(12-06-2020 01:01 PM)schmolik Wrote:  Recently ESPN discussed the 25th anniversary of the last day of college football in the old Southwest Conference (https://csnbbs.com/thread-911865.html). The SWC was a casualty of a chain of realignment moves that lasted throughout the decade that changed college sports and college football dramatically.

Back in the 1980's, many major college football teams, especially in the East, still were independent and the Big East did not sponsor football. I graduated from high school in 1991. At that time,

The Big 10 literally had 10 teams. For those of you here who are too young to remember, I'm not kidding!

There was a conference called the Big 8! And they add, get this, 8 teams!

You know who else had 8 teams? The ACC!

By the end of the decade, there was a whole new college football/college sports world. We can discuss the moves and the long term effects.

SEC:
Invited Arkansas and South Carolina and introduced the football conference championship game. They made 12 the "magic number". Interestingly it took until 1996 (Big 12) for another conference to follow suit. The MAC followed in 1997 but the next "power" conference to do so was the ACC in 2005. The Big Ten and Pac-12 didn't get championship games until 2011.

In the ESPN article, former Arkansas football HC mentioned that the SEC had eyes on Texas, Texas A&M, and Florida State, saying " Roy Kramer was going for the whole enchilada now. He was going for all the television markets because that's all it was about. It was about television. It was about going to get the TV contract and sharing the revenue."

No offense to Arkansas and South Carolina but when you have your sights set on Texas, Texas A&M, and Florida State and come back with Arkansas and South Carolina, you don't look really good. The SEC did of course get their championship game and in the 2010's eventually got Texas A&M anyway. But if they were able to get the schools back then, maybe South Carolina isn't in the SEC right now. What combinations could they have gotten between the schools?

Big Ten:
Invited Penn State. I'm of course biased but the move expanded the Big Ten's presence on the East Coast and gave PSU rivals with Ohio State and Michigan and the Big Ten a trio of top and popular teams rather than the old pair of just OSU and Michigan. Back then, Wisconsin wasn't the Wisconsin today although Iowa was better. The Big Ten right now paid their conference members on average the most revenue in college sports, more than the SEC. Once the SEC gets away from their bargain SEC on CBS contract the SEC will take the lead but who knows maybe the Big Ten will get a bump too? But I believe the Big Ten's popularity wouldn't have been as great without Penn State.

In the 90's, they could have added a 12th team along with Penn State. They could have easily added Pittsburgh who could have been PSU's rival in the conference. Or they could have brought in Syracuse who in 1987 went 11-0-1, tying Auburn in the 1988 Sugar Bowl and would have given the Big Ten another Eastern state along with Pennsylvania and Syracuse would have helped the Big Ten's presence in New York City, especially during men's basketball season. For years, Penn State was an Eastern team on an island and to the day many old school Big Ten fans still think we don't belong in the Big Ten. Had they brought another Eastern school along with Penn State back in the 1990's, maybe that attitude changes. The Big Ten also gets their conference championship game. The SEC Championship Game was a big winner for them. The Big Ten was a good 20 years too late and it hurt us. All we needed was a 12th team to get one. What would the landscape/dynamic between the Big Ten and SEC be if the Big Ten Championship Game started in the 1990's? What if Penn State had their Eastern rival in the 90's instead of being an island for over two decades? I would say they could have always brought in Notre Dame but it's obvious they tried and weren't interested.

ACC:
Introduced Florida State. People have said Duke and North Carolina were against expansion and cared more about (men's) basketball than football (still do). The move put the ACC on the football map and gave them a presence in Florida which they still have today. At the time Miami went to the Big East instead but in 2004 Miami eventually came to the ACC. Unfortunately for the ACC, they got Miami too late as all of Miami's great teams were during their Big East days. It would have been a scary ACC had they been able to get both Florida State and Miami at the same time when both teams were at their peak. I don't know of the negotiations between both Florida State and Miami and the SEC. From what I read, Florida State turned down the SEC. I'm not sure about Miami. Today any team turning down the SEC would be insane. It tells you how much different the world was back in the early 90's.

Big East:
The 80's Big East most remember was a nine team conference with Boston College, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse playing "major" college football. Then the Big East was able to convince Miami to join as a full member in all sports and then started a football conference with four other football only members: Rutgers, Temple, Virginia Tech, and West Virginia. The conference then gave Rutgers and West Virginia the go ahead to become full members in 1995, followed by Virginia Tech in 2000. Of course Temple never got full membership and instead got the boot in football. I still hold a grudge towards the Big East for that. Certainly the Big Ten and/or ACC could have had Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and/or Miami. If that happens, maybe the Big East never tries their hand at football and a "Metro" football conference forms instead with the likes of the Big East football members, Louisville, Cincinnati, and Memphis.

Big 12:
Finally the Big 8 becomes the Big 12 by adding four members.

quo vadis said at the other thread "The irony is that what ESPN should be writing about is the 25th anniversary of the last games of the Big 8. Because even though formally the SWC was dissolving and four members were joining the Big 8 to form the Big 12, what the passage of time has shown is that in the most important senses, culturally and economically, it is the culture and spirit of the SWC that has come to characterize the Big 12 and it is the essence of the Big 8 that has been lost. The Big 8 thought it was swallowing the SWC, but the opposite happened. That's why Colorado and Nebraska fled a decade ago."

jedclampett wrote at a different thread: https://csnbbs.com/thread-911884-post-17...id17135400

"The Big 8 had a regional identity.

Adding the Texas schools was a mistake (and it screwed over UH, SMU, & Rice).

Now, it's the Texas schools, the remaining Big 8's and........WVU (?)

The SWC would have been better off staying together.

It was the most colossally disastrous realignment in the history of college sports.

The whole thing was bungled."

Of the five conferences that made changes in the 1990's (the then Pac-10 stood pat), the Big 12 would have to be considered a lot more unsuccessful than the Big Ten, SEC, and ACC (the Big Ten and SEC haven't lost any members and the ACC only lost Maryland). The Big East as a football conference also failed (or today you can argue it's the AAC but no Miami, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, or Boston College).

The then Pac-10 stood pat in the 1990's but there was rumors that Texas was going there. Would they have had a "Pac 11" or would Colorado have joined and made it 12? Would Texas have gone to the SEC with Texas A&M? If the Texas politicians hadn't kept their butts out where they didn't belong, how about a 10 team "Big 8" (they'd have no reason to call it Big 12 and they obviously couldn't have called it "Big 10") with just Texas and Texas A&M? Nebraska, Texas A&M, and Missouri might still be there today. Blame Bob Bullock. You can argue he single handily ruined 1990's college realignment.

Use this thread to play more "what if's" to your heart's content:)

Miami also turned the SEC down.

(12-06-2020 08:24 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 06:40 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 06:27 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The ironic thing to me was the Big Metro idea. Now obviously South Carolina and Florida State were not going to join with the options they had but the Big Metro teams did meet and it appeared that things might come together with the alliance but Louisville took what today we call a Texas approach. They wanted limited revenue sharing and they didn't want to commit to playing more than 6 league games so they could pursue a national schedule and they weren't crazy about being tied to whatever bowl would be available because most bowls still had one or both sides at-large. The Big East was content to see their members join football only because it would save them hassles and there was concern among the hoops members that some schools they deemed undesirable getting brand advantage by being Big East even if it were football only.

Once the deal fell apart, the Big East stepped up and soon enough Louisville was pursuing Big East because of the bowl coalition, bowl alliance and BCS.

The trouble with the Metro 16 was it was simply too big, and, since it was sponsored by the Metro, it included a lot of schools that weren’t going to be big football contributors. Had you started with a core of Florida St, Miami, SC, and WVU and built around that with conceivably football only memberships for the Big East’s 3 schools and a total of just 8-10 football programs it might have worked.

The problem I think is more fundamental. There are 5-6 conferences that match the 5-6 cultures of people in the United States. Only by being in one of those conferences are you "settled" and at home.

