I wonder what truth their was to that UCF AD Steve Sloan quote. Did he really think he was going to walk right into one of the 6 soon-to-be BCS conferences or was that a saving face comment to cover for the fact that UCF had been rejected by C-USA?

(05-26-2021 05:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I wonder what truth their was to that UCF AD Steve Sloan quote. Did he really think he was going to walk right into one of the 6 soon-to-be BCS conferences or was that a saving face comment to cover for the fact that UCF had been rejected by C-USA?

Apparently Louisville while organizing the conference had said UCF was crucial to CUSA 1.0 being successful. Turning down the invite was foolish and probably played a part in UCF being blocked from a Big East invite for so long (thanks Judy Genshaft).

(05-26-2021 09:09 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Had the PAC 10 added Colorado in 1994 would they have stopped there or gone to 12, hopefully with Texas?

I never realized that an actual invitation was received and voted down.

It would have been interesting to see A&M, Tech, and Baylor end up in a 10-team “Big 12” (do they keep the Big 8 name?)

Texas was going to the Big 12. Pac would have had to find a #12. Probably Utah.

(05-26-2021 02:07 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 01:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 12:20 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 12:31 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  You had Colorado folks putting the conference together, but also talking to the PAC. And then there was word that they were hurt by their desires of additional western members (UNM, Utah?) not getting invites.

1) Different people. Colorado boosters and administrators wanted to join the Pac-10 in 1994. The athletic director (and the football coach, behind the scenes) persuaded enough regents to vote to decline the invitation.

2) The powers-that-be at Colorado did not want Utah or New Mexico in the Big 12. They stayed at the time because the football coach (McCartney) thought CU belonged with Nebraska and Oklahoma rather than the Pac-10 teams, and because the AD (Marolt) thought he would lose face among his peers if CU joined the Pac-10 a few months after he helped put the Big 12 deal together.

I didn’t think it got as far as an invite because there was no suitable #12. Texas balked and BYU—despite on-field success—was a bit of a pariah even then. Utah was a non-starter and has grown since. SDSU outwardly campaigned for a spot, but was not seriously considered.

Wrong.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-...story.html

Quote:Colorado Votes to Stay in Big 12 :

Colleges: Pacific 10 Conference is rebuffed in attempt to expand.

By ELLIOTT ALMOND
DEC. 23, 1994 12 AM PT
TIMES STAFF WRITER

The Pacific 10 Conference’s hopes of expanding to the Rocky Mountains ended quickly Thursday when the University of Colorado rejected an invitation to join the league.

Colorado’s Board of Regents declined the offer with a 6-3 vote during an emergency meeting in Boulder, citing a commitment to the newly formed Big 12 Conference. Big Eight schools including Colorado agreed last February to form the superconference with four Texas refugees of the Southwest Conference.

Months later two of those no votes were replaced by people supporting the move. Colorado was exploring an invite for years, but the Pac 12 changed its mind and was reluctant to invite them without Texas.

(05-26-2021 02:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 12:59 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 12:20 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-25-2021 12:31 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  You had Colorado folks putting the conference together, but also talking to the PAC. And then there was word that they were hurt by their desires of additional western members (UNM, Utah?) not getting invites.

1) Different people. Colorado boosters and administrators wanted to join the Pac-10 in 1994. The athletic director (and the football coach, behind the scenes) persuaded enough regents to vote to decline the invitation.

2) The powers-that-be at Colorado did not want Utah or New Mexico in the Big 12. They stayed at the time because the football coach (McCartney) thought CU belonged with Nebraska and Oklahoma rather than the Pac-10 teams, and because the AD (Marolt) thought he would lose face among his peers if CU joined the Pac-10 a few months after he helped put the Big 12 deal together.

As to the first point, in hindsight, it just looks like contingency planning. Administrators on the ground putting the conference together but getting knocked about by the politics possibly jeopardizing the project.

Donors and university administrators wanted the invitation and got it. The regents were divided but voted no. Most likely the whole thing started a few years earlier when Stanford blocked an invitation the Pac was going to give to both CU and UT, and then in 1994 they convinced Stanford on an invitation to CU alone. Maybe the CU athletic department was also in favor at an earlier time and then changed their mind, who knows.

On the other point -- Utah was not even on anyone's radar, let alone a list of possible candidates, until Urban Meyer was there and UU won a BCS bowl in the 2004 season, followed by another one a few years after he left for Florida. New Mexico is okay academically but a non-starter for the Pac (or the Big 12, presumably) because UNM has historically not even been competitive in football in either the WAC or MWC. The Pac was prepared to have an 11-team conference with CU, just like the Big Ten played for 20 years with 11 teams. Whether or not any of this was a good idea can be debated.

Utah had a top 10 finish in the 1994 season. Colorado St. was #16 and BYU #18 that season.

(05-26-2021 05:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I wonder what truth their was to that UCF AD Steve Sloan quote. Did he really think he was going to walk right into one of the 6 soon-to-be BCS conferences or was that a saving face comment to cover for the fact that UCF had been rejected by C-USA?

He may have said that. That doesn't mean the CUSA considered them. I doubt that they did. USF had ties to the CUSA members through the Metro. UCF didn't.

(05-26-2021 05:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I wonder what truth their was to that UCF AD Steve Sloan quote. Did he really think he was going to walk right into one of the 6 soon-to-be BCS conferences or was that a saving face comment to cover for the fact that UCF had been rejected by C-USA?

Partly. He was definitely of the mind that you could play your way into the club with big wins. So he felt like an independent schedule loaded up on body bag games would permit UCF to have a chance at multiple program defining wins.

Additionally, UCF’s athletic department was very much a shoestring operation at the time, and CUSA costs were going to be a lot higher than the TAAC/A-Sun. This was a deterrent in and of itself. But also, the independent schedule was seen as generating more money with the better chance of big wins to energize the nascent fan base.

Also, Sloan was a football coach. He did not believe the other sports were at all important to expansion. He may well have been after a FB-only membership to the Big East like Tenple had.

To your last point, yes, UCF did have an offer from CUSA. I don’t know if it was formal or informal, but the administration did actively choose not to join CUSA. Obviously a giant mistake in hindsight, but given the financial difficulties, not as unreasonable of a decision as it now appears.

(05-26-2021 02:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  New Mexico is okay academically but a non-starter for the Pac (or the Big 12, presumably) because UNM has historically not even been competitive in football in either the WAC or MWC.

I suspect UNM may never move the PAC needle, but it did for the Big XII. Is the unnamed Big 8 person not in support Colorado here? Or are they those “others” who did support them?

That’s where this fascination/curiosity comes from for me. That UNM and BYU were there in the mix. Davalos, though, kinda being a dink about it. BYU being BYU: they were for this. Over the years, I’ve heard/read that Utah was also “in the mix” for the Big XII, but, toward the formation years or still caught in this possible exploration of 14, as Utah’s profile rose? Regardless, the Utes don’t have the kind of paper trail over this like UNM and BYU seem to have.

But if Colorado didn’t want them, then who pushed for western growth? Who wanted UNM? Basketball schools like Kansas?

What I guess I don’t understand is that both Texas and Colorado had their sights westward at varying points in the 90’s. And western schools that would have pushed the Big XII’s footprint that way appeared on the expansion/formation radar. But, these schools that looked west didn’t want these western schools? Or is it like what happened within the PAC vote at Colorado: one group wanted western growth and the other didn’t want them. There’s definitely more than one narrative for Colorado here, I feel.

Regarding UCF and C-USA, I wonder if C-USA saw them as a full member or just a football affiliate? Maybe UCF wanted nothing less than full membership in 1996.

UCF would have been the 13th school overall. I wonder who’d be #14? ECU? TCU?

(05-26-2021 03:34 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 01:18 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-24-2021 01:23 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(05-24-2021 08:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  If you’ve watched LOST, I subscribe to their “Whatever happened, *happened*” course correction theory of time travel when applied to conference realignment. That is, even if you went back and changed the past (whether or not forming the Big 12 or adding Penn State to the Big East in the 1980s), we’d end up in the exact same place today. This is in contrast to the butterfly effect theory of time travel (what was applied in Back to the Future) that any tiny change to the past can have huge changes to the future.

The schools with the most freedom to move without little brothers - Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri - would have been the same regardless of whether the Big 12 was formed. Texas would still have outsized influence while Texas A&M would still have had the market power to either join Texas or go elsewhere. The Big Ten and SEC would look for the same type of increasing of power over the past 30 years. No matter what conference permutations you could think of in the 1980s and 1990s, I firmly believe that we’d be in the exact same place today. In conference realignment, whatever happened, *happened*.

How about we go back to 1953 and the ACC succeeds with the plan of adding Florida, Georgia, and Georgia Tech? Penn was the 12th team, but maybe that does or doesn't happen with the Ivy League. Maybe Penn State becomes the 12th member post-segregation, or else WVU, VT, or even someone random like Delaware or William & Mary. You still think we end up with the same alignments that we have right now?

Where did you read that?

From a link that you posted:

https://virginia.sportswar.com/article/2...ce-part-3/

League officials even began talking about following the lead of the Pacific Coast Conference by creating a Northern and Southern Division. Most presumed that Penn, Maryland, Virginia, Wake Forest, and Duke would be in the North, with NC State, UNC, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Georgia, and Florida in the South.

I thought it looked familiar!

(05-27-2021 06:01 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 02:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  New Mexico is okay academically but a non-starter for the Pac (or the Big 12, presumably) because UNM has historically not even been competitive in football in either the WAC or MWC.

I suspect UNM may never move the PAC needle, but it did for the Big XII. Is the unnamed Big 8 person not in support Colorado here? Or are they those “others” who did support them?

That’s where this fascination/curiosity comes from for me. That UNM and BYU were there in the mix. Davalos, though, kinda being a dink about it. BYU being BYU: they were for this. Over the years, I’ve heard/read that Utah was also “in the mix” for the Big XII, but, toward the formation years or still caught in this possible exploration of 14, as Utah’s profile rose? Regardless, the Utes don’t have the kind of paper trail over this like UNM and BYU seem to have.

But if Colorado didn’t want them, then who pushed for western growth? Who wanted UNM? Basketball schools like Kansas?

What I guess I don’t understand is that both Texas and Colorado had their sights westward at varying points in the 90’s. And western schools that would have pushed the Big XII’s footprint that way appeared on the expansion/formation radar. But, these schools that looked west didn’t want these western schools? Or is it like what happened within the PAC vote at Colorado: one group wanted western growth and the other didn’t want them. There’s definitely more than one narrative for Colorado here, I feel.

New Mexico had a history with Texas Tech. They were one of the top 10 schools in basketball attendance from the 60s until recently. They were a flagship. And the state has grown slowly relative to the rest of the west, so the market looked relatively better in 1994 than 2021.

(05-27-2021 06:30 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Regarding UCF and C-USA, I wonder if C-USA saw them as a full member or just a football affiliate? Maybe UCF wanted nothing less than full membership in 1996.

UCF would have been the 13th school overall. I wonder who’d be #14? ECU? TCU?

FB-only would have made more sense to me. I think Steve Sloan might still have turned that down because he thought a few big wins could get us into the Big East as FB-only. But my understanding is that the offer was for all-sports, which is where the lower costs of the TAAC/A-Sun made a lot more sense for UCF at the time.

Obviously Sloan realized his mistake too late, and UCF ended up joining the MAC as FB-only (so damned weird to think about that now). At least the MAC was really good back then with a bunch of loaded teams.

Quite honestly, Dr. Hitt, the UCF president, did not understand how to use athletics to build the university until well in his tenure. The CUSA decision was made when he was on the job just a few years, and he did not consider athletics a priority. If he had, he'd have found the money to make CUSA happen and/or better understood what conference expansion truly entailed. I think both he and Sloan (both former FB players) thought that expansion was around winning on the football field and not all the revenue, infrastructure, and other concerns that we now know are part of it. Getting left out of the Big East in favor of USF was what jolted Hitt into action in upgrading UCF's facilities and committing to strong athletics.

But even then, he still made some mistakes in the conference expansion game. He hired Keith Tribble as AD on the basis of his relationships with Big East ADs from being the director of the Orange Bowl. And, in fact, Tribble had recommended the Big East add USF over UCF because of his friendship with LeRoy Selmon. So between that and being a Gator, it was an awful hire to begin with, not to mention that directing a bowl game has little to do with running a burgeoning athletic department. But it shows that Hitt still thought that relationships were key and that UCF could just lobby their way into the Big East. Clearly getting an AD who was a stud fundraiser and could fill the seats was what finally made the difference, and that's what he should have been looking for in 2006/7 when Tribble was hired.

Compare all of this to USF making the right decisions early on to join the best conference available to them and to carefully align themselves with good football schools. Another inexplicable UCF decision was to reject the state building an arena just like the Sun Dome in favor of staying in the small arena that we had until 2007. That was a major facility issue for the Big East, and the only option UCF had was to offer to play Big East games at the Magic's arena. I think that really helped USF pull ahead along with their existing relationships with Cincy and Louisville.

Sorry to ramble, but my last point about USF's relationships also brings up another interesting what-if. I have it on good authority that Virginia Tech was pro-UCF, and that we would have gotten into the Big East in 2003 (for the 2005 season) over USF. But when UVA made their power play at the direction of the governor to get VT invited over Syracuse, that ended that. So if the politicians don't get involved, UCF would have likely been in over USF. Or at least gotten FB-only in addition to USF.

(05-27-2021 06:01 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 02:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  New Mexico is okay academically but a non-starter for the Pac (or the Big 12, presumably) because UNM has historically not even been competitive in football in either the WAC or MWC.

I suspect UNM may never move the PAC needle, but it did for the Big XII. Is the unnamed Big 8 person not in support Colorado here? Or are they those “others” who did support them?

That’s where this fascination/curiosity comes from for me. That UNM and BYU were there in the mix. Davalos, though, kinda being a dink about it. BYU being BYU: they were for this. Over the years, I’ve heard/read that Utah was also “in the mix” for the Big XII, but, toward the formation years or still caught in this possible exploration of 14, as Utah’s profile rose? Regardless, the Utes don’t have the kind of paper trail over this like UNM and BYU seem to have.

But if Colorado didn’t want them, then who pushed for western growth? Who wanted UNM? Basketball schools like Kansas?

What I guess I don’t understand is that both Texas and Colorado had their sights westward at varying points in the 90’s. And western schools that would have pushed the Big XII’s footprint that way appeared on the expansion/formation radar. But, these schools that looked west didn’t want these western schools? Or is it like what happened within the PAC vote at Colorado: one group wanted western growth and the other didn’t want them. There’s definitely more than one narrative for Colorado here, I feel.

What I had read was that at first, the Big 8 initially wanted to merge all the SWC members into an 16 team conference, but UT and A&M were not in favor of that. Plan B was to invite only UT and A&M and add two team out west (I always heard they were considering BYU and UNM, but it could have been Utah) until the Texas legislature kind of forced Tech and Baylor to be taken.

(05-26-2021 12:55 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Another question to ponder is what happens to TCU, SMU, Rice, and Tulane and neither the WAC nor C-USA wanted them for the 1996 season?

Tulsa might have pulled to get the 3 SWC refugees added to the MVC for Olympic sports but that doesn’t solve the football problem. Maybe a few years of independence before eventually getting a C-USA invitation?

One option would have been to raid the Big West: Nevada, Utah State, Idaho, North Texas, Boise State, NMSU. North Texas and NMSU were full members of the Big West, although I doubt TCU and SMU would have wanted to share a conference with them. Louisiana Tech was a Sun Belt member playing as a I-A independent, so depending on how the SWC wanted to set itself up, it could have gone to twelve in football:

West - Nevada*, Utah State*, Idaho*, Boise State*, NMSU, Tulsa
East - TCU, SMU, Rice, Tulane, Louisiana Tech, North Texas

The SWC could have also left North Texas behind and taken Arkansas State, but I would expect that just hastens North Texas moving to the Sun Belt.

The Sun Belt would have been down to eight schools and likely gone ahead and admitted Louisiana-Monroe (Northeast Louisiana) from the Southland and Troy (State) from the Mid-Continent (now Summit), but it still would have been several years before the SBC sponsors football.

Of course if Tulane doesn't join C-USA in 1996, someone likely would have taken their spot to be the sixth football member. East Carolina would have been the likely choice.

With the WAC only having gone to 12 in 1996, the Mountain West never happens.

The Big West fails to reorganize as a bus league after the 2000 season, as five of its members sponsor FBS football (NMSU, Boise State, Idaho, Nevada, Utah State). However, the SWC-mainly TCU and Boise State-is not happy with the lack of competitiveness from NMSU and North Texas. The SWC convinces the Sun Belt to take them as full members, and agrees to schedule a bowl game against the Sun Belt's champion. The Sun Belt sponsors football starting in 2001:

Sun Belt 2001
NMSU, North Texas, Louisiana, ULM, Arkansas State, MTSU (non-football members: WKU, UALR, New Orleans, FIU, South Alabama, Denver)

SWC 2001
Boise State*, Idaho*, Nevada*, Utah State*, TCU, SMU, Rice, Tulsa, Louisiana Tech

WAC 2001
Pacific - Hawaii, SDSU, SJSU, Fresno State, UNLV, Utah
Mountain - BYU, Colorado State, Air Force, New Mexico, UTEP, Wyoming

CUSA 2001
Louisville, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Memphis, UAB, Southern Miss, Houston, Army*

Of course every conference ultimately has to work towards having eight full members. The SWC eventually settles on taking all four affiliates as full members. But now there's trouble in paradise: TCU jumps ship to C-USA.

Then of course, the great realignment of 2005 happens. C-USA loses Louisville, Cincinnati, and South Florida to the Big East, and replaces them with Central Florida, Marshall, and UTEP. The WAC replaces UTEP with TCU. C-USA replaces TCU with SMU. C-USA then straight up adds Rice, Tulane, and Tulsa to get to 12 themselves.

With the SWC basically left for dead (Louisiana Tech, Utah State, Idaho, Nevada, Boise State), the WAC expands to 14 to take Louisiana Tech as a travel partner for TCU, and Boise State for football competitiveness. Nevada is able to beg its way back into the Big West, and Idaho and Utah State join the Sun Belt as full members.

Sun Belt 2005
West - Idaho, Utah State, NMSU, North Texas, Arkansas State, Nevada (fb only)/Denver (non-fb), Little Rock (non-fb)
East - WKU, MTSU, FIU, Troy, Louisiana, ULM, South Alabama (non-fb), New Orleans (non-fb)

WAC 2005
Pacific - SDSU, SJSU, Fresno State, Hawaii, UNLV, Boise State, BYU
Mountain - New Mexico, Colorado State, Air Force, Wyoming, Utah, TCU, Louisiana Tech

The WAC ultimately loses BYU and Utah, and elects to stand pat at 12. They then lose TCU and Louisiana Tech, and opt for Nevada and Utah State. The Sun Belt works out an agreement with the Big Sky to take Idaho, but allow Idaho to play Sun Belt football for four years. South Alabama upgrades to FBS and stays in the Sun Belt.

Sun Belt 2012
West - NMSU, North Texas, Arkansas State, Louisiana, ULM, Idaho (fb only)/Little Rock (non-fb)
East - WKU, MTSU, FIU, FAU, Troy, South Alabama

WAC 2012
Pacific - SDSU, SJSU, Fresno State, Hawaii (fb only), UNLV, Boise State, Nevada
Mountain - New Mexico, Colorado State, Air Force, Wyoming, Utah State, TCU, Louisiana Tech

C-USA then responds to the Big East/American Athletic by expanding to 14 for the 2013 season. The Sun Belt responds with four additions from FCS.

C-USA 2013
West - UTEP, SMU, Rice, Louisiana Tech, Tulsa, North Texas, Tulane
East - Marshall, ECU, MTSU, FAU, UAB, Southern Miss, FIU

Sun Belt 2013
West - NMSU, Arkansas State, Louisiana, ULM, Texas State, Idaho (fb only)/Little Rock (non-fb)
East - WKU, Troy, South Alabama, Georgia State, Georgia Southern, App State

WAC 2013
Pacific - SDSU, SJSU, Fresno State, Hawaii (fb only), UNLV, Nevada
Mountain - New Mexico, Colorado State, Air Force, Wyoming, Utah State, Boise State

In 2014, C-USA loses East Carolina, Tulane, and Tulsa, and replaces them with WKU from the Sun Belt. The Sun Belt replaces WKU with Charlotte.

UMass temporarily assumes UAB's 2015 and 2016 schedule in C-USA, as UMass had planned to decline an invitation for full membership in the MAC. UMass becomes an independent starting with the 2017 season. In 2018, The Sun Belt replaces Idaho with Old Dominion; Idaho downgrades to FCS.

Coastal Carolina remains FCS.

Seattle, Utah Valley, UTRGV, and Chicago State toil on as the Great West; but are joined by Grand Canyon and Cal Baptist who are given waivers by the NCAA.

(05-28-2021 10:30 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 12:55 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Another question to ponder is what happens to TCU, SMU, Rice, and Tulane and neither the WAC nor C-USA wanted them for the 1996 season?

Tulsa might have pulled to get the 3 SWC refugees added to the MVC for Olympic sports but that doesn’t solve the football problem. Maybe a few years of independence before eventually getting a C-USA invitation?

One option would have been to raid the Big West: Nevada, Utah State, Idaho, North Texas, Boise State, NMSU. North Texas and NMSU were full members of the Big West, although I doubt TCU and SMU would have wanted to share a conference with them. Louisiana Tech was a Sun Belt member playing as a I-A independent, so depending on how the SWC wanted to set itself up, it could have gone to twelve in football:

West - Nevada*, Utah State*, Idaho*, Boise State*, NMSU, Tulsa
East - TCU, SMU, Rice, Tulane, Louisiana Tech, North Texas

The SWC could have also left North Texas behind and taken Arkansas State, but I would expect that just hastens North Texas moving to the Sun Belt.

The Sun Belt would have been down to eight schools and likely gone ahead and admitted Louisiana-Monroe (Northeast Louisiana) from the Southland and Troy (State) from the Mid-Continent (now Summit), but it still would have been several years before the SBC sponsors football.

Of course if Tulane doesn't join C-USA in 1996, someone likely would have taken their spot to be the sixth football member. East Carolina would have been the likely choice.

With the WAC only having gone to 12 in 1996, the Mountain West never happens.

The Big West fails to reorganize as a bus league after the 2000 season, as five of its members sponsor FBS football (NMSU, Boise State, Idaho, Nevada, Utah State). However, the SWC-mainly TCU and Boise State-is not happy with the lack of competitiveness from NMSU and North Texas. The SWC convinces the Sun Belt to take them as full members

You lost me here.

(05-28-2021 02:05 PM)Realigned Wrote:  

(05-27-2021 06:01 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-26-2021 02:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  New Mexico is okay academically but a non-starter for the Pac (or the Big 12, presumably) because UNM has historically not even been competitive in football in either the WAC or MWC.

I suspect UNM may never move the PAC needle, but it did for the Big XII. Is the unnamed Big 8 person not in support Colorado here? Or are they those “others” who did support them?

That’s where this fascination/curiosity comes from for me. That UNM and BYU were there in the mix. Davalos, though, kinda being a dink about it. BYU being BYU: they were for this. Over the years, I’ve heard/read that Utah was also “in the mix” for the Big XII, but, toward the formation years or still caught in this possible exploration of 14, as Utah’s profile rose? Regardless, the Utes don’t have the kind of paper trail over this like UNM and BYU seem to have.

But if Colorado didn’t want them, then who pushed for western growth? Who wanted UNM? Basketball schools like Kansas?

What I guess I don’t understand is that both Texas and Colorado had their sights westward at varying points in the 90’s. And western schools that would have pushed the Big XII’s footprint that way appeared on the expansion/formation radar. But, these schools that looked west didn’t want these western schools? Or is it like what happened within the PAC vote at Colorado: one group wanted western growth and the other didn’t want them. There’s definitely more than one narrative for Colorado here, I feel.

What I had read was that at first, the Big 8 initially wanted to merge all the SWC members into an 16 team conference, but UT and A&M were not in favor of that. Plan B was to invite only UT and A&M and add two team out west (I always heard they were considering BYU and UNM, but it could have been Utah) until the Texas legislature kind of forced Tech and Baylor to be taken.

Same. Full merger was out, Big 8 looked to the west, would look to the east for possible members 13 and 14, and then Texas politics "forced" Tech and Baylor. That's what stood.

As to "what could have been" had Baylor or Tech didn't get their push from the governor? I don't fully subscribe to UNM being *the* 13th place finisher in the end (or BYU for that matter). They come off as such given their name-dropping in these older articles and whatnot and the timing toward the official formation. It very well could have been one of the other SWC leftovers, like TCU or Houston. Or the rumored interest in Louisville and/or Memphis. Honestly, I've only ever heard about Utah's place in it all after both became PAC members; that Boulder liked them for membership in the original Big XII. Just never saw anything to back that up.

I had just moved to the Permian basin area during the SWC collapse and followed the news out of Lubbock religiously. The new Big 12 was indeed going to take New Mexico and BYU before Baylor and Tech scrambled like Hell. It seems weird to young posters who weren’t there buts it true. Ironically, New Mexico AD Rudy Davalos—who had just came over afte quitting as Houston's AD—didn’t really push that hard. BYU wanted it bad. Utah wasn’t considered.