Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Alternate History: Save the SWC
Author Message
Fighting Muskie Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,945
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Alternate History: Save the SWC
The SWC was not going to get Louisville, Memphis, or Cincinnati as full members. At best they would be football affiliates.

That trio wanted a basketball oriented league.
Yesterday 11:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 32,413
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1552
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #62
RE: Alternate History: Save the SWC
(Yesterday 11:30 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The SWC was not going to get Louisville, Memphis, or Cincinnati as full members. At best they would be football affiliates.

That trio wanted a basketball oriented league.

Wouldnt have been hard to do that. While Ive said the best version of the SWC would have been created by combaining the left over members with BYU and the eastern most WAC members---Im by no means certain those WAC members would have accepted the invite. That would only leave the option of creating a rebuilt SWC that looked a lot like CUSA 1.0, but built out of the SWC shell and including TCU, SMU, Houston, and Rice.

If the 4 remaining members of the SWC had been committed to rebuilding the SWC---I suspect a rebuild that looked a lot like CUSA would have almost certainly have been the "go to" option for the Metro/Great Midwest/Indy schools invited. Why? Mainly because it had an excellent bowl deal, excellent name recognition, and---most importantly---the SWC had an NCAA auto-bid. A totally new conference like CUSA had to wait 2 full years before it would be granted an autobid. Using the SWC shell, the auto-bid would already exist. I dont think the SWC membership would have been against non-football members---so I suspect it would work.

If the future CUSA participants were not interested, and the only way forward for the SWC rebuild at the time was Tulsa, N Texas, LaTech level programs----I doubt the rebuild would have continued. The WAC or CUSA options were simply superior options for the 4 SWC orphans.

A SWC Rebuild Using Mostly CUSA 1.0 Parts

Houston
SMU
TCU
Rice
Louisville
Cinci
Memphis
S Miss
Tulane

Non-Football Members
DePaul
St Louis
Marquette

UAB and Tulsa would also get consideration.
(This post was last modified: Yesterday 11:57 AM by Attackcoog.)
Yesterday 11:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,945
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location:
Post: #63
RE: Alternate History: Save the SWC
What we know about the Metro-Great Midwest merger tells us that, with the exception of maybe Tulane, none had any interest in the SWC private schools.

You might see this:

Tulsa
SMU
TCU
Rice
Houston
Tulane
UTEP
UNM

FB only: Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, USM
Yesterday 12:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,945
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location:
Post: #64
RE: Alternate History: Save the SWC
(06-27-2020 03:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 09:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 10:59 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 10:45 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I just couldn't have seen the remaining SWC teams (Houston, SMU, TCU, and Rice) being strong enough to attract enough teams to "save" it. We are talking about just four teams here and the WAC was pretty strong with BYU a lot stronger than it is now. That's why three of the SWC teams left for it. I couldn't see the SWC raiding the WAC. Maybe the Metro/Conference USA could have grabbed more than just Houston from the SWC and that might have worked better for them geographically (SMU eventually wound up in the AAC with Cincinnati, Memphis, UAB, etc).

Actually, they never tried---mainly because they couldnt agree on who to invite---and--best I can tell---Houston had, at best, minimal interest in staying tied to the same small private schools they internally believed had likely been the "tattle tales" that triggered so many NCAA investigation into SWC teams. Between the avalanche of NCAA investigations and all the backstabbing that had occurred during the Big-8 "merger" negotiations---I think the Houston administration lacked trust in their remaining SWC mates and believed their best path forward would be to join forces with other large public schools if at all possible. As a football fan, I wanted to rebuild the SWC around the remaining teams---but I can also understand why the Houston administration at that time may not have valued that path as much as I did. I mean---we could have all stayed together and moved to the WAC---and that was my second choice if we were not going to rebuild the SWC. At least UH could maintain some ties to the SWC---but the Houston administration passed on that WAC package deal option as well---so, that tends to support my view that the UH administration just had little interest in maintaining those ties at the time.

Houston thought they were too good for TCU, Rice and SMU. They didn't even tell them what they were doing. They kept the CUSA deal under wraps. Local sportswriters were wondering if UH even had a plan.

To be fair, I think Houston was quiet because they wanted to make sure the landing spot was actually going to happen. There were lots of moving parts on the start of CUSA. The fate of the SWC was decided by early 1994. The Metro-Great Midwest merger had been kicked around since 1992---but they started hitting snags when everyone wasnt included. By late 1994, it was fairly clear that a new conference made from portions of the Metro and Great Midwest conferences was happening.

However, in-fighting and maneuvering within the Metro kinda locked up the process. Louisville, Tulane, and S Miss refused to actually withdraw from the Metro because they didnt want to pay an exit fee or lose their NCAA credits. They knew the remaining schools probably would have to go somewhere new----and if the exiting schools waited long enough, the number of schools leaving the Metro would outnumber those staying------allowing the exiting teams to disband the conference, thus, eliminating all exit fees. So...a game of chicken ensured. The article below explains it in more detail.


https://virginiatech.sportswar.com/artic...1994-2000/

Virginia Tech sure does have a long history of getting screwed in conference realignment.

First with the founding of the ACC in the 50s

They again get slighted by the ACC in the 70s

They join the Metro only to have it get gutted in the late 80s-early 90s

Then the Metro votes them out to save on exit fees

The Big East screwed them in the mid-90s when they didn’t get full membership and then gave them crappy terms when they finally did let them in in 2000.
Yesterday 01:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CitrusUCF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,308
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 160
I Root For: UCF
Location: NW Ark.
Post: #65
RE: Alternate History: Save the SWC
(Yesterday 12:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What we know about the Metro-Great Midwest merger tells us that, with the exception of maybe Tulane, none had any interest in the SWC private schools.

You might see this:

Tulsa
SMU
TCU
Rice
Houston
Tulane
UTEP
UNM

FB only: Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, USM

I'm curious about New Mexico. Certainly I can see UTEP jumping at the chance to be in a Texas-based conference (as they did with CUSA). But I wonder if UNM would have left the WAC with BYU, Utah, etc.?
Yesterday 01:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,945
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Alternate History: Save the SWC
(Yesterday 01:39 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(Yesterday 12:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What we know about the Metro-Great Midwest merger tells us that, with the exception of maybe Tulane, none had any interest in the SWC private schools.

You might see this:

Tulsa
SMU
TCU
Rice
Houston
Tulane
UTEP
UNM

FB only: Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, USM

I'm curious about New Mexico. Certainly I can see UTEP jumping at the chance to be in a Texas-based conference (as they did with CUSA). But I wonder if UNM would have left the WAC with BYU, Utah, etc.?

That’s a fair question. Playing all those games in Texas could have some appeal but they might prefer staying with historical rivals. SMU and TCU would hate it, but if they didn’t get UNM they are probably looking at UNT for the 8th all sports member.
Yesterday 01:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 32,413
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1552
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #67
RE: Alternate History: Save the SWC
(Yesterday 01:47 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(Yesterday 01:39 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(Yesterday 12:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What we know about the Metro-Great Midwest merger tells us that, with the exception of maybe Tulane, none had any interest in the SWC private schools.

You might see this:

Tulsa
SMU
TCU
Rice
Houston
Tulane
UTEP
UNM

FB only: Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, USM

I'm curious about New Mexico. Certainly I can see UTEP jumping at the chance to be in a Texas-based conference (as they did with CUSA). But I wonder if UNM would have left the WAC with BYU, Utah, etc.?

That’s a fair question. Playing all those games in Texas could have some appeal but they might prefer staying with historical rivals. SMU and TCU would hate it, but if they didn’t get UNM they are probably looking at UNT for the 8th all sports member.

Those Metro/Great Midwest schools didnt have nearly the leverage you think they did back then. I also dont see UNM leaving by themselves. UTEP wasnt really worth adding at that point either. Nah---either the the SWC orphans end up with something along what I drew up, or they throw in the towel and go with their other offers (SMU, TCU, Rice to WAC and UH to CUSA or WAC). The rebuilt SWC would have to make some sort of geographic sense and be better than their WAC/CUSA options to keep the orphans around. The conference I laid out was kind of Metro-ish in that it was all in big cities (except for S Miss) with reasonable travel. You start adding UTEP and N Mexico and the travel gets ugly with little value added for the extra travel costs.
(This post was last modified: Yesterday 02:19 PM by Attackcoog.)
Yesterday 02:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,262
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 414
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #68
RE: Alternate History: Save the SWC
(Yesterday 11:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(Yesterday 11:30 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The SWC was not going to get Louisville, Memphis, or Cincinnati as full members. At best they would be football affiliates.

That trio wanted a basketball oriented league.

Wouldnt have been hard to do that. While Ive said the best version of the SWC would have been created by combaining the left over members with BYU and the eastern most WAC members---Im by no means certain those WAC members would have accepted the invite. That would only leave the option of creating a rebuilt SWC that looked a lot like CUSA 1.0, but built out of the SWC shell and including TCU, SMU, Houston, and Rice.

If the 4 remaining members of the SWC had been committed to rebuilding the SWC---I suspect a rebuild that looked a lot like CUSA would have almost certainly have been the "go to" option for the Metro/Great Midwest/Indy schools invited. Why? Mainly because it had an excellent bowl deal, excellent name recognition, and---most importantly---the SWC had an NCAA auto-bid. A totally new conference like CUSA had to wait 2 full years before it would be granted an autobid. Using the SWC shell, the auto-bid would already exist. I dont think the SWC membership would have been against non-football members---so I suspect it would work.

If the future CUSA participants were not interested, and the only way forward for the SWC rebuild at the time was Tulsa, N Texas, LaTech level programs----I doubt the rebuild would have continued. The WAC or CUSA options were simply superior options for the 4 SWC orphans.

A SWC Rebuild Using Mostly CUSA 1.0 Parts

Houston
SMU
TCU
Rice
Louisville
Cinci
Memphis
S Miss
Tulane

Non-Football Members
DePaul
St Louis
Marquette

UAB and Tulsa would also get consideration.

Louisville wasnt getting out of the Metro without dissolving it so they could keep their NCAA Tourney money. Dissolving it meant taking USF and Charlotte in addition to Tulane and So Miss.
Yesterday 02:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
texoma Online
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 238
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 8
I Root For: Collegefootball
Location:
Post: #69
RE: Alternate History: Save the SWC
(06-25-2020 03:29 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 01:56 PM)texoma Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 02:59 AM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  The old SWC really should have just stole Oklahoma and Oklahoma State from the Big 8. What really happened is the Big 8 stole from the SWC and they just started a new conference with the same name. The SWC with OU and OSU could have brought back Arkansas who would not be the orphan Annie of the conference anymore.
SWC
NORTH
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Arkansas
TCU
SMU
Texas Tech

SOUTH
Baylor
Texas
Texas A&M
Rice
Houston
Tulane

The remaining Big 8 probably gets taken down like it already did. I could see Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska, Kansas State, and Missouri going to the Big Ten to form the first 16 team conference

Bad idea all around.

No way would OU and OSU join the SWC. The SWC was dead already. Why do you think Arkansas left.

Texas and A&M were desperate to get away from the private schools. Why do you think they were good to join the Big8.

The private schools were bad. Darrell Royal talked about how the private schools needed to get better or else. I remember an interview with Chuck Curtis the former TCU head football coach saying he thought TCU might have to have to drop football. TCU, SMU, Baylor and Rice were all struggling just to survive. Even Houston shied away from staying with the private schools after the SWC folded.

That's why the SWC didn't make it and the teams joined WAC or CUSA.

Today though its successor the XII is in a different position as a P5 conference with a more northern range that makes Memphis and Cincinnati good additions.

(06-25-2020 04:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 02:33 PM)texoma Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 02:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 01:56 PM)texoma Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 02:59 AM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  The old SWC really should have just stole Oklahoma and Oklahoma State from the Big 8. What really happened is the Big 8 stole from the SWC and they just started a new conference with the same name. The SWC with OU and OSU could have brought back Arkansas who would not be the orphan Annie of the conference anymore.
SWC
NORTH
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Arkansas
TCU
SMU
Texas Tech

SOUTH
Baylor
Texas
Texas A&M
Rice
Houston
Tulane

The remaining Big 8 probably gets taken down like it already did. I could see Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska, Kansas State, and Missouri going to the Big Ten to form the first 16 team conference

Bad idea all around.

No way would OU and OSU join the SWC. The SWC was dead already. Why do you think Arkansas left.

Texas and A&M were desperate to get away from the private schools. Why do you think they were good to join the Big8.

The private schools were bad. Darrell Royal talked about how the private schools needed to get better or else. I remember an interview with Chuck Curtis the former TCU head football coach saying he thought TCU might have to have to drop football. TCU, SMU, Baylor and Rice were all struggling just to survive.

Baylor was doing fine at the time.

Baylor was just surviving. The only time in modern football history Baylor had any success was due to the incredible coaching skills of Grant Teaff. What about SMU, TCU and Rice.

The last 17 years in the SWC, Baylor had 2 titles and 12 winning seasons. Their worst season was 4-6-1. Every other year they had at least 5 wins.

That's not just surviving. Oklahoma from 1994-1998 went 5 years without a winning season. That was how many Baylor went over 17 years.

I was going to let this pass since it seems the thread was dyeing, but it has new life.

I previously said, the only time in modern day football that Baylor had any success in the SWC was when Grant Teaff was the Head Coach. Teaff was the coach when they won those two SWC titles. However, he retired prior to the beginning of the Big12.

Having a winning season during the last few years of the SWC was not the major accomplishment that it had been, since the conference was weaker than it was throughout most of its history, especially TCU and Rice plus SMU after the death penalty. Also, Baylor has been notorious for playing weak non-conference teams. If Baylor was so great they would have been included in the original six team Texoma group.

BTW from 1994-1998 OU had three losing seasons and all of those were when John Blake was Head Coach. Personally comparing the Baylor program to the OU football program prior to the formation of the Big12 is quite a stretch IMO... but to each his own.
(This post was last modified: Yesterday 07:16 PM by texoma.)
Yesterday 03:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2020 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, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.