You have the Tidewater/Eastern Upper South (ACC) - the Heart is Greensboro to Richmond)

You have the Midwest (B10) - the heart is Chicago
You have the South (SEC) - the heart is Birmingham
You have the West Coast (P12) - the heart is SF
You have the Plains (Big 8) - the heart was Kansas City
You have Texas (SWC) - the heart was Dallas
You have the Northeast (Big East) - the heart was NYC to Philly
You have the Rocky Mountains (MW) - the heart was SLC

Constructs like the Metro are not natural so they do not survive well. The Northeast turned it's back on college sports and the only natural, cultural group was too elite to continue (the Ivy League). Modern farming methods decimated the relative populations of the Plains they could not survive on their own. Too much ego in Texas meant certain entities could not co-exist. The Rockies still are not populated enough to be a discrete cultural region. It's difficult to survive and thrive outside your cultural region because your value systems are different.

The two major problems that come out of this demographic information in conference formation:
1-there are not enough football playing schools in the northeast to support a viable league
2-there is not enough population in the plains states to support a conference in the modern television era

Most of the conflicts seem to revolve around cobbling pieces of these areas onto other areas and in a rush to grab "territory" some schools attached themselves to areas where they truly didn't fit.

(12-06-2020 11:14 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 02:48 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 01:01 PM)schmolik Wrote:  Recently ESPN discussed the 25th anniversary of the last day of college football in the old Southwest Conference (https://csnbbs.com/thread-911865.html). The SWC was a casualty of a chain of realignment moves that lasted throughout the decade that changed college sports and college football dramatically.

Back in the 1980's, many major college football teams, especially in the East, still were independent and the Big East did not sponsor football. I graduated from high school in 1991. At that time,

The Big 10 literally had 10 teams. For those of you here who are too young to remember, I'm not kidding!

There was a conference called the Big 8! And they add, get this, 8 teams!

You know who else had 8 teams? The ACC!

By the end of the decade, there was a whole new college football/college sports world. We can discuss the moves and the long term effects.

SEC:
Invited Arkansas and South Carolina and introduced the football conference championship game. They made 12 the "magic number". Interestingly it took until 1996 (Big 12) for another conference to follow suit. The MAC followed in 1997 but the next "power" conference to do so was the ACC in 2005. The Big Ten and Pac-12 didn't get championship games until 2011.

In the ESPN article, former Arkansas football HC mentioned that the SEC had eyes on Texas, Texas A&M, and Florida State, saying " Roy Kramer was going for the whole enchilada now. He was going for all the television markets because that's all it was about. It was about television. It was about going to get the TV contract and sharing the revenue."

No offense to Arkansas and South Carolina but when you have your sights set on Texas, Texas A&M, and Florida State and come back with Arkansas and South Carolina, you don't look really good. The SEC did of course get their championship game and in the 2010's eventually got Texas A&M anyway. But if they were able to get the schools back then, maybe South Carolina isn't in the SEC right now. What combinations could they have gotten between the schools?

Roy Kramer took Arkansas with the hope of getting Texas and Texas A&M in the future. This was the original plan. When both Texas teams declined, the SEC decided to pursue Florida State, who had tried to join unsuccessfully before and had moved on to serious discussions with the ACC. Having failed on all three targets, the University of Georgia stepped in and recommended the University of South Carolina, an old rival, for membership.

Quote:Big Ten:
Invited Penn State. I'm of course biased but the move expanded the Big Ten's presence on the East Coast and gave PSU rivals with Ohio State and Michigan and the Big Ten a trio of top and popular teams rather than the old pair of just OSU and Michigan. Back then, Wisconsin wasn't the Wisconsin today although Iowa was better. The Big Ten right now paid their conference members on average the most revenue in college sports, more than the SEC. Once the SEC gets away from their bargain SEC on CBS contract the SEC will take the lead but who knows maybe the Big Ten will get a bump too? But I believe the Big Ten's popularity wouldn't have been as great without Penn State.

