Started By
Message
re: Texas, TAMU, FSU and Ark were supposed to join the SEC in 1992
Posted on 12/2/20 at 1:46 pm to Mithridates6
Posted on 12/2/20 at 1:46 pm to Mithridates6
The link between UT and OU is stronger than UT A&M
Posted on 12/2/20 at 1:46 pm to dchog
quote:
The only program on that list that is on the level or above Texas is Alabama.
I'll get downvoted too, but this is true. The other big 5 were not on the same level they are today, except for Tennessee, who's now worse. It's also why none of them have a winning record against Texas and that even includes Bama.
I thought the same thing while reading the article, but old Crowe clearly has some SEC bias in his revisionist history.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:10 pm to Mithridates6
One of their better articles. That was a good read.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:12 pm to Mithridates6
quote:
Meanwhile the SEC has 6(?) AAU members
Yup. The big 12 lost 4 of their 7 AAU members. Now it’s just Texas, Iowa state, and Kansas. And they took West Virginia, who competes with Miss State for worst academic institution in a power 5 conference.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:14 pm to redeye
quote:
I'll get downvoted too, but this is true. The other big 5 were not on the same level they are today, except for Tennessee, who's now worse. It's also why none of them have a winning record against Texas and that even includes Bama.
Texas was very inconsistent, even bad between Royal leaving and Mack Brown being hired though. Remember that great Cade McNown-led UCLA team beating Texas 66-3 in Austin in 1997 (?) like UT was some cupcake?
This post was edited on 12/2/20 at 2:50 pm
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:26 pm to tkeefer
quote:Schiller was replaced by Roy Kramer in January, 1990. I'd question the credibility of anyone who claims that Texas had "virtually agreed" to join the SEC. Even as far back as the mid-80s, the folks in Austin made no secret of their desire to join the Pac-10, and their disdain for the SEC. For Schiller to claim that they were actually close to joining the SEC blows his credibility out of the water. Not true at all.
In a recent interview, Schiller reflected back on how Arkansas and South Carolina became the 11th and 12th schools in the league. But the most shocking revelation concerned how close the University of Texas came to joining the SEC.
Schiller, who left the SEC to become the executive director of the United States Olympic Committee and would later serve as president of Turner Sports and CEO of YankeeNets (going from working for Ted Turner to George Steinbrenner), said Texas had virtually agreed to become an SEC member. Arkansas and Texas would join the SEC from the Western side and South Carolina and either Florida State, Miami or Virginia Tech would enter from the East.
The SEC didn't want A&M.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:31 pm to Hill Country
quote:The move to the Big XII was dictated by politics, but it wasn't Ann Richards who pulled the strings. She may have been a Baylor grad, but she didn't care about Baylor at all--the only sports team she followed was the UT women's basketball team. She had about as much affection for Baylor as fellow Austin resident and Baylor alum Willie Nelson.
The governor of Texas at the time was a Baylor grad. She is a big reason we got stuck in the new big 12.
Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock was a Baylor law grad (originally from Hillsboro) who played basketball at Tech. The Speaker of the House, Pete Laney, was a Tech grad from Hale Center. The House Appropriations Committee chair, Rob Junell, was a Tech grad from San Angelo. Lubbock state senator John Montford and Waco state senator David Sibley (a former Baylor basketball player) were the other key players in the political squeeze play that moved four SWC schools into the Big XII.
This post was edited on 12/2/20 at 2:40 pm
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:39 pm to Dr RC
quote:If you're talking about 1990, that wasn't really the case (the threat came about later, when the Big XII deal was engineered). The problem in 1990 was Texas had no desire to go the SEC--they considered it beneath them academically and made overtures to the Pac-10, but Stanford made it clear that they would veto a Texas application. So, with the Horns staying put, the A&M leadership didn't feel like they had the political cover necessary to make a move.
FSU was the only school that didn't want to join b/c of competition.
A&M and Texas didn't come b/c they had their funding threatened by state lawmakers.
21 years later, with an Aggie in the governor's office (and having been there long enough to appoint every state board position once, and most twice), with UT perhaps as weak in the legislature as they had ever been, and with Deloss Dodds providing the perfect excuse to leave with his Longhorn Networks ambitions (using it to show high school football games as a recruiting tool, and forcing the Big XII to give up games so that the LHN would have content), A&M's leadership finally felt it was safe to make a move that they had been discussing ever since Jackie Sherrill's tenure.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:43 pm to twk
Didn't we try to get UH to come with us around 89-90?
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:44 pm to Mithridates6
quote:
Meanwhile the SEC has 6(?) AAU members
4. Vanderbilt, Florida, A&M and Missouri.
The AAU has repeatedly rejected Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama and Auburn for reasons I can only imagine are butthurt related.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:50 pm to Farmer1906
quote:There may have been some discussions about that, at some level, but that was never going to fly. Taking them wouldn't really have provided much (if any) political cover, and they weren't good enough to interest the SEC.
