NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Sat Dec 20, 2014 1:40 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:17 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1509
From what I've been told Rice and SMU own the naming rights to the SWC because of the movement that happened immediately after the SWC broke up. The Big 12 Southers left the right to the now non AQ's and Houston gave up its rights when it split from the others and left for CUSA, and TCU surrendered its control after they left for the MWC. So with the threat of super 16 team conferences around the corner and the influx of Texas teams into FBS, I could see this becoming more and more realistic. Rice will probably left out of the MWC's attempt at a 16 team bid so why not break away from the soon to be hybrid CUSA/SunBelt and start fresh. Just have the geniuses at Rice and Tulsa start inviting teams in their state that would jump at the chance to decrease travel cost by forming a MAC like bus league with UNT, UTSA, TX St, LA Tech, ULL, ULM. That 8 but it leave room open for upgrades like Lamar, SHSU, SFA, UTA. Plus I could see NM St, Tulsa, Ark St, So Miss, and possibly Memphis wanting to limit cost if they are left out of the big money conferences. This would allow for rivalries to form and also allow Rice and Tulane to be competitive since their academic requirements are limiting their ability to keep up with the Texas' and LSU's of the world.

This could also be good for the CUSA/Sun Belt since they could finally have a footprint similar to the ACC with MTSU, UAB, SoBama, Jacksonville St, Troy, GA Southern/St, FIU/FAU, UCF/USF (maybe), ECSU, App St, Old Dominion, Richmond, James Madison, Marshall, and Nova.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:40 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:33 am
Posts: 332
Location: Austin, Texas
Sorry for the late response to these thoughts....

I have had similar thoughts ever since the SWC took a dive.

Here are my schools to get the conference back in action. The replacement school tries to add a bit of the original flavor of the conference, plus adding schools from additional states. Which could cure the main problem with the SWC(too many schools from one state). With this group...there are 6 schools from Texas and at least one from Arkansas, Tenn., Louisiana, and either N Mex or Colorado to round things out. The conference could also go to 14 or 16 teams without too much trouble.

SMU = SMU (AAC)
Rice = Rice (C-USA)
Houston = Houston (AAC)
Tech = UTEP (C-USA)
TCU = Abilene Christian (Southland)
A&M = Tulane (AAC)
Texas = Tx State (SBC)
Baylor = Tulsa (AAC)
Arkansas = Memphis (AAC)
OSU = Ark State (SBC)
OU = Louisiana (SBC)
Team 12 = NMSU (SBC), Air Force (MWC), N Texas (C-USA), or La Tech (C-USA).

Possible cites: Houston, Dallas, El Paso, New Orleans, San Marcos, Memphis, Jonesboro, Lafayette, Abilene, and finally either; Las Cruces, Colo. Springs, Denton, or Ruston.
This plan also contains no less than 5 private schools, which would copy the flavor of the original SWC.

There is no easy way to replace teams like Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas or Oklahoma....except to give another school the same chance. With years of rivalry...these schools could come together and unite their strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:16 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:17 am
Posts: 7
A trademark dies if it isn't used in commerce so I don't see how anyone could currently own Southwest Conference.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 30, 2014 6:01 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:56 pm
Posts: 132
I had heard that Southwest Texas State (now Texas State) had bought the rights for the South West Conference when the conference collapsed. Is there any truth to this rumor?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 8:40 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1509
NorwichCat11 wrote:
I had heard that Southwest Texas State (now Texas State) had bought the rights for the South West Conference when the conference collapsed. Is there any truth to this rumor?

I went to the State of Texas Sport Hall of Fame this weekend. The Southwest Conference is still a living entity in the state. It was not clear who "owns" the name (and I asked) but I can almost guarantee you it's the leftover SWC members (but can't figure out which) and NOT Texas State.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:54 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 232
tkalmus wrote:
NorwichCat11 wrote:
I had heard that Southwest Texas State (now Texas State) had bought the rights for the South West Conference when the conference collapsed. Is there any truth to this rumor?

I went to the State of Texas Sport Hall of Fame this weekend. The Southwest Conference is still a living entity in the state. It was not clear who "owns" the name (and I asked) but I can almost guarantee you it's the leftover SWC members (but can't figure out which) and NOT Texas State.


I searched the name "Southwest Conference" on the Texas Secretary of State - Taxable Entity Search. "Southwest Conference" came up, so I clicked on it. Here were the results that came up:

"
SOUTHWEST CONFERENCE

Texas Taxpayer Number 17429779881
Mailing Address 601 UNIVERSITY DR
SAN MARCOS, TX 78666-4684
Right to Transact Business in Texas ACTIVE
State of Formation TX
Effective SOS Registration Date 06/05/2000
Texas SOS File Number 0158606401
Registered Agent Name WILLIAM L FLY
Registered Office Street Address 601 UNIVERSITY DRIVE
SAN MARCOS, TX 78666"

It looks like the name is owned by Texas State and became effective on June 5, 2000.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:31 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1509
BePcr07 wrote:
tkalmus wrote:
NorwichCat11 wrote:
I had heard that Southwest Texas State (now Texas State) had bought the rights for the South West Conference when the conference collapsed. Is there any truth to this rumor?

I went to the State of Texas Sport Hall of Fame this weekend. The Southwest Conference is still a living entity in the state. It was not clear who "owns" the name (and I asked) but I can almost guarantee you it's the leftover SWC members (but can't figure out which) and NOT Texas State.


I searched the name "Southwest Conference" on the Texas Secretary of State - Taxable Entity Search. "Southwest Conference" came up, so I clicked on it. Here were the results that came up:

"
SOUTHWEST CONFERENCE

Texas Taxpayer Number 17429779881
Mailing Address 601 UNIVERSITY DR
SAN MARCOS, TX 78666-4684
Right to Transact Business in Texas ACTIVE
State of Formation TX
Effective SOS Registration Date 06/05/2000
Texas SOS File Number 0158606401
Registered Agent Name WILLIAM L FLY
Registered Office Street Address 601 UNIVERSITY DRIVE
SAN MARCOS, TX 78666"

It looks like the name is owned by Texas State and became effective on June 5, 2000.

Interesting, I wonder how they can own the name and subsequent history of stuff like this...
http://tshof.org/news/news/?article_id=537

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:05 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 232
tkalmus wrote:
Interesting, I wonder how they can own the name and subsequent history of stuff like this...
http://tshