In the early '90s, prior to the formation of the Big 12, there was some interest, if not mutual interest, in Colorado and Texas moving to the Pac-10. Also around this time, the Big Ten was apparently sniffing around in the Midwest for schools to add after they had picked up Penn State. Suppose, though, that the Pac-12 formed about 20 years early with the addition of CU and UT. Arkansas has already joined the SEC, so the Big 8 and SWC are left at 7 schools each. Merger discussions heat up, but without the centerpiece of UT on the table, little headway is made. Schools are looking for any escape they can find.

The Big Ten comes to the "rescue", inviting Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska to put their membership at 14. Texas had of course wanted A&M to come along with them to the Pac, but A&M wouldn't have any of that. Instead the SEC would benefit from the addition of A&M as well as Oklahoma. With their most valuable conference mates having left for greener pastures, the three Big 8 remnants join the rump SWC along with BYU.

Division I-A "Power" Conferences 1996

Big Ten
East: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue
West: Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Wisconsin

Protected crossover: Illinois/Northwestern

Pac-12
North: California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
South: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Texas, UCLA, USC

Protected crossovers: California/UCLA, Stanford/USC

SEC
Eastern: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee
Western: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Ole Miss, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Protected crossover: Tennessee/Vanderbilt

SWC
Baylor, BYU, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Rice, SMU, TCU, Texas Tech

The ACC and Big East are the same as in our timeline. The SWC is only arguably a power conference at this point and likely would have been excluded from the BCS.

Thoughts? The idea of UT being the only Texas school to move to the Pac seems improbable, of course. Perhaps Texas politicians would have intervened as they did in our timeline, forcing UT to bring along a couple little brothers (Texas Tech would be one, not sure that Baylor would have been acceptable to the Pac even back then). That alone might have torpedoed the deal though.

Gosh, I think my yard needs mowing…details at 11

Going to the P12 by itself violates the fundamental Texas business model - as many games as possible in the State.

Without an in-state partner and no B12, I think Texas goes with OU and TAMU and that Nebraska decides to go to the SEC instead of the B10.

SEC West:

Texas, TAMU, OU, Nebraska, Arkansas, Ole Miss, MSU, Vandy

SEC East:

LSU, Bama, Tennessee, Auburn, KY, SC, Florida, UGa

Of course that means the four have to go at one time. I think the B10 response is to add Mizzou and reach 12. (late 90's now) For the P12 only Kansas, Colorado, Utah, and Iowa State would be palatable of that which remained from the SWC and Big 8. Or course the B10 could also look at that 4.

The demographic lull in the upper mid west is not really clear to most until the early 2000's.

Here’s the scenario I think we would have seen had Stanford not blocked Texas:

Texas & Colorado to the PAC 10

Oklahoma & TAMU to the SEC

Big 12 forms with:
North: Iowa St, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, K St, Okla St
South: TCU, SMU, TTU, Baylor, Rice, Houston

I don’t see the Big 10 jumping into rescue anyone yet because their expansion vision still involved ND and loading up on prairie schools in 1996 would limit their options down the road.

Alternatively, I could see the Big 8 not accepting a full merger and only consenting to add 2-4 of the SWC schools, with Rice being the one most likely to be left out.

I'm an Iowa State fan and think their programs are in pretty good shape right now.

If the landscape cracked open in 1995-96 they might have ended up in the WAC or something. No value at all to anyone.

Now they're the current #3 in attendance in the Big 12 (would be #2 behind BYU in the revamped Big 12, would be 8th in the Big 10, 2nd in the ACC, 2nd in the Pac-12, 10th in the SEC).

I still wonder if now the program would have value to a four team Pac-central time zone takeover. AAU program that is above average in the two revenue sports that also has fans that are in the top third of the Power 5 in attendance numbers.

Originally only Texas and A&M were joining the Big 8 schools before Ann Richards and other politicians threatened the PUF money if Baylor and Tech were mot included.

A&M wanted to go SEC, but...