Didn't we try to get UH to come with us around 89-90?
Frankly, while Arkansas had a good athletic program, the most enticing thing about inviting the Hogs was the prospect of breaking up the SWC and getting into Texas--that's why they were given the first official invite, to break the logjam. It didn't work out that way for the reasons stated. FSU was supposed to be the fallback option, but when Bowden convinced their leadership to go the ACC for competitive reasons, South Carolina was in line to scoop up that 12th spot.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 2:52 pm to SCgamecock2988
quote:
Yep knew we were never really wanted.
It might have taken us a while to warm up to y'all, but you're one of us now.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 3:02 pm to Farmer1906
quote:
Division wins are nice and all, even if they come when you're 8-5, but I'll take actual conference titles. 92, 93, 98, and then divions in 97 and 10. Also should have been 94, but the NCAA is a bitch.
Should have stayed in the Big 12 where A&M could at least win a division title in football everynow and then.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 3:10 pm to I-59 Tiger
quote:
Should have stayed in the Big 12 where A&M could at least win a division title in football everynow and then.
Why? From a money and prestige standpoint the SEC was the right move for A&M, and it made a lot of other SEC schools a lot richer as well. Also, from a cultural standpoint, A&M and its fanaticism for football fit in well. A&M has grown its brand outside of Texas on a much larger scale than ever before
A&M is MUCH better than they used to be. Competition matters.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 3:16 pm to redeye
Jack Crowe is an idiot who doesn't understand school histories.
He was on a Arkansas sports radio recently and he came off as bitter and stupid.
He was the worst hire that Frank Broyles ever made and he was the one who started our decline going into the SEC.
Texas and Alabama are on par of having not just storied histories but great political influence in college football like it or not.
In the old days if you happen to beat Texas then you were a contender and would certainly beat other SEC teams. If you wanted to win a national title, you had to beat Texas.
We had so many instances in our history with Texas that determined our program history.
Beat Texas and you will have a great season, lose and you have nothing to play for because you are out of contention.
He was on a Arkansas sports radio recently and he came off as bitter and stupid.
He was the worst hire that Frank Broyles ever made and he was the one who started our decline going into the SEC.
Texas and Alabama are on par of having not just storied histories but great political influence in college football like it or not.
In the old days if you happen to beat Texas then you were a contender and would certainly beat other SEC teams. If you wanted to win a national title, you had to beat Texas.
We had so many instances in our history with Texas that determined our program history.
Beat Texas and you will have a great season, lose and you have nothing to play for because you are out of contention.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 3:22 pm to Mithridates6
quote:
Texas was very inconsistent, even bad between Royal leaving and Mack Brown being hired though.
That's true, but when we joined in '92, the last SEC team to win a NC was Georgia, 12 years earlier. So the SEC wasn't exactly killing it back then, either.
Crowe had a good point, but I just think he oversold it for back then.
Anyhow, I'm glad you posted the article, because it was an interesting time. There was more going on that wasn't mentioned, however. Specifically how Texas had been trying to create a "super conference" and LSU was among the teams it had invited.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 3:35 pm to redeye
If I remember correctly the Big 10 had the reputation as the strongest conference in college football in the 90s.
Crowe was just trying to compare the SEC in 92 to the worst point in SWC history that was hit hard with severe NCAA infractions. So the conference was going to be much less competitive than they were in the 60s and 70s. But still the five other Texas teams quote was really dumb.
Crowe was just trying to compare the SEC in 92 to the worst point in SWC history that was hit hard with severe NCAA infractions. So the conference was going to be much less competitive than they were in the 60s and 70s. But still the five other Texas teams quote was really dumb.
Posted on 12/2/20 at 3:37 pm to ColoradoAg
It's been a win-win for the four expansion schools in everything except for football titles; otoh all four have top 5 finishes since joining the SEC and presumably it would've been much harder to recruit on a national level in the Big 12 or ACC as programs that weren't blue bloods. Look at FSU: they had a great run dominating the ACC but now they're depleted and have sub-par revenue and unlike Clemson they can't make up for the smaller conference payout
This post was edited on 12/2/20 at 3:59 pm
Posted on 12/2/20 at 3:40 pm to Mithridates6
quote:
Look at FSU: they had a great run dominating the ACC but now they're depleted and have sub-par revenue.
That is because they were cheap and did not upgrade their facilities. So Fisher left them and their "history" for a team with excellent facilities and open pocket book. FSU is now learning how the other half lives
Posted on 12/2/20 at 3:51 pm to twk
I think the problem with Houston like Memphis is that they are commuter schools and wouldn't provide the SEC in academics or athletics.
Arkansas was more enticing because they contenders in football, basketball and baseball. A well rounded school. Also Broyles was friends with the SEC comminsioner and that helped.
Arkansas was more enticing because they contenders in football, basketball and baseball. A well rounded school. Also Broyles was friends with the SEC comminsioner and that helped.
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News