Let’s pretend for a moment that SEC expansion had gone differently in 1990. Texas and Texas A&M are both on board, and like in 1994, the cost is Texas Tech and Baylor. Arkansas and South Carolina round things out at 16:

East: Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, SC, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, Alabama
West: Ole Miss, Miss St, LSU, Arkansas, Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Baylor

Would this set up had worked? Could the SEC be enticed to sub out prime targets like FSU and Oklahoma to get a deal done?

how would a move like this shake up the rest of the college sports landscape?

It doesn't matter because Texas was not interested in the SEC at all back then. Texas wanted to hear all about Academics, which they got plenty of from the Pac, while the SEC bluntly stated that they only cared about Athletics. Ironically, the SEC did better both Athletically and Academically by adding OU and Missouri instead of Texas Tech and Baylor, though it did take us an extra 34 years...

it could have worked. We probably get the Sooners and another to go to 18.

(02-11-2023 04:20 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  It doesn't matter because Texas was not interested in the SEC at all back then. Texas wanted to hear all about Academics, which they got plenty of from the Pac, while the SEC bluntly stated that they only cared about Athletics. Ironically, the SEC did better both Athletically and Academically by adding OU and Missouri instead of Texas Tech and Baylor, though it did take us an extra 34 years...

Arkansas, A&M, and Texas were all coming to the SEC in 1990. Arkansas went first and the others to follow, but Bob Bullock and Co ruined it.

(02-11-2023 04:26 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 04:20 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  It doesn't matter because Texas was not interested in the SEC at all back then. Texas wanted to hear all about Academics, which they got plenty of from the Pac, while the SEC bluntly stated that they only cared about Athletics. Ironically, the SEC did better both Athletically and Academically by adding OU and Missouri instead of Texas Tech and Baylor, though it did take us an extra 34 years...

Arkansas, A&M, and Texas were all coming to the SEC in 1990. Arkansas went first and the others to follow, but Bob Bullock and Co ruined it.

Texas was not going to the SEC then. They talked a little but were much more interested in the Big 10 (no interest in expanding again yet) and Pac 10 who actually agreed, but Stanford vetoed at the last minute. A&M and Arkansas were going to the SEC and Texas to the Pac. CU probably also to the Pac. When Stanford vetoed, Texas and Texas A&M decided to stay put. Arkansas jumped.

Bob Bullock was 1993-4.

(02-11-2023 04:20 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  It doesn't matter because Texas was not interested in the SEC at all back then. Texas wanted to hear all about Academics, which they got plenty of from the Pac, while the SEC bluntly stated that they only cared about Athletics. Ironically, the SEC did better both Athletically and Academically by adding OU and Missouri instead of Texas Tech and Baylor, though it did take us an extra 34 years...

More wholly irrelevant BS. Texas had been in talks with the SEC since 1987.

As to the OP, the six were not the ones you listed. Texas, Texas A&M, Clemson, Florida, Arkansas and a silent partner for Texas which was Oklahoma.

The SEC never bluntly said it only cared about athletics. It's another internet BS talking point. The presidents of the SEC in considering candidates in 1990-2 applied academic standards in culling applications. The SEC position has remained the candidate has to make the conference members more money. academics is the secondary consideration, but it is and has always been a consideration.

This is two such posts of yours today, and one where Sactowndog provided a link to information you chided is a third.

(02-11-2023 04:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 04:26 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 04:20 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  It doesn't matter because Texas was not interested in the SEC at all back then. Texas wanted to hear all about Academics, which they got plenty of from the Pac, while the SEC bluntly stated that they only cared about Athletics. Ironically, the SEC did better both Athletically and Academically by adding OU and Missouri instead of Texas Tech and Baylor, though it did take us an extra 34 years...

Arkansas, A&M, and Texas were all coming to the SEC in 1990. Arkansas went first and the others to follow, but Bob Bullock and Co ruined it.

Texas was not going to the SEC then. They talked a little but were much more interested in the Big 10 (no interest in expanding again yet) and Pac 10 who actually agreed, but Stanford vetoed at the last minute. A&M and Arkansas were going to the SEC and Texas to the Pac. CU probably also to the Pac. When Stanford vetoed, Texas and Texas A&M decided to stay put. Arkansas jumped.

Bob Bullock was 1993-4.

We could not leave in 1990 without Texas (and maybe others?) or we would have. If Texas had left for the Pac then we could have gotten out though. Gene Stallings didn't start our desire for the SEC, I'd say that he was pretty representative of the average Aggie's feelings about conferences in those days: SEC>>everyone else. Kind of like it is today, actually.

(02-11-2023 04:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 04:20 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  It doesn't matter because Texas was not interested in the SEC at all back then. Texas wanted to hear all about Academics, which they got plenty of from the Pac, while the SEC bluntly stated that they only cared about Athletics. Ironically, the SEC did better both Athletically and Academically by adding OU and Missouri instead of Texas Tech and Baylor, though it did take us an extra 34 years...

More wholly irrelevant BS. Texas had been in talks with the SEC since 1987.

As to the OP, the six were not the ones you listed. Texas, Texas A&M, Clemson, Florida, Arkansas and a silent partner for Texas which was Oklahoma.

The SEC never bluntly said it only cared about athletics. It's another internet BS talking point. The presidents of the SEC in considering candidates in 1990-2 applied academic standards in culling applications. The SEC position has remained the candidate has to make the conference members more money. academics is the secondary consideration, but it is and has always been a consideration.

This is two such posts of yours today, and one where Sactowndog provided a link to information you chided is a third.

How do you know what was said to the Texas administration in 1990, or 1987, or earlier? I never said that Texas didn't TALK to the SEC, in fact they would have had to have talked to them to be told that Athletics were the important factor. Regardless of the exact verbiage, which, again, you do not know unless you were in the room, the feeling that Texas was given by the SEC was that Athletics were more important than Academics, whereas the feeling they got from the Pac was that they were at least co-equal, if not even primarily considering Academics.

I've said on numerous occasions that it's kind of funny that the SEC claims to consider "only" Athletics but that we always seem to bring in strong Academic institutions at the same time, and you've never corrected me. Why now?

(02-11-2023 05:00 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 04:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 04:20 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  It doesn't matter because Texas was not interested in the SEC at all back then. Texas wanted to hear all about Academics, which they got plenty of from the Pac, while the SEC bluntly stated that they only cared about Athletics. Ironically, the SEC did better both Athletically and Academically by adding OU and Missouri instead of Texas Tech and Baylor, though it did take us an extra 34 years...

More wholly irrelevant BS. Texas had been in talks with the SEC since 1987.

As to the OP, the six were not the ones you listed. Texas, Texas A&M, Clemson, Florida, Arkansas and a silent partner for Texas which was Oklahoma.

The SEC never bluntly said it only cared about athletics. It's another internet BS talking point. The presidents of the SEC in considering candidates in 1990-2 applied academic standards in culling applications. The SEC position has remained the candidate has to make the conference members more money. academics is the secondary consideration, but it is and has always been a consideration.

This is two such posts of yours today, and one where Sactowndog provided a link to information you chided is a third.

How do you know what was said to the Texas administration in 1990, or 1987, or earlier? I never said that Texas didn't TALK to the SEC, in fact they would have had to have talked to them to be told that Athletics were the important factor. Regardless of the exact verbiage, which, again, you do not know unless you were in the room, the feeling that Texas was given by the SEC was that Athletics were more important than Academics, whereas the feeling they got from the Pac was that they were at least co-equal, if not even primarily considering Academics.

I've said on numerous occasions that it's kind of funny that the SEC claims to consider "only" Athletics but that we always seem to bring in strong Academic institutions at the same time, and you've never corrected me. Why now?

"The SEC doesn't do academics" sounds a lot better than "Texas politicians can't leverage the SEC into taking more than Texas and A&M".

(02-11-2023 05:00 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 04:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 04:20 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  It doesn't matter because Texas was not interested in the SEC at all back then. Texas wanted to hear all about Academics, which they got plenty of from the Pac, while the SEC bluntly stated that they only cared about Athletics. Ironically, the SEC did better both Athletically and Academically by adding OU and Missouri instead of Texas Tech and Baylor, though it did take us an extra 34 years...

More wholly irrelevant BS. Texas had been in talks with the SEC since 1987.

As to the OP, the six were not the ones you listed. Texas, Texas A&M, Clemson, Florida, Arkansas and a silent partner for Texas which was Oklahoma.

The SEC never bluntly said it only cared about athletics. It's another internet BS talking point. The presidents of the SEC in considering candidates in 1990-2 applied academic standards in culling applications. The SEC position has remained the candidate has to make the conference members more money. academics is the secondary consideration, but it is and has always been a consideration.

This is two such posts of yours today, and one where Sactowndog provided a link to information you chided is a third.

How do you know what was said to the Texas administration in 1990, or 1987, or earlier? I never said that Texas didn't TALK to the SEC, in fact they would have had to have talked to them to be told that Athletics were the important factor. Regardless of the exact verbiage, which, again, you do not know unless you were in the room, the feeling that Texas was given by the SEC was that Athletics were more important than Academics, whereas the feeling they got from the Pac was that they were at least co-equal, if not even primarily considering Academics.

I've said on numerous occasions that it's kind of funny that the SEC claims to consider "only" Athletics but that we always seem to bring in strong Academic institutions at the same time, and you've never corrected me. Why now?

I know because I had family involved in the process! All you've done is spew internet myth and BS. That's how I know. And the family was close family. I actually knew Schiller and Kramer and talked with them at sporting events. Now those conversations were not about realignment. But the ones the family was involved with were.

Nothing has changed since 1990-2 except the advent and death of the cable's subscription model, which is still viable, but clearly content additions are now the number one way to ensure value moving forward.

Every time we get a new batch of posters its the SOS with what circulated in chat rooms, or what some talking head said in order to sell papers or drive hits. 90% of it is pure hooey. They are tossed nuggets by the decision makers to test market response to an idea.

The first 6 targeted by the SEC weren't even known to the public at the time. The replacements for them got the press when the inital talks fell through.

This is how I find people in the know on the internet. They resonate with what actually happened. The rest is worthless.

What matters now is that 4 of the orginal six targets are, or will soon be in hand, and the other 2 may be back on the radar.

Kramer envisioned a 16 member SEC made up of stars. Slive consolidated conference thinking and squashed bitter and negative feelings between member schools. Sankey is a process guy with an astute legal mind and solid political skills. But other than lending their unique gifts, the eye of the conference has never lifted from the prizes it sought in 1990. And as you did point out above look at what we've added. South Carolina and Arkansas were not AAU, but were flagship schools. A&M, Missouri and Texas are AAU flagship schools. Oklahoma is a sports blueblood with an academic average in the middle of the SEC lineup roughly, and a state flagship.

That's should tell you that the SEC's priorities are for content value, academics, and market reach rolled into one package. North Carolina has it. Florida State is the second flagship in Florida and they have it. Everyone else we mention on this board, self included, are close to having it but are light in at least one criteria.

(02-11-2023 04:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 04:20 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  It doesn't matter because Texas was not interested in the SEC at all back then. Texas wanted to hear all about Academics, which they got plenty of from the Pac, while the SEC bluntly stated that they only cared about Athletics. Ironically, the SEC did better both Athletically and Academically by adding OU and Missouri instead of Texas Tech and Baylor, though it did take us an extra 34 years...

More wholly irrelevant BS. Texas had been in talks with the SEC since 1987.

As to the OP, the six were not the ones you listed. Texas, Texas A&M, Clemson, Florida, Arkansas and a silent partner for Texas which was Oklahoma.

The SEC never bluntly said it only cared about athletics. It's another internet BS talking point. The presidents of the SEC in considering candidates in 1990-2 applied academic standards in culling applications. The SEC position has remained the candidate has to make the conference members more money. academics is the secondary consideration, but it is and has always been a consideration.

This is two such posts of yours today, and one where Sactowndog provided a link to information you chided is a third.

You’ve said in the past that the SEC’s ideal 6 in 1990 were Texas, TAMU, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Clemson, and Florida St.

The 6 I proposed would get them the first 3, Clemson gets swapped for the more readily available SC and the price to get the 2 Texas prizes are Tech and Baylor.

It’s taken over 30 yrs, but look at who they actually got: Texas, TAMU, Arkansas, Oklahoma, SC, and Missouri.

(02-11-2023 04:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 04:26 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(02-11-2023 04:20 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  It doesn't matter because Texas was not interested in the SEC at all back then. Texas wanted to hear all about Academics, which they got plenty of from the Pac, while the SEC bluntly stated that they only cared about Athletics. Ironically, the SEC did better both Athletically and Academically by adding OU and Missouri instead of Texas Tech and Baylor, though it did take us an extra 34 years...

Arkansas, A&M, and Texas were all coming to the SEC in 1990. Arkansas went first and the others to follow, but Bob Bullock and Co ruined it.

Texas was not going to the SEC then. They talked a little but were much more interested in the Big 10 (no interest in expanding again yet) and Pac 10 who actually agreed, but Stanford vetoed at the last minute. A&M and Arkansas were going to the SEC and Texas to the Pac. CU probably also to the Pac. When Stanford vetoed, Texas and Texas A&M decided to stay put. Arkansas jumped.

Bob Bullock was 1993-4.

Actually, the package the PAC rejected in 1990 was Texas and Texas A&M. I thought the package was Texas and Colorado, but it actually wasn’t. Of course, if 1990 was like 2010, then Texas might have been trying to get TAMU into the PAC even though TAMU really wanted the SEC.

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

https://www.deseret.com/1990/8/12/188759...-pac-10-br



They rejected Texas and TAMU in 1990 and then in 2010-2011 missed out on UT again (due to disputes with UT they seemingly could have resolved) and outright rejected OU. Now, we hear about how San Diego State and SMU are good enough for the PAC. Good lord.

1990
SEC East: Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, SC, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, Alabama
SEC West: Ole Miss, Miss St, LSU, Arkansas, Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Baylor

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

Big 8/12 North: Kansas, Kansas State, Colorado, Iowa State, Missouri, Utah
Big 8/12 South: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, SMU, Houston, Rice

WAC: BYU, Colorado State, San Diego State, Wyoming, Hawaii, Air Force, New Mexico, UTEP

I think the Big Ten winds up moving earlier than planned with Penn State, and then settles on Nebraska as #12 after giving serious consideration to Missouri. What's left of the SWC merges with the Big 8, who also reaches into the WAC for Utah. Louisville turns down the Big 8, especially with Missouri being on the Big 10's radar. The SWC 4 is turned down by the Pac 10 and WAC.

1991
The Big East gets kneecapped as a football league, as the ACC winds up inviting Florida State, Miami, Boston College, and Syracuse to go to 12 in 1991. Pittsburgh winds up leaving the Big East and joins the Atlantic 10 alongside Rutgers, West Virginia, and Temple. Viriginia Tech and Cincinnati wind up joining them from the Metro. Cincinnati is replaced by Dayton in the Great Midwest.

Atlantic 10 Football: Temple, Virginia Tech, West Viriginia, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati
Atlantic 10 Non-football: UMass, Rhode Island, George Washington, Duquesne, St. Joseph's, St. Bonaventure
Big East (non-football): Connecticut, Georgetown, Providence, St. John's, Seton Hall, Villanova
Metro (Non-football): Charlotte, Tulane, South Florida, VCU, Louisville, Southern Miss
Great Midwest (Non-football): UAB, DePaul, Memphis, Marquette, St. Louis, Dayton

1995
The Big East becomes the parking spot for Notre Dame's non-football sports. The Big East then picks up DePaul, Marquette, and Dayton to complete its expansion to 10 schools. UAB, Memphis, and St. Louis join the Metro, dissolving the Great Midwest.

Big East: Connecticut, Georgetown, Providence, St. John's, Seton Hall, Villanova, Dayton, Notre Dame, DePaul, Marquette
Metro: Charlotte, Tulane, South Florida, VCU, Louisville, Southern Miss, UAB, Memphis, St. Louis

1998
With the creation of the BCS, Metro football-playing schools Louisville, Southern Miss, South Florida, Tulane, and Memphis join the Atlantic 10 as full members. Independent East Carolina also becomes a full member of the Atlantic 10 after having been a football-only member.

The remaining members of the Metro (UAB, Charlotte, VCU, Saint Louis) invite the six non-football members of the Atlantic 10:

Atlantic 12: Temple, Virginia Tech, West Viriginia, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Louisville, Southern Miss, Tulane, Memphis, South Florida, East Carolina
Metro: UMass, Rhode Island, George Washington, Duquesne, St. Joseph's, St. Bonaventure, UAB, St. Louis, VCU, Charlotte

2001
UAB rejoins the Sun Belt as it gets football off the ground, as the Big West is out of spare parts. The WAC expands to 12 with Nevada and Boise State:

WAC Pacific - Hawaii, Nevada, UNLV, San Jose State, Fresno State, San Diego State
WAC Mountain - UTEP, New Mexico, Colorado State, Air Force, Wyoming, Boise State
Sun Belt Football - Idaho (football only), Utah State (football only), New Mexico State, Middle Tennesse, North Texas, UAB, Louisiana Tech, Louisiana, Arkansas State
Sun Belt Non-football - Denver, New Orleans, WKU, South Alabama, FIU, Little Rock

2013
All is relatively quiet until the 2011-2013 Great Realignment. The Pac 10 expands with Colorado and Utah. The Big 10 expands with Rutgers and Maryland. The ACC backfills with Pittsburgh, then expands with Virginia Tech and Louisville to 14 teams, and lands a football scheduling agreement with Notre Dame. The Big 12 backfills with BYU and West Virginia.