In the 90's, they could have added a 12th team along with Penn State. They could have easily added Pittsburgh who could have been PSU's rival in the conference. Or they could have brought in Syracuse who in 1987 went 11-0-1, tying Auburn in the 1988 Sugar Bowl and would have given the Big Ten another Eastern state along with Pennsylvania and Syracuse would have helped the Big Ten's presence in New York City, especially during men's basketball season. For years, Penn State was an Eastern team on an island and to the day many old school Big Ten fans still think we don't belong in the Big Ten. Had they brought another Eastern school along with Penn State back in the 1990's, maybe that attitude changes. The Big Ten also gets their conference championship game. The SEC Championship Game was a big winner for them. The Big Ten was a good 20 years too late and it hurt us. All we needed was a 12th team to get one. What would the landscape/dynamic between the Big Ten and SEC be if the Big Ten Championship Game started in the 1990's? What if Penn State had their Eastern rival in the 90's instead of being an island for over two decades? I would say they could have always brought in Notre Dame but it's obvious they tried and weren't interested.

They could have tried to get Pittsburgh, but Pittsburgh was not interested. It sounds crazy, but Rutgers or Temple might have come to give PSU that eastern rival. Maybe the Big Ten should have given Maryland a look back then. Long story short, there was not a whole lot of candidates to choose from back then. Unless,... the Big Ten was willing to take a gamble on Virginia Tech!! But with no rivalries for the Hokies, it definitely would have been a reach.

Quote:ACC:
Introduced Florida State. People have said Duke and North Carolina were against expansion and cared more about (men's) basketball than football (still do). The move put the ACC on the football map and gave them a presence in Florida which they still have today. At the time Miami went to the Big East instead but in 2004 Miami eventually came to the ACC. Unfortunately for the ACC, they got Miami too late as all of Miami's great teams were during their Big East days. It would have been a scary ACC had they been able to get both Florida State and Miami at the same time when both teams were at their peak. I don't know of the negotiations between both Florida State and Miami and the SEC. From what I read, Florida State turned down the SEC. I'm not sure about Miami. Today any team turning down the SEC would be insane. It tells you how much different the world was back in the early 90's.

The SEC was doing too much Texas dreamin' (shameless pun on the song "California Dreamin'") to even give Miami-FL a sniff back then. When they finally did gauge the 'Canes interest, the 'Canes had already moved on from any SEC ambitious.

What would have been better, IMO, is to have went after Arkansas, Texas, and TAMU back in '84 or even '82. Assuming both Texas schools balk, as before, the SEC would have had time to lick its wounds and pride, and really pursue Florida State.

Actually A&M said yes in 1989. But the Pac 10 balked at the last minute on Texas, so both agreed to stay in the SWC. You would have had a Pac 12 with Texas instead of Utah and an SEC-12 with A&M instead of South Carolina.

Tech had some influence in the legislature, but not nearly as much as in 1994. Baylor had very little. Plus, they had a few years of rumors to gear up to fight changes that didn't go their way.

(12-07-2020 05:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  Miami also turned the SEC down.

I think that this is less than clear. There is good reason to think that the SEC preferred adding a state school and that Miami's colorful reputation was not viewed as a good cultural fit for the SEC.

In general, it is useful to keep in mind that the 1990 realignment, like all others since then, was driven by the desire to improve the television value of each conference, which started with the US Supreme Court ruling in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma.

My timeline of 1990's realignment:

12/15/89 Penn State joins the Big Ten
2/6/90 Notre Dame signs a five year television deal with NBC
8/1/90 Arkansas joins the SEC
9/13/90 Florida State joins the ACC
9/25/90 South Carolina joins the SEC
10/10/90 Miami joins the Big East
12/13/90 The Big East Football Conference is formed
(Temple, Rutgers, West Virginia and Virginia Tech join for football only)

2/11/94 The SEC signs a television contract with CBS breaking with the CFA
2/15/94 The Big East signs a television contract with CBS breaking with the CFA
2/25/94 The Big 12 Conference is formed
3/9/94 Rutgers and West Virginia join the Big East as full members
4/22/94 TCU, SMU, Rice, Tulsa, San Jose St. and UNLV join the WAC
7/11/94 Notre Dame joins the Big East in all sports except football
1/95 Conference USA is formed

1999 The Mountain West Conference is formed
5/26/99 Virginia Tech joins the Big East as a full member
10/11/99 TCU joins Conference USA

Really it was only the 2010s realignment that broke up geography. Only BC in the ACC was really outside their region at that point. I hated losing Nebraska from the Big 12, but even 2010 wasn't that bad geographically, with CU and Utah to make the Pac 12 and Nebraska to make the Big 10 twelve and Big 12 ten.

I’m curious as to why Texas was opposed to moving to the SEC with Arkansas, TAMU, and potentially 1-3 others (Oklahoma, TTU, Florida St, Clemson, SC?) but was okay with the merger with the Big 8.

I wonder how much Florida St’s decision to shun the SEC weighed on Texas/TAMU’s decision to stay put for the time being. Would the fact that the SEC had grabbed a very attractive Eastern add as well as one of their conference mates changed anything?

(12-07-2020 02:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m curious as to why Texas was opposed to moving to the SEC with Arkansas, TAMU, and potentially 1-3 others (Oklahoma, TTU, Florida St, Clemson, SC?) but was okay with the merger with the Big 8.

I wonder how much Florida St’s decision to shun the SEC weighed on Texas/TAMU’s decision to stay put for the time being. Would the fact that the SEC had grabbed a very attractive Eastern add as well as one of their conference mates changed anything?

Some combination of academic snobbery (Big 8 had 5 AAU members [Kansas, Colorado, Missouri, Iowa St., Nebraska] versus just Florida and Vanderbilt in the SEC) and being a big dog versus having to share power.

Texas and OU are of a like mind on most things, so a very different power dynamic versus Texas having to share power with Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and LSU.

(12-07-2020 02:50 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(12-07-2020 02:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m curious as to why Texas was opposed to moving to the SEC with Arkansas, TAMU, and potentially 1-3 others (Oklahoma, TTU, Florida St, Clemson, SC?) but was okay with the merger with the Big 8.

I wonder how much Florida St’s decision to shun the SEC weighed on Texas/TAMU’s decision to stay put for the time being. Would the fact that the SEC had grabbed a very attractive Eastern add as well as one of their conference mates changed anything?

Some combination of academic snobbery (Big 8 had 5 AAU members [Kansas, Colorado, Missouri, Iowa St., Nebraska] versus just Florida and Vanderbilt in the SEC) and being a big dog versus having to share power.

Texas and OU are of a like mind on most things, so a very different power dynamic versus Texas having to share power with Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and LSU.

The hope now is that since the SEC now has more AAU members than the Big 12 (SEC: Florida, Vanderbilt, Texas A&M, Missouri vs. Big 12: Texas, Kansas and Iowa State) academic snobbery is not a factor anymore. Of course the "share power" is still an issue.

(12-07-2020 03:39 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(12-07-2020 02:50 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(12-07-2020 02:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m curious as to why Texas was opposed to moving to the SEC with Arkansas, TAMU, and potentially 1-3 others (Oklahoma, TTU, Florida St, Clemson, SC?) but was okay with the merger with the Big 8.

I wonder how much Florida St’s decision to shun the SEC weighed on Texas/TAMU’s decision to stay put for the time being. Would the fact that the SEC had grabbed a very attractive Eastern add as well as one of their conference mates changed anything?

Some combination of academic snobbery (Big 8 had 5 AAU members [Kansas, Colorado, Missouri, Iowa St., Nebraska] versus just Florida and Vanderbilt in the SEC) and being a big dog versus having to share power.

Texas and OU are of a like mind on most things, so a very different power dynamic versus Texas having to share power with Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and LSU.

The hope now is that since the SEC now has more AAU members than the Big 12 (SEC: Florida, Vanderbilt, Texas A&M, Missouri vs. Big 12: Texas and Iowa State) academic snobbery is not a factor anymore. Of course the "share power" is still an issue.

The Big 12 also has Kansas.

(12-07-2020 02:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m curious as to why Texas was opposed to moving to the SEC with Arkansas, TAMU, and potentially 1-3 others (Oklahoma, TTU, Florida St, Clemson, SC?) but was okay with the merger with the Big 8.

I wonder how much Florida St’s decision to shun the SEC weighed on Texas/TAMU’s decision to stay put for the time being. Would the fact that the SEC had grabbed a very attractive Eastern add as well as one of their conference mates changed anything?

I believe Texas and Texas A&M were concerned with the political blowback if they tried to abandon the other Texas schools.

(12-07-2020 02:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m curious as to why Texas was opposed to moving to the SEC with Arkansas, TAMU, and potentially 1-3 others (Oklahoma, TTU, Florida St, Clemson, SC?) but was okay with the merger with the Big 8.

I wonder how much Florida St’s decision to shun the SEC weighed on Texas/TAMU’s decision to stay put for the time being. Would the fact that the SEC had grabbed a very attractive Eastern add as well as one of their conference mates changed anything?

Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri and Iowa St. were AAU. There was concern SEC schools would admit players who wouldn't even be considered in SWC schools. Plus there was a perception there was more cheating going on in the SEC even than the SWC.

(12-07-2020 06:16 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 08:24 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 06:40 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-06-2020 06:27 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The ironic thing to me was the Big Metro idea. Now obviously South Carolina and Florida State were not going to join with the options they had but the Big Metro teams did meet and it appeared that things might come together with the alliance but Louisville took what today we call a Texas approach. They wanted limited revenue sharing and they didn't want to commit to playing more than 6 league games so they could pursue a national schedule and they weren't crazy about being tied to whatever bowl would be available because most bowls still had one or both sides at-large. The Big East was content to see their members join football only because it would save them hassles and there was concern among the hoops members that some schools they deemed undesirable getting brand advantage by being Big East even if it were football only.

Once the deal fell apart, the Big East stepped up and soon enough Louisville was pursuing Big East because of the bowl coalition, bowl alliance and BCS.

The trouble with the Metro 16 was it was simply too big, and, since it was sponsored by the Metro, it included a lot of schools that weren’t going to be big football contributors. Had you started with a core of Florida St, Miami, SC, and WVU and built around that with conceivably football only memberships for the Big East’s 3 schools and a total of just 8-10 football programs it might have worked.

The problem I think is more fundamental. There are 5-6 conferences that match the 5-6 cultures of people in the United States. Only by being in one of those conferences are you "settled" and at home.

You have the Tidewater/Eastern Upper South (ACC) - the Heart is Greensboro to Richmond)

You have the Midwest (B10) - the heart is Chicago
You have the South (SEC) - the heart is Birmingham
You have the West Coast (P12) - the heart is SF
You have the Plains (Big 8) - the heart was Kansas City
You have Texas (SWC) - the heart was Dallas
You have the Northeast (Big East) - the heart was NYC to Philly
You have the Rocky Mountains (MW) - the heart was SLC

Constructs like the Metro are not natural so they do not survive well. The Northeast turned it's back on college sports and the only natural, cultural group was too elite to continue (the Ivy League). Modern farming methods decimated the relative populations of the Plains they could not survive on their own. Too much ego in Texas meant certain entities could not co-exist. The Rockies still are not populated enough to be a discrete cultural region. It's difficult to survive and thrive outside your cultural region because your value systems are different.

The two major problems that come out of this demographic information in conference formation:
1-there are not enough football playing schools in the northeast to support a viable league
2-there is not enough population in the plains states to support a conference in the modern television era

Most of the conflicts seem to revolve around cobbling pieces of these areas onto other areas and in a rush to grab "territory" some schools attached themselves to areas where they truly didn't fit.

An interesting caveat about your first point is that the lack of high level football programs in the Northeast was brought about because there was once an over abundance of them:

There used to be the 8 Ivies, Army, Navy, Holy Cross, Fordham, Villanova, Temple, Pitt, Penn St, Syracuse, Rutgers, WVU, BC, and maybe a few others like Lafayette, Lehigh, Carnegie Tech, and Duquesne all vying for fans and recruits. They canabalized each other and by 1989 there really wasn’t enough there to build a true conference of all major programs.

Point #2 is very true too. Had Oklahoma and Oklahoma stayed in the SWC in the 1920s there really wouldn’t have been a Big 8. I think the best of Nebraska/Missouri/Iowa St/Kansas/Kansas St would have begged their way into the Big 10 or melded into a half Great Plains/half Rocky Mountain Conference with Colorado, BYU, Utah, etc.

(12-07-2020 03:39 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(12-07-2020 02:50 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(12-07-2020 02:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m curious as to why Texas was opposed to moving to the SEC with Arkansas, TAMU, and potentially 1-3 others (Oklahoma, TTU, Florida St, Clemson, SC?) but was okay with the merger with the Big 8.

I wonder how much Florida St’s decision to shun the SEC weighed on Texas/TAMU’s decision to stay put for the time being. Would the fact that the SEC had grabbed a very attractive Eastern add as well as one of their conference mates changed anything?

Some combination of academic snobbery (Big 8 had 5 AAU members [Kansas, Colorado, Missouri, Iowa St., Nebraska] versus just Florida and Vanderbilt in the SEC) and being a big dog versus having to share power.

Texas and OU are of a like mind on most things, so a very different power dynamic versus Texas having to share power with Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and LSU.

The hope now is that since the SEC now has more AAU members than the Big 12 (SEC: Florida, Vanderbilt, Texas A&M, Missouri vs. Big 12: Texas, Kansas and Iowa State) academic snobbery is not a factor anymore. Of course the "share power" is still an issue.

Both of those reasons make sense.

I think they also had a “Tech” problem. The 4 Western schools that the SEC. wanted were Texas, TAMU, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. Tech and Baylor didn’t have seats at the table.

(12-07-2020 10:05 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(12-07-2020 05:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  Miami also turned the SEC down.

I think that this is less than clear. There is good reason to think that the SEC preferred adding a state school and that Miami's colorful reputation was not viewed as a good cultural fit for the SEC.

In general, it is useful to keep in mind that the 1990 realignment, like all others since then, was driven by the desire to improve the television value of each conference, which started with the US Supreme Court ruling in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma.

My timeline of 1990's realignment:

12/15/89 Penn State joins the Big Ten
2/6/90 Notre Dame signs a five year television deal with NBC
8/1/90 Arkansas joins the SEC
9/13/90 Florida State joins the ACC
9/25/90 South Carolina joins the SEC
10/10/90 Miami joins the Big East
12/13/90 The Big East Football Conference is formed
(Temple, Rutgers, West Virginia and Virginia Tech join for football only)

2/11/94 The SEC signs a television contract with CBS breaking with the CFA
2/15/94 The Big East signs a television contract with CBS breaking with the CFA
2/25/94 The Big 12 Conference is formed
3/9/94 Rutgers and West Virginia join the Big East as full members
4/22/94 TCU, SMU, Rice, Tulsa, San Jose St. and UNLV join the WAC
7/11/94 Notre Dame joins the Big East in all sports except football
1/95 Conference USA is formed

1999 The Mountain West Conference is formed
5/26/99 Virginia Tech joins the Big East as a full member
10/11/99 TCU joins Conference USA

It’s kind of crazy to think that the movement of just 5 schools (and 4 others agreeing to a football only relationship) had such a monumental impact on the future of realignment.

The movements of just 4 of the 7 major conferences was enough to scare mighty Texas into blowing up their ancient home and ally with Oklahoma’s Big 8. Those opening moves in this 7 player Diplomacy game set the tone for everything that has happened since.

Oklahoma and Georgia spurred the realignment of the 90s by challenging the NCAA TV contract monopoly in court. It just accelerated when the CFA contract fell apart. Big 10 and Pac 10 had already done their own deal separate from the CFA. Between that, the Cowboys and the Oilers, the SWC was doomed.

The SWC hadn't done the pruning that the ACC did when they dropped some of their smaller and private members in 1953. Or the Big 8 when the 6 left the Missouri Valley. Or the Pac 12 when Montana left and Idaho got left behind. Or the self-pruning of the SEC when Suwanee, Tulane and Georgia Tech left.