Would the SWC have survived if only A&M and Texas left? Doubtful

(02-04-2022 10:33 PM)EKUSteve Wrote:  Originally only Texas and A&M were joining the Big 8 schools before Ann Richards and other politicians threatened the PUF money if Baylor and Tech were mot included.

A&M wanted to go SEC, but...

Would the SWC have survived if only A&M and Texas left? Doubtful

Please. Ann Richards had nothing to do with it. It was Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock (and several other Tech and Baylor alums in the Texas House and Senate). And A&M was going to the SEC until Bullock took them to the woodshed.

I think the givens in this scenario are Texas and Colorado to the Pac and A&M joining Arkansas in the SEC. The questions are whether South Carolina joins the SEC and if so, who is #14? Houston? Or Oklahoma?

Big 10 was not interested at the time. They were still evaluating the impact of Penn St. They would not consider Texas. So the Big 8 minus Colorado and minus? OU would have had to expand.

What if the SEC had stayed in the Southern Conference? What if the Big Ten had never formed?

What if the world were made of pudding?

(02-04-2022 03:36 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  In the early '90s, prior to the formation of the Big 12, there was some interest, if not mutual interest, in Colorado and Texas moving to the Pac-10. Also around this time, the Big Ten was apparently sniffing around in the Midwest for schools to add after they had picked up Penn State. Suppose, though, that the Pac-12 formed about 20 years early with the addition of CU and UT. Arkansas has already joined the SEC, so the Big 8 and SWC are left at 7 schools each. Merger discussions heat up, but without the centerpiece of UT on the table, little headway is made. Schools are looking for any escape they can find.

The Big Ten comes to the "rescue", inviting Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska to put their membership at 14. Texas had of course wanted A&M to come along with them to the Pac, but A&M wouldn't have any of that. Instead the SEC would benefit from the addition of A&M as well as Oklahoma. With their most valuable conference mates having left for greener pastures, the three Big 8 remnants join the rump SWC along with BYU.

Division I-A "Power" Conferences 1996

And
Big Ten
East: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue
West: Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Wisconsin

Protected crossover: Illinois/Northwestern

Pac-12
North: California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
South: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Texas, UCLA, USC

Protected crossovers: California/UCLA, Stanford/USC

SEC
Eastern: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee
Western: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Ole Miss, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Protected crossover: Tennessee/Vanderbilt

SWC
Baylor, BYU, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Rice, SMU, TCU, Texas Tech

The ACC and Big East are the same as in our timeline. The SWC is only arguably a power conference at this point and likely would have been excluded from the BCS.

Thoughts? The idea of UT being the only Texas school to move to the Pac seems improbable, of course. Perhaps Texas politicians would have intervened as they did in our timeline, forcing UT to bring along a couple little brothers (Texas Tech would be one, not sure that Baylor would have been acceptable to the Pac even back then). That alone might have torpedoed the deal though.

Interesting.

Just reading the comments in this thread so far, it sounds like there were more roadblocks for Texas to the PAC.

So let's say that the PAC still took Colorado, but paired it with "some other team", but not someone from B8 or Swc (who that is, is debate-able, and can probably be left moot to the rest of this).

and let's say that SEC takes the two pairs of TX and TAMU, and OK and OK state - the state legislatures were in the mix during the last few realignments, and at least one partner would likely need to go with each.

Let's say the rest of your post happens. What changes?

Sec - the new teams to the west, probably Vanderbilt to the east

And the swc would need to add several members to get to 10-12.

It's an interesting idea.

Though thinking about it, if you look at things as they are now, if sec adds ok state, and B10 adds KS and Mo, and B12 adds the rest of the swc pieces not in P5 already, we're pretty much in that scenario.

And based upon various rumours they could very well come to pass.

What if ...

The Big 8 had said flat out they didn't want Texas Tech and Baylor, they only wanted Texas and Texas A&M.

The Pac 10 wasn't going to take Texas.

Where are Texas and Texas A&M? Do they go to the Big 8 alone and say screw you to Bullock? Do they go to the SEC together? Are they stuck in the SWC?

What if? What if? Now it looks like SMU and Rice may be the only Texas schools going to the PAC. The PAC may rival the Big 10 in AAU schools, and urban population centers. And SMU may have more income than TCU or TT or UH. (All speculation). How ironic would that be, given the fact that those schools (and others) deserved the death penalty just as much as SMU.

(02-05-2022 08:33 AM)schmolik Wrote:  What if ...

The Big 8 had said flat out they didn't want Texas Tech and Baylor, they only wanted Texas and Texas A&M.

The Pac 10 wasn't going to take Texas.

Where are Texas and Texas A&M? Do they go to the Big 8 alone and say screw you to Bullock? Do they go to the SEC together? Are they stuck in the SWC?

pi

This is an interesting concept—let’s call the new league the Central 10.

The SWC is left with 6—SMU, TCU, Houston, Tech, Rice, & Baylor.

Their survival depends largely on whether they can derail the C-USA merger. If Tulane commits to full membership in the SWC, C-USA football is dead. Perhaps Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, and USM then affiliate with the SWC.

They can’t survive with just 7 full members, so at some point they need to convert some football affiliates to full members or look elsewhere—Tulsa? WAC?

(02-05-2022 08:33 AM)schmolik Wrote:  What if ...

The Big 8 had said flat out they didn't want Texas Tech and Baylor, they only wanted Texas and Texas A&M.

The Pac 10 wasn't going to take Texas.

Where are Texas and Texas A&M? Do they go to the Big 8 alone and say screw you to Bullock? Do they go to the SEC together? Are they stuck in the SWC?

Maybe SWC invites OU and Oklahoma St.

OU and Texas were working together on that deal.

The formation of the Big 12 was precipitated by the withdrawal of the SEC and Big East from the CFA, leaving the Big 8 and SWC as the only remaining conference members. Both believed/knew that they could not, on their own, match the TV contract values being received by the SEC, B1G, P10 or Big East.

Texas, as always, was in the driver's seat. It had offers to go to the P10 or SEC with Texas A&M riding shotgun. This presented political challenges in Texas, though, as it would leave the remaining members of the SWC in a difficult spot. Joining the B12 allowed two additional Texas schools to find a power conference home since the B12 needed 12 members to host a CCG, a compromise that was politically salable in Texas.

Had Texas and Texas A&M opted for the P10 or SEC option, and been able to pull it off politically, the Big 8 would likely still have needed to expand to 12 anyway. The strongest candidates to join TTU and Baylor would likely have been Houston and TCU.

It is certainly possible that without Texas and Texas A&M as available members for the B12, some members of the Big 8 could have explored other options. For instance, Nebraska and Missouri may have lobbied for B1G membership and, assuming Texas went to the SEC, Colorado may have sought P10 membership.

(02-08-2022 09:14 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The formation of the Big 12 was precipitated by the withdrawal of the SEC and Big East from the CFA, leaving the Big 8 and SWC as the only remaining conference members. Both believed/knew that they could not, on their own, match the TV contract values being received by the SEC, B1G, P10 or Big East.

Texas, as always, was in the driver's seat. It had offers to go to the P10 or SEC with Texas A&M riding shotgun. This presented political challenges in Texas, though, as it would leave the remaining members of the SWC in a difficult spot. Joining the B12 allowed two additional Texas schools to find a power conference home since the B12 needed 12 members to host a CCG, a compromise that was politically salable in Texas.

Had Texas and Texas A&M opted for the P10 or SEC option, and been able to pull it off politically, the Big 8 would likely still have needed to expand to 12 anyway. The strongest candidates to join TTU and Baylor would likely have been Houston and TCU.

It is certainly possible that without Texas and Texas A&M as available members for the B12, some members of the Big 8 could have explored other options. For instance, Nebraska and Missouri may have lobbied for B1G membership and, assuming Texas went to the SEC, Colorado may have sought P10 membership.

Are you saying that Colorado would not have sought membership in the Pac if Texas had already accepted a Pac invite?