Started By
Message
re: SEC Expansion: How it happened in 1990
Posted on 6/26/14 at 9:24 pm to Tigerman97
Posted on 6/26/14 at 9:24 pm to Tigerman97
So I assume the 2 FSU fans on this board downvoted a factual article? 
0
Posted on 6/26/14 at 9:25 pm to kingbob
quote:
Why did they take Arky?
You fricking love us. Just admit it.
Posted on 6/26/14 at 9:57 pm to greenbastard
quote:
Texas was never set to join the SEC.
According to Frank Broyles they were.
Arkansas had already accepted the invite, Texas was leaning towards going as well, but wasn't sure about leaving behind aTm, then the state politics took over and Texas was told they couldn't seperate from aTm.
Yes, Baylor and TTU was forced up on the Big8.
The above politics, combined with an increase in revenue is why Frank moved Arkansas to the SEC.
Posted on 6/26/14 at 10:00 pm to DaleDenton
Do you think he made the right move? Right timing?
Posted on 6/26/14 at 10:18 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
Do you think he made the right move?
Yes. He use to do color commentary on televised CFB games in the 80s, he saw real quick where the game was heading in terms of TV and the money it would bring/demand.
From this he saw how unattractive the SWC would become with interest in just Texas and Arkansas to go along with the inability to draw OU, Nebraska, and OSU to the conference to make 12 teams, which was thought to be the biggest any conference would every grow too at that time.
Frank was actually looking to move Arkansas out of the SWC going back to when he first took over as AD, the story goes the SEC didn't want to go bigger than 10 at that time and he did not think the fans would see themselves as a fit in the Big8, which Arkansas apparently received an invite to some time during the 60s-80s.
quote:
Right timing?
Hindsight being what it is, Frank was shown to be ahead of the curve and made the move to the right conference at the right time. Later on Big8 officials told him that had Arkansas not jumped to the SEC, it was likely they would have been left behind in the SWC to try to save the conference or create a new one (like the big east in football) because of the Texas politics and the number of members not wanting to exceed 12. Basically the Big8 would have wanted Texas, Arkansas, aTm, and would have likely taken Baylor (private school, has its benefits), they did not want TTU, but the politics as you know made Texas a package deal with the other 3.
Frank also has said Texas was looking to leave the SWC during the 80s before the SEC expansion, and yes the Pac10 was their destination (why, I don't know), so even if Arkansas had not left, the SWC would have still imploded if Texas made the jump, as it stands the SWC was a dead conference the moment Arkansas left and Frank's timing was perfect.
Posted on 6/26/14 at 10:22 pm to DaleDenton
Just an aside, but do many Arkansas fans miss playing the teams that were in the SWC?
Posted on 6/26/14 at 10:24 pm to weagle99
Well they were in a conference that they could actually win (and multiple times).
Posted on 6/26/14 at 10:29 pm to CockRocket
quote:
Everyone worth their salt in football knowledge knows we were down on the list, behind FSU, Miami, A&M, Arkansas, and Texas.
But Mizzou wasn't even on the list.
So basically you're laughing at the fact Mizzou was even behind lowly South Carolina.
To be fair. NOBODY was splitting up the Big 8. It was one of the respected conferences, that's why all schools went into the Big 12. Look at the Big 8 bowl records vs other conference.
What did the Big 8 in was joining with the 4 Texas Schools to make the Big 12. That's when you had schools like CU, NU, and MU wanting to leave. Too much power down in Texas.
ETA: On a side note, MU was not really a power Big 8 school because the academic qualifications weren't the same as for the other Big 8 schools. It's a known fact that kids that couldn't get into MU would go on to play football at NU, CU and OU. When the Big 12 formed the University of Texas stepped in and made them toughen up on their grades, qualifications, etc. One of the gripes about too much power from State of Texas.
This post was edited on 6/26/14 at 10:37 pm
Posted on 6/26/14 at 10:31 pm to weagle99
quote:
Just an aside, but do many Arkansas fans miss playing the teams that were in the SWC?
Outside of Texas, no.
Houston was seen then as they are now, they had a high flying offense for a few years with Andre Ware, never beat Arkansas. They were not consistent in basketball like when they had Phi Slamma Jamma, but that was the only time they were interesting.
SMU had some sort of weird hate towards us, they talked like the game was some huge rivalry game, meanwhile Arkansas sees it as just playing SMU.
Baylor, TCU, TTU, and Rice were all really bad at the sports thing the majority of the years.
Aggy was fricking weird, never as good as they thought in football, absolute shite show in basketball.
The move to SEC was actually more excited to face decent basketball teams for a change, we just finished playing all the semi-pro teams of the SWC in the 80s in football.
Posted on 6/26/14 at 11:00 pm to DaleDenton
Thank you for the honest answer Dale. You represent Arky well.
This post was edited on 6/26/14 at 11:09 pm
Posted on 6/26/14 at 11:12 pm to weagle99
quote:
do many Arkansas fans miss playing the teams that were in the SWC?
You realize most of us either weren't born or were little kids when that happened. At least on here.
I give zero fricks. I also have as many little kid memories of games against Ole Miss as I do Texas.
ETA: I've also read that Frank toyed with the idea of joining the Big 8 back in the 70s.
This post was edited on 6/26/14 at 11:15 pm
Posted on 6/26/14 at 11:19 pm to wmr
quote:
ETA: I've also read that Frank toyed with the idea of joining the Big 8 back in the 70s.
There was an article online, I think it had to do with a book, where all of Frank's comments on conference expansion were given, lots of WTF? type insider info in it, but I can't for the life of me find it through google.
quote:
I also have as many little kid memories of games against Ole Miss as I do Texas.
IIRC the last two or so years of the SWC (while we were in it) saw these games televised:
Arkansas vs aTm
Arkansas vs Texas
Texas vs aTm
It was like no other teams existed in the SWC.
Posted on 6/26/14 at 11:32 pm to DaleDenton
I know Texas was a big deal, but Arkansas, unlike some of the other expansions teams, had some series with other SEC teams. We had old history with LSU (as much then as A&M claims now) and we had played Ole Miss in football already every season since 1981, plus the old history before that.
It wasn't this completely unfamiliar league. There were already ties existent. I think that's one reason Missouri seems so strange, because we are somehow their geographic tie to the league, but we have a non-existent history with them, except for some basketball.
Even the Missouri/Arkansas basketball thing was about like the Memphis/Arkansas basketball thing. A team regionally close with some memorable games. It wasn't some big longstanding heated rivalry.
Missouri is as foreign to us as they are to anybody.
It wasn't this completely unfamiliar league. There were already ties existent. I think that's one reason Missouri seems so strange, because we are somehow their geographic tie to the league, but we have a non-existent history with them, except for some basketball.
Even the Missouri/Arkansas basketball thing was about like the Memphis/Arkansas basketball thing. A team regionally close with some memorable games. It wasn't some big longstanding heated rivalry.
Missouri is as foreign to us as they are to anybody.
This post was edited on 6/26/14 at 11:35 pm
Posted on 6/26/14 at 11:54 pm to theGarnetWay
quote:
Except for the SC fans that live in NC and have to put up with UNC fans on a regular basis, they can't stand them.
shite, as a LSU fan living in Richmond, I couldn't stand the UNC fans. I can only imagine how bad living there could be.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 12:27 am to DaleDenton
quote:
According to Frank Broyles they were.
Arkansas had already accepted the invite, Texas was leaning towards going as well, but wasn't sure about leaving behind aTm, then the state politics took over and Texas was told they couldn't seperate from aTm.
You sure?
That's not what this sounds like:
LINK
quote:
And then there was the prospect that the SWC might fall out from under him.
"I knew there were going to be changes," he said. "We had to protect our status, our reputation."
With his president's blessings, Broyles said he discussed his plans with Texas and A&M, which both showed "great interest," then initiated talks with the SEC in 1987 or '88.
Only Texas and A&M didn't follow his lead. Broyles was told that political pressures kept both from leaving without Baylor, which seems likely.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 12:31 am to Mirthomatic
The SEC commissioner at the time stated that the SWC targets were Arkansas and Texas. They would have considered adding four teams or even six. There wasn't a blueprint for 12 teams max.
TAMU wasn't necessarily not being considered, but Ark initiated it, and we and Texas were their first choices.
The error most people make in viewing how the expansion happened is thinking that it was linear and pre-planned to stop at 12, or what divisions would look like, etc. There were divisional scenarios all over the place, all dependent upon which teams were added.
I don't think any of it happens in 90 without Frank Broyles, though. He was looking ahead.
TAMU wasn't necessarily not being considered, but Ark initiated it, and we and Texas were their first choices.
The error most people make in viewing how the expansion happened is thinking that it was linear and pre-planned to stop at 12, or what divisions would look like, etc. There were divisional scenarios all over the place, all dependent upon which teams were added.
I don't think any of it happens in 90 without Frank Broyles, though. He was looking ahead.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 12:32 am to DaleDenton
quote:
Basically the Big8 would have wanted Texas, Arkansas, aTm, and would have likely taken Baylor (private school, has its benefits), they did not want TTU, but the politics as you know made Texas a package deal with the other 3.
From the same article linked in the post above:
quote:
But what if Arkansas had remained in the SWC and become part of the Big 12?
"I was told by people in the Big 12 after the fact that we would not have been included," he said. "Baylor and Texas Tech had political power. We didn't. The Big 8 was only going to take four teams from the SWC.
"I was told there was no way they'd have taken us."
Posted on 6/27/14 at 12:36 am to Mirthomatic
Those two quotes say the exact same thing.
Basically that it would not have mattered if the Big 12 had wanted Arkansas. The Texas politics of it would have squeezed Arkansas out in favor of Baylor and TTU.
Basically that it would not have mattered if the Big 12 had wanted Arkansas. The Texas politics of it would have squeezed Arkansas out in favor of Baylor and TTU.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 12:37 am to wmr
I'm not disputing that UTx and Ark were the first choices, only that it isn't the case that political pressure prevented UTx from leaving A&M behind. Because A&M would gladly have gone, and would have been accepted by the SEC.
Would the SEC have accepted A&M WITHOUT UTx? I would have to say yes. No offense to SCar, but A&M was definitely a bigger draw at the time, and if the SEC still wanted UTx, then they could have thought that having A&M would be a lure to draw the horns.
Would the SEC have accepted A&M WITHOUT UTx? I would have to say yes. No offense to SCar, but A&M was definitely a bigger draw at the time, and if the SEC still wanted UTx, then they could have thought that having A&M would be a lure to draw the horns.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 12:39 am to wmr
Well, the first isn't a quote, it's a paraphrase. The second is a direct quote supporting the paraphrase. I wasn't arguing the point, I was supporting it. I'm a helpful guy that way.
Page 3 of 5
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News