(02-03-2018 07:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-03-2018 01:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 05:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Back then, my preferred path forward was to rebuild the SWC around the core of remaining schools. I think we only needed 2 more under the existing rules. My second favorite option was to move as a group to a new conference. We could have moved to the WAC doing just that--but UH passed on that opportunity as well.

From what I understand, the UH administration at the time thought that the remaining private schools would not be good partners going forward and that we would be better off aligning with other large public schools. The fact UH passed on options 1 and 2 above in favor of a spread out conference where our fans had zero connection to anyone we played would seem to support what ive heard. Personally, as a college football fan above all else, I absolutely hated the idea of CUSA. It seemed to be much more of a basketball first conference that I didnt think would be a very good fit for the vast majority of UH fans (or the casual college football fans in the city).

But original C-USA was the best fit for UH. It was full of urban, mostly public schools with rich basketball history. Unfortunately, it developed just a little too late and the BCS system excluded it.

And you act like the WAC would have been better. Houston kept playing Rice, so they didn't have to be in the same conference as them to accomplish that. There were two more regional opponents but they didn't make UH fans jump out of their chairs and Tulane is only slightly farther away than SMU and TCU. The WAC had far flung opponents that were even farther away and worse yet in different time zones. One is 4 time zones and an ocean away.

And whether you like it or not, UH nationally got more acclaim for it's basketball history than its football history. Yeah, football is king in Texas but Houston had a better reputation in basketball and a much better chance to be nationally relevant in that sport, at least as of the mid-90's. The school let the program rot on the vine, so it's done.

The WAC wasnt my first choice, but its football membership was far more formidable than early CUSA. We hadnt had an NCAA Tournament victory since 1984. However, in football we had been ranked in the top 10 just a few years prior to joining CUSA (1990). In 1996, The WAC wasnt a bad basketball conference and it was miles better than CUSA in football. I do agree that CUSA was probably a better institutional match.

CUSA was founded on the idea of building the best possible basketball league while also providing a home for football and a means to broker television in the wake of the CFA collapse but the vision was to create an elite basketball league that permitted the members to remain independent(ish) by having six non-conference scheduling dates.