PDA

View Full Version : So what happened with the old Southwest Conference?



IrishTex
06-05-2010, 01:01 PM
Oh, I know they morphed into the Big Twelve, but what happened there? Why? I still have a hard time with it. Here were the teams:

Texas A&M
Texas
Texas Tech
Arkansas
Baylor
TCU
Rice
SMU
Houston

* Oklahoma was in the Southwest conference from 1915-1919
*Oklahoma A&M (Now Oklahoma State) was in the conference from 1915-1925,

It's pretty amazing to me that as rabid as the State of Texas is for football, what made the Southwest Conference fail? How could teams in California succeed and Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas not?

Surely the scholastic institutions were just as good in Texas as Michigan. What happened to the Southwest Conference?

According to Wikapedia, here were some factors that split the Southwest Conference apart.

"The 1980s saw many of the conference's athletic programs hit by recruiting scandals and NCAA probations.[1][2][3] The only programs to escape probation in the 1980s were Arkansas, Baylor, and Rice.[1][2][3] Because of repeated major violations, the Southern Methodist University football program in 1987 became only the third program in NCAA history to receive the so-called "Death Penalty" (after Kentucky basketball in 1952-53 and Southwestern Louisiana basketball from 1973 to 1975). The NCAA canceled SMU's 1987 season, and limited it to seven road games for 1988. However, nearly all of the school's lettermen transferred elsewhere, forcing SMU to keep its football program shuttered for 1988 as well. SMU also remained on probation until 1990. At that time, NCAA rules prohibited schools on probation from appearing on live television. As a result, the conference's market share in television coverage dwindled."

The performance in the "money" sport of football declined as well. The final eight SWC champions lost in their bowl game. After SMU's second-place finish in most polls in 1982, only two SWC teams were serious contenders for the national title: Texas in 1990 and Texas A&M in 1992. Attendance also dwindled at every school except for Texas and Texas A&M.

The beginning of the end was when Arkansas announced it would leave for the Southeastern Conference in 1990. The death blow came in 1993 when Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Baylor accepted invitations to join with the members of the Big Eight Conference to form the Big 12 Conference. Soon afterward, SMU, TCU and Rice accepted invitations to join the Western Athletic Conference, while Houston joined Conference USA. In May 1996, after the completions of championship matches in baseball and track & field, the Southwest Conference was officially dissolved.

So here is a question to ponder:
Everytime the "Texas" schools have left a conference, it's been sort of temporary since the end of the Southwest Conference. Other schools love to come in and raid Texas high school players, so why can't Texas keep our own recruits?

Don't Texas schools compete academically with other schools?

I'm wondering why high school players want to leave and go out of state?

What happened to the Cotton Bowl? Why is it sort of a 2nd tier Bowl now? Back in the day, it was a prime bowl on New Year's day. Not any more.

Who came in and took football away from us Texans??

ziggy29
06-05-2010, 04:20 PM
You can usually follow the money.

Once the Supreme Court broke the NCAA's monopolies on TV contracts (for better AND for worse), the age of conference affiliation being more important than anything else went into overdrive. Suddenly conferences could negotiate their own contracts; finally the SEC and Pac 10 and Big 10 didn't have to share TV contracts with the WAC and the MAC, for example.

This made conference TV revenue critical. And the SWC only had the Texas and Arkansas markets. Similarly, the Big 8 had few major media markets and a few smaller ones. As I recall the Big 12 was largely born out of taking the stronger programs out of the SWC (noting that Texas probably had to go with A&M and Tech) and merging them into a larger conference with more media markets.

Now the conference geographical reach for the Texas schools in the Big 12 went far beyond state lines, and the former Big 8 got large Texas media markets.

What puzzles me most about the formation of the Big 12 was picking Baylor over, say, TCU or Houston. I have to assume politics were involved there.

Ernest T Bass
06-05-2010, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by ziggy29
What puzzles me most about the formation of the Big 12 was picking Baylor over, say, TCU or Houston. I have to assume politics were involved there.

Ann Richards, Texas governor at the time, was a Baylor grad. She personally saw to it that they would be part of the new conference.

sic'em
06-05-2010, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Ann Richards, Texas governor at the time, was a Baylor grad. She personally saw to it that they would be part of the new conference.

This is not true. Richards couldn't have cared less about football and sure couldn't have cared less about Baylor at the time of her governorship. It was Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock that demanded that Tech and Baylor go along with UT and A&M. He had degrees from both Tech and Baylor. To answer the original question. Baylor went because they were the best choice at the time. I know it may be hard for some of the young un's on here to believe, but Baylor was by far a better choice than TCU or any other SWC school in 1994 when it all went down. TCU was 1-6 against Baylor in the last 7 seasons of the SWC and Houston was (is) seen as a commuter school.

trojan37
06-05-2010, 06:55 PM
By the way, is some of the conferences merge, I heard Baylor will be going to 13-5A.

NastySlot
06-05-2010, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by sic'em
This is not true. Richards couldn't have cared less about football and sure couldn't have cared less about Baylor at the time of her governorship. It was Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock that demanded that Tech and Baylor go along with UT and A&M. He had degrees from both Tech and Baylor. To answer the original question. Baylor went because they were the best choice at the time. I know it may be hard for some of the young un's on here to believe, but Baylor was by far a better choice than TCU or any other SWC school in 1994 when it all went down. TCU was 1-6 against Baylor in the last 7 seasons of the SWC and Houston was (is) seen as a commuter school.



bullock was big...but you re selling richards short she had a big hand in the situation.

Ernest T Bass
06-05-2010, 07:56 PM
Big 12 plays more than football. She may not have cared about football, but she cared about her alma mater.
Agreed Baylor was a better choice than TCU or Houston. Bullock was the reason Tech went, as they were at the bottom of the barrell in the SWC at the time too.
Baylor probably could have grabbed the 4th playoff spot in the old 13-5a, but with realignment, Im not so sure.

Matthew328
06-05-2010, 08:48 PM
Not going to the Big 12 was the best thing that happened to TCU.....administration woke up and realized a lot of things and its been great for them

IrishTex
06-05-2010, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Matthew328
Not going to the Big 12 was the best thing that happened to TCU.....administration woke up and realized a lot of things and its been great for them

But going undefeated last year didn't help them much in the rankings though.

Matthew328
06-05-2010, 09:32 PM
Sure it did they got to 4th.....schedule this year is a little tougher, especially if Baylor can get their act together and SMU can continue to improve.

bigwood33
06-05-2010, 09:41 PM
2 things killed the SWC, cheating and negative recruiting. When coaches sat in kids homes and bashed their fellow SWC schools there was irreparable damage done.

Rabid Cougar
06-05-2010, 09:42 PM
Jerry's World makes not having a Big 12 member in the DFW market a mute point.

A&M, Baylor, Tech, Okie Lite are all thumbing their noses at their local communities and local sponsers for Jerry Bucks.

As far as the old SWC; TCU, Houston, Rice and SMU were dead weight at the time of its demise. Baylor and Tech had the political pull to ride ATMs and tu coat tails to the Big 12.

I see tu going to either the Pac 10 or the Big 10.

ATM will go to the SEC.

WOS87
06-05-2010, 09:45 PM
Rice should have left in the 1950's.... they have an undergraduate enrollment less than most HISD 5A schools... but they have held their own in Baseball

IrishTex
06-05-2010, 10:01 PM
I see tu going to either the Pac 10 or the Big 10.

To me, it would be almost unthinkable to have these two schools NOT in the same conference.

:thumbsup:

Txbroadcaster
06-05-2010, 10:44 PM
What happen to the SWC was simple..with it basically being a one state conference it HAD to have at least two schools in top 12 and another one or 2 in top 25 to make it relevant. That happened with ease for the longest time..but once the conference could not produice that year in and year out the national media simply stopped caring and less and less National TV coverage happened. Recruits got tired of playing for regional TV only.

The coaches could have continued to cheat and talk bad about each other with no problem as long as two of the teams were national title threats. It call came crashing down as Texas slipped and Arkansas slipped AND left the conference.

IrishTex
06-06-2010, 05:23 AM
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d149/LewP/SWC-family-portrait-1968-small.jpg

Classic photo of the SWC Mascots.

Rabid Cougar
06-06-2010, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by IrishTex
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d149/LewP/SWC-family-portrait-1968-small.jpg

Classic photo of the SWC Mascots.

I had that poster when I was a kid.

Rabid Cougar
06-06-2010, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by IrishTex
To me, it would be almost unthinkable to have these two schools NOT in the same conference.

:thumbsup:

It is would be against the gods of football to do so. The universe would pull itself a part.

sic'em
06-06-2010, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by Ernest T Bass
Big 12 plays more than football. She may not have cared about football, but she cared about her alma mater.
Agreed Baylor was a better choice than TCU or Houston. Bullock was the reason Tech went, as they were at the bottom of the barrell in the SWC at the time too.


I would argue that Richards and Baylor did not get along. If anything, it was a detriment to her politically as a female democrat. She went there for the same reason Willie Nelson did, it was close to where she grew up.

Either way, you are right that TCU was a better pick than Tech at the time. Tech was not even a traditional SWC team and had never even won a SWC championship. This is one reason TCU harbors hatred toward Baylor. They have always had a connection back to when TCU was in Waco. Baylor played TCU for Homecoming every other year. When Bullock and Sibley caught wind that UT and A&M were leaving, they threatened to defund the proposed Reed Arena for A&M if the legislature didn't support Tech and Baylor joining the party. Of course no one from TCU knew this was going on b/c they have traditionally not been well represented in the Texas legislature. Baylor kept quiet and didn't warn TCU b/c they were afraid of losing their place at the party. When it came out, TCU looked at Baylor like they were traitors to an old (more deserving) friend, which is fair.

Don't be surprised by the new news this morning about the Texas legislature demanding Baylor go with the rest of the pack again. Despite what I said about Ann, Baylor has always been well connected in Texas government (it is tied with UT with most Texas governors, for comparison good hair is A&M's first). This is mostly due to it being the oldest continuously operating school in Texas and the only school chartered by the Republic. It may be private, but it has always been politically powerful.

ziggy29
06-06-2010, 09:35 AM
Baylor? At this point, if state pols try to force that, the question becomes: Just how badly does the Pac-10 want Texas? They're already apparently willing to take A&M, Tech and OU to sweeten the deal, but being forced to take Baylor may be too much to swallow.

sic'em
06-06-2010, 09:51 AM
I agree. The discussion is between Baylor vs. Colorado though and Baylor right now is far superior in facilities and performance to Colorado. But, Colorado is a better fit culturally for the Pac10, can you imagine Ken Starr meeting with the president of Cal-Berkeley? Plus the Pac10 doesn't look kindly upon religious schools, which is why they will never let in BYU. This article says it all...
http://www.kbtx.com/sports/headlines/95703039.html?ref=039&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter