merger:
Marquette, DePaul, St Louis, Dayton, UAB, VCU, VT, Charlotte, and USF
With Cincy gone Xavier could be their #10.

The WAC lives on with UNLV and San Jose St as expansion schools or replacements. Utah St, New Mexico St, and Nevada rebuild Big West football as they did in real life. With the WAC stable from '96 until probably 2010 the Big West further stabilizes with ULL, LA Tech, and Ark St returning as FB affiliates (since thy no longer have their leverage to draw NMSU and UNT into the SBC)
(This post was last modified: 05-30-2018 06:22 PM by Fighting Muskie.)
05-30-2018 06:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 4,908
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 423
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: Schmlocation
Post: #69
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-30-2018 06:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If Houston, SMU, Rice, and TCU would have worked together to save the SWC Tulsa, Tulane, and USM all likely would have said yes and at that point even just 1 more saves the league.

Ideally you bring in Memphis, Louisville, and Cincinnati for 10 and you're set, that is if you can convince them to kill C-USA in its cradle.

If they say no there were plenty of back up options albeit some are far less exciting than those first 3: UTEP, UNM, ULL, LA Tech, and Ark St

If you land the 3 preferred picks then you potentially still get a C-USA but one that features the 3 schools left out of the real merger:
Marquette, DePaul, St Louis, Dayton, UAB, VCU, VT, Charlotte, and USF
With Cincy gone Xavier could be their #10.

The WAC lives on with UNLV and San Jose St as expansion schools or replacements. Utah St, New Mexico St, and Nevada rebuild Big West football as they did in real life. With the WAC stable from '96 until probably 2010 the Big West further stabilizes with ULL, LA Tech, and Ark St returning as FB affiliates (since thy no longer have their leverage to draw NMSU and UNT into the SBC)

The SBC could have reached 8 full FB-sponsoring schools by 2005 without NMSU/UNT (ULL, La Tech, Ark St, FAU, FIU, Troy, MTSU, maybe WKU a couple years early; it's even easier if schools like UAB aren't picked up by the SWC).
05-30-2018 07:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,737
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #70
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-30-2018 06:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If Houston, SMU, Rice, and TCU would have worked together to save the SWC Tulsa, Tulane, and USM all likely would have said yes and at that point even just 1 more saves the league.

Ideally you bring in Memphis, Louisville, and Cincinnati for 10 and you're set, that is if you can convince them to kill C-USA in its cradle.

If they say no there were plenty of back up options albeit some are far less exciting than those first 3: UTEP, UNM, ULL, LA Tech, and Ark St

If you land the 3 preferred picks then you potentially still get a C-USA but one that features the 3 schools left out of the real merger:
Marquette, DePaul, St Louis, Dayton, UAB, VCU, VT, Charlotte, and USF
With Cincy gone Xavier could be their #10.

The WAC lives on with UNLV and San Jose St as expansion schools or replacements. Utah St, New Mexico St, and Nevada rebuild Big West football as they did in real life. With the WAC stable from '96 until probably 2010 the Big West further stabilizes with ULL, LA Tech, and Ark St returning as FB affiliates (since thy no longer have their leverage to draw NMSU and UNT into the SBC)

Its better than that. If I remember correctly, back in 1996 you only needed 6 teams to have a standing FBS conference. I dont think it would ahve been hard to save. The key is--could you build a better situation for themselves than the WAC or CUSA options that were available. I think they could have certainly fashioned something that was a better fit.
(This post was last modified: 05-30-2018 08:48 PM by Attackcoog.)
05-30-2018 08:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #71
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-30-2018 08:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-30-2018 06:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If Houston, SMU, Rice, and TCU would have worked together to save the SWC Tulsa, Tulane, and USM all likely would have said yes and at that point even just 1 more saves the league.

Ideally you bring in Memphis, Louisville, and Cincinnati for 10 and you're set, that is if you can convince them to kill C-USA in its cradle.

If they say no there were plenty of back up options albeit some are far less exciting than those first 3: UTEP, UNM, ULL, LA Tech, and Ark St

If you land the 3 preferred picks then you potentially still get a C-USA but one that features the 3 schools left out of the real merger:
Marquette, DePaul, St Louis, Dayton, UAB, VCU, VT, Charlotte, and USF
With Cincy gone Xavier could be their #10.

The WAC lives on with UNLV and San Jose St as expansion schools or replacements. Utah St, New Mexico St, and Nevada rebuild Big West football as they did in real life. With the WAC stable from '96 until probably 2010 the Big West further stabilizes with ULL, LA Tech, and Ark St returning as FB affiliates (since thy no longer have their leverage to draw NMSU and UNT into the SBC)

Its better than that. If I remember correctly, back in 1996 you only needed 6 teams to have a standing FBS conference. I dont think it would ahve been hard to save. The key is--could you build a better situation for themselves than the WAC or CUSA options that were available. I think they could have certainly fashioned something that was a better fit.

Would have been interesting if Tulsa's surge in hoops had started a few years earlier. They had a 7 year NCAA drought as CUSA was coming together and then went on a run of winning at least one game in the tournament for 7 of 10 years.

Six was the minimum. Remember CUSA was 12 hoops and 6 football.

Tulsa might have viewed themselves as more CUSA oriented or been a real boost to SWC saving itself.
05-30-2018 10:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
C2__ Offline
Caltex2
*

Posts: 23,633
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 552
I Root For: Houston, PVAMU
Location: Zamunda
Post: #72
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-30-2018 01:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-30-2018 09:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here's an old piece from 1994 when the expansion news broke. You have to wonder what they were thinking if this passage is in fact true. If you make the same for 10 as you do for 16---why go to 16? Sounds like going to 12 was the only move that might pay off (and thats only if the CCG paid enough for all existing members to break even or better).

A new football television contract, which according to wire service reports is close to $25 million for five years, is in the process of being finalized, outgoing commissioner Joe Kearney said. He also stated that the dollar figure is the same whether the league has 10 or 16 schools. There will be additional money for a playoff game.


https://www.deseretnews.com/article/3488...TO-16.html


Also ran across an article discussing who really killed the SWC. The article's premise is that while the exits of Texas, A&M, Tech, and Baylor seriously maimed the SWC---it was the remaining teams that actually killed it by not rebuilding. It expains that there were some pretty decent options from which to rebuild had Rice, Houston, SMU, and TCU worked together on the project. The interesting add on to the article is this---did the same decision to let the SWC die also essentially lead to the death of WAC football? lol...are Houston, SMU, TCU, and Rice essentially responsible for the death of 2 conferences? I think maybe they kinda are (of course, I have long advocated the position that those 4 made a HUGE mistake by not rebuilding the SWC).

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/3825...conference

Houston basically said they weren't interested.

SWC, before the 4 left, was already talking to Tulsa, Tulane and Memphis. Maybe Louisville as well. The SWC could easily have become-SMU, Rice, TCU, UH, Tulsa, Tulane, Memphis, Louisville, So. Miss and Cincinnati. In other words, just add the 6 original CUSA football schools and Tulsa.

It's questionable whether or not that's a BCS conference. The only strong program was UH, who was down in the 90's.

The only way the SWC is viable going forward, even with the legacy of its name, is if they could have lured BYU and Air Force and why would they leave the WAC when it was better in every way except name brand value?

The only way original C-USA could have been a BCS conference is with those two, Tulane (large stadium, large market and still some brand), ECU (decent brand in the 90's), Memphis, Louisville and Cincinnati (great basketball, Louisville did okay with football). And once again, who in that group is the signature program?
05-31-2018 01:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #73
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-31-2018 01:03 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(05-30-2018 01:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-30-2018 09:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here's an old piece from 1994 when the expansion news broke. You have to wonder what they were thinking if this passage is in fact true. If you make the same for 10 as you do for 16---why go to 16? Sounds like going to 12 was the only move that might pay off (and thats only if the CCG paid enough for all existing members to break even or better).

A new football television contract, which according to wire service reports is close to $25 million for five years, is in the process of being finalized, outgoing commissioner Joe Kearney said. He also stated that the dollar figure is the same whether the league has 10 or 16 schools. There will be additional money for a playoff game.


https://www.deseretnews.com/article/3488...TO-16.html


Also ran across an article discussing who really killed the SWC. The article's premise is that while the exits of Texas, A&M, Tech, and Baylor seriously maimed the SWC---it was the remaining teams that actually killed it by not rebuilding. It expains that there were some pretty decent options from which to rebuild had Rice, Houston, SMU, and TCU worked together on the project. The interesting add on to the article is this---did the same decision to let the SWC die also essentially lead to the death of WAC football? lol...are Houston, SMU, TCU, and Rice essentially responsible for the death of 2 conferences? I think maybe they kinda are (of course, I have long advocated the position that those 4 made a HUGE mistake by not rebuilding the SWC).

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/3825...conference

Houston basically said they weren't interested.

SWC, before the 4 left, was already talking to Tulsa, Tulane and Memphis. Maybe Louisville as well. The SWC could easily have become-SMU, Rice, TCU, UH, Tulsa, Tulane, Memphis, Louisville, So. Miss and Cincinnati. In other words, just add the 6 original CUSA football schools and Tulsa.

It's questionable whether or not that's a BCS conference. The only strong program was UH, who was down in the 90's.

The only way the SWC is viable going forward, even with the legacy of its name, is if they could have lured BYU and Air Force and why would they leave the WAC when it was better in every way except name brand value?

The only way original C-USA could have been a BCS conference is with those two
, Tulane (large stadium, large market and still some brand), ECU (decent brand in the 90's), Memphis, Louisville and Cincinnati (great basketball, Louisville did okay with football). And once again, who in that group is the signature program?

There's no configuration of C-USA, or within-the-realm-of-possible configuration of C-USA, that ever could have been BCS.
05-31-2018 09:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 4,908
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 423
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: Schmlocation
Post: #74
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
I like the idea of the WAC adding just UNLV and TCU to get to 12, while the SWC rebuilds with Tulsa plus all the schools that would have joined CUSA.

WAC
Mountain: Air Force, Colorado State, New Mexico, TCU, UTEP, Wyoming
West: BYU, Fresno State, Hawaii, San Diego State, UNLV, Utah

SWC
FB: Cincinnati, Houston, Louisville, Memphis, Rice, SMU, Southern Miss, Tulane, Tulsa
NFB: Charlotte, DePaul, Marquette, South Florida, St. Louis, UAB

ECU joins the SWC in football and a bit later for all sports, and UAB and USF football join up around the same time to give the conference 12 in football and 16 in basketball.

SWC (FB)
East: Cincinnati, East Carolina, Louisville, Memphis, South Florida, UAB
West: Houston, Rice, SMU, Southern Miss, Tulane, Tulsa

SWC (BB)
East: Charlotte, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Louisville
North: DePaul, Marquette, Memphis, St. Louis
South: South Florida, Southern Miss, Tulane, UAB
West: Houston, Rice, SMU, Tulsa
05-31-2018 09:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #75
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-31-2018 09:39 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  I like the idea of the WAC adding just UNLV and TCU to get to 12, while the SWC rebuilds with Tulsa plus all the schools that would have joined CUSA.

WAC
Mountain: Air Force, Colorado State, New Mexico, TCU, UTEP, Wyoming
West: BYU, Fresno State, Hawaii, San Diego State, UNLV, Utah

SWC
FB: Cincinnati, Houston, Louisville, Memphis, Rice, SMU, Southern Miss, Tulane, Tulsa
NFB: Charlotte, DePaul, Marquette, South Florida, St. Louis, UAB

ECU joins the SWC in football and a bit later for all sports, and UAB and USF football join up around the same time to give the conference 12 in football and 16 in basketball.

SWC (FB)
East: Cincinnati, East Carolina, Louisville, Memphis, South Florida, UAB
West: Houston, Rice, SMU, Southern Miss, Tulane, Tulsa

SWC (BB)
East: Charlotte, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Louisville
North: DePaul, Marquette, Memphis, St. Louis
South: South Florida, Southern Miss, Tulane, UAB
West: Houston, Rice, SMU, Tulsa

I like your configurations here. That's how I'd do it as well. Both the WAC and SWC 2.0 would keep their full Bowl coalition voting power and there probably would have been 8 "power" conferences. Some would have more power than others but the WAC surely and SWC 2.0 eventually would become part of the big boy group.
05-31-2018 10:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 16,258
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1202
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #76
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
Well, according to articles at the time, Cincinnati, Louisville, and Southern Miss did not attend the SWC talks in Dallas after the four schools left for Big XII pastures.

Schools that did attend: Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis (State), and surprisingly New Mexico.

Here are excerpts:

"Representatives from the University of Cincinnati, Louisville and Southern Mississippi said Friday they will not join Memphis State, Tulane and nine other schools expected to be in Dallas Monday to discuss options involving the four remaining Southwest Conference teams."

"MSU athletic director Charles Cavagnaro will attend the meeting, and Tulsa and New Mexico reportedly will be represented."

Apparently Southern Miss wasn't invited:

"Another report has MSU, Louisville, New Mexico and Brigham Young as candidates for the Big 8 if the 12-team league grows to 16 teams.

Southern Mississippi, a 1-A football independent and Metro member, said it would have welcomed an invitation to Monday's meeting. Before joining the GMC in 1991, MSU and Cincinnati belonged to the Metro.

``I don't have a market (Hattiesburg) like Tulane, Memphis State, Cincinnati or Louisville, but I still feel like we have good programs,'' said USM athletic director Bill McLellan."

There is some other info about the WAC having the best bowl tie-in, the Big West having four FB-only members, and the Sun Belt trying to become another option for the SWC schools.

11 schools: Houston, SMU, TCU, Rice, Tulsa, Tulane, Memphis, New Mexico, and three others. I'm pretty sure I read another article which stated Houston didn't attend.
05-31-2018 01:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #77
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-31-2018 01:02 PM)esayem Wrote:  Well, according to articles at the time, Cincinnati, Louisville, and Southern Miss did not attend the SWC talks in Dallas after the four schools left for Big XII pastures.

Schools that did attend: Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis (State), and surprisingly New Mexico.

Here are excerpts:

"Representatives from the University of Cincinnati, Louisville and Southern Mississippi said Friday they will not join Memphis State, Tulane and nine other schools expected to be in Dallas Monday to discuss options involving the four remaining Southwest Conference teams."

"MSU athletic director Charles Cavagnaro will attend the meeting, and Tulsa and New Mexico reportedly will be represented."

Apparently Southern Miss wasn't invited:

"Another report has MSU, Louisville, New Mexico and Brigham Young as candidates for the Big 8 if the 12-team league grows to 16 teams.

Southern Mississippi, a 1-A football independent and Metro member, said it would have welcomed an invitation to Monday's meeting. Before joining the GMC in 1991, MSU and Cincinnati belonged to the Metro.

``I don't have a market (Hattiesburg) like Tulane, Memphis State, Cincinnati or Louisville, but I still feel like we have good programs,'' said USM athletic director Bill McLellan."

There is some other info about the WAC having the best bowl tie-in, the Big West having four FB-only members, and the Sun Belt trying to become another option for the SWC schools.

11 schools: Houston, SMU, TCU, Rice, Tulsa, Tulane, Memphis, New Mexico, and three others. I'm pretty sure I read another article which stated Houston didn't attend.

Louisville was hell bent that they were not going to play more than 5 league games in football and wanted a serious hoops league. SWC didn't fit what they wanted.
05-31-2018 01:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Online
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,790
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 789
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #78
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-30-2018 07:36 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(05-30-2018 06:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If Houston, SMU, Rice, and TCU would have worked together to save the SWC Tulsa, Tulane, and USM all likely would have said yes and at that point even just 1 more saves the league.

Ideally you bring in Memphis, Louisville, and Cincinnati for 10 and you're set, that is if you can convince them to kill C-USA in its cradle.

If they say no there were plenty of back up options albeit some are far less exciting than those first 3: UTEP, UNM, ULL, LA Tech, and Ark St

If you land the 3 preferred picks then you potentially still get a C-USA but one that features the 3 schools left out of the real merger:
Marquette, DePaul, St Louis, Dayton, UAB, VCU, VT, Charlotte, and USF
With Cincy gone Xavier could be their #10.

The WAC lives on with UNLV and San Jose St as expansion schools or replacements. Utah St, New Mexico St, and Nevada rebuild Big West football as they did in real life. With the WAC stable from '96 until probably 2010 the Big West further stabilizes with ULL, LA Tech, and Ark St returning as FB affiliates (since thy no longer have their leverage to draw NMSU and UNT into the SBC)

The SBC could have reached 8 full FB-sponsoring schools by 2005 without NMSU/UNT (ULL, La Tech, Ark St, FAU, FIU, Troy, MTSU, maybe WKU a couple years early; it's even easier if schools like UAB aren't picked up by the SWC).

You are very right. ECU, UAB, UCF, USF, and MTSU would all have FBS programs and be in need of conference homes. If they joined with LA Tech, ULL, and Ark St the end result is another southeastern FBS conference, potentially under the SBC banner, somewhere between 1996-2005. Troy, FIU, and FAU are also potential late comers to this conference as well.
05-31-2018 03:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 4,908
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 423
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: Schmlocation
Post: #79
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-31-2018 01:02 PM)esayem Wrote:  Well, according to articles at the time, Cincinnati, Louisville, and Southern Miss did not attend the SWC talks in Dallas after the four schools left for Big XII pastures.

Schools that did attend: Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis (State), and surprisingly New Mexico.

Here are excerpts:

"Representatives from the University of Cincinnati, Louisville and Southern Mississippi said Friday they will not join Memphis State, Tulane and nine other schools expected to be in Dallas Monday to discuss options involving the four remaining Southwest Conference teams."

"MSU athletic director Charles Cavagnaro will attend the meeting, and Tulsa and New Mexico reportedly will be represented."

Apparently Southern Miss wasn't invited:

"Another report has MSU, Louisville, New Mexico and Brigham Young as candidates for the Big 8 if the 12-team league grows to 16 teams.

Southern Mississippi, a 1-A football independent and Metro member, said it would have welcomed an invitation to Monday's meeting. Before joining the GMC in 1991, MSU and Cincinnati belonged to the Metro.

``I don't have a market (Hattiesburg) like Tulane, Memphis State, Cincinnati or Louisville, but I still feel like we have good programs,'' said USM athletic director Bill McLellan."

There is some other info about the WAC having the best bowl tie-in, the Big West having four FB-only members, and the Sun Belt trying to become another option for the SWC schools.

11 schools: Houston, SMU, TCU, Rice, Tulsa, Tulane, Memphis, New Mexico, and three others. I'm pretty sure I read another article which stated Houston didn't attend.

Perhaps UTEP was another invitee?

(05-31-2018 01:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Louisville was hell bent that they were not going to play more than 5 league games in football and wanted a serious hoops league. SWC didn't fit what they wanted.

Then why did Louisville stick around when CUSA almost immediately started adding football schools?
(This post was last modified: 05-31-2018 04:16 PM by Nerdlinger.)
05-31-2018 03:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 4,908
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 423
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: Schmlocation
Post: #80
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-31-2018 10:06 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(05-31-2018 09:39 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  I like the idea of the WAC adding just UNLV and TCU to get to 12, while the SWC rebuilds with Tulsa plus all the schools that would have joined CUSA.

WAC
Mountain: Air Force, Colorado State, New Mexico, TCU, UTEP, Wyoming
West: BYU, Fresno State, Hawaii, San Diego State, UNLV, Utah

SWC
FB: Cincinnati, Houston, Louisville, Memphis, Rice, SMU, Southern Miss, Tulane, Tulsa
NFB: Charlotte, DePaul, Marquette, South Florida, St. Louis, UAB

ECU joins the SWC in football and a bit later for all sports, and UAB and USF football join up around the same time to give the conference 12 in football and 16 in basketball.

SWC (FB)
East: Cincinnati, East Carolina, Louisville, Memphis, South Florida, UAB
West: Houston, Rice, SMU, Southern Miss, Tulane, Tulsa

SWC (BB)
East: Charlotte, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Louisville
North: DePaul, Marquette, Memphis, St. Louis
South: South Florida, Southern Miss, Tulane, UAB
West: Houston, Rice, SMU, Tulsa

I like your configurations here. That's how I'd do it as well. Both the WAC and SWC 2.0 would keep their full Bowl coalition voting power and there probably would have been 8 "power" conferences. Some would have more power than others but the WAC surely and SWC 2.0 eventually would become part of the big boy group.

I think they'd both probably be excluded as BCS AQ conferences. Neither of them contain any schools in were AQ conferences (at least prior to 2005) in our timeline, so I don't see why they would be included when they weren't in reality.
05-31-2018 04:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.