Pac 8...Big 10. Evening things up?

This was also the period Arizona State was nationally ranked.

The following Big 8 conference was a threat to USC and UCLA:

The Big 8 adding Arizona, ASU, and then adding Texas, and TAMU.

If ASU and UA are still hanging around when the SWC crumbles they make a better pair for the B 8 instead of Baylor and TT.

A Big 12 of

ASU/Colorado/TAMU/OSU/KSU/ISU and
UA/Nebraska/Texas/OU/Kansas/Mizzou is probably strong enough to deal with Texas.

(12-18-2020 12:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-17-2020 08:18 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-17-2020 07:56 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(12-17-2020 06:35 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Why did the Pacific 8 take Arizona and Arizona St from the WAC in 1978?
There was no tv money considerations back then.
Conferences weren’t stealing away schools from other conferences back then.
Conferences were regional back then. Arizona wasn’t on the west coast.
Thoughts?

Why did the SWC take Houston?

I don’t know any details but Houston was an up and coming program and was starting to catch the eye of the SEC. The SWC added them to keep the SEC out of Texas.

UNT was also trying to court the SWC at the time too. They failed, overspending in the process, and eventually dropped to DI-AA.

Houston was a big plus at the time. They had just been to an NCAA final 4. They drove everyone to start taking basketball seriously. And they provided a strong new competitor in football, winning the SWC title 3 of the first 4 years.

At the time they were invited, Texas was in the midst of a 13 year streak (and 25 of 28) vs. SMU, 18 year win streak vs. Baylor, 26 year vs. TCU and 28 year vs. Rice. Texas had only lost 3 times in 35 years to A&M. They were in a streak of 14 wins in 17 years vs. Texas Tech. Arkansas was the main threat.

I posted this article on another thread. Its an article written in 1974 about the demise of the SWC and how the addition of Houston was going to help the SWC. I have found the SWC to be an interesting conference to read about. Maybe I find it so interesting since it was so Texas centric or I watched its demise or the SMU death penalty .

https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-culture...onference/

Ah, the lovely Frank Kush ... made Woody Hayes look nice

Because they wanted to. Simple as that.

Arch—great article but there’s no mention of Houston. Perhaps you meant to post another one. The author seems to be acutely aware of all of the problems facing the SWC and laid them out 2 whole decades before it all fell apart.

I wonder how realignment would have been different had Texas, TAMU, Arkansas, and TTU decided to take action 2 decades sooner.

(12-18-2020 05:43 PM)Statefan Wrote:  The following Big 8 conference was a threat to USC and UCLA:

The Big 8 adding Arizona, ASU, and then adding Texas, and TAMU.

If ASU and UA are still hanging around when the SWC crumbles they make a better pair for the B 8 instead of Baylor and TT.

A Big 12 of

ASU/Colorado/TAMU/OSU/KSU/ISU and
UA/Nebraska/Texas/OU/Kansas/Mizzou is probably strong enough to deal with Texas.

There were plenty of better pairs for the Big 12 than Baylor and TT, the problem is the Texas politicians didn't think so and they "called the shots". Either the Big 8 got all four schools or they got none. Nebraska probably wished they had chosen none ... or at least gotten tough with Texas and Texas A&M and said Baylor and Tech weren't invited.

I did find fascinating that Houston joined the SWC "late" (70's). I never knew that until you wrote it.

(12-19-2020 01:47 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Arch—great article but there’s no mention of Houston. Perhaps you meant to post another one. The author seems to be acutely aware of all of the problems facing the SWC and laid them out 2 who decades before it all fell apart.

I wonder how realignment would have been different had Texas, TAMU, Arkansas, and TTU decided to take action 2 decades sooner.

Muskie your right I thought the article explained the reasons for the addition of Houston but after doing a quick reread that is not the case. Maybe it was another article I read that better explained Houston's admission or maybe I enjoyed the article so much I subconsciously wanted to repost into another thread :) Glad you enjoyed the article I enjoyed it too.

(12-19-2020 01:47 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I wonder how realignment would have been different had Texas, TAMU, Arkansas, and TTU decided to take action 2 decades sooner.

There was no need to prior to the 1985 Supreme Court decision because there was no TV money to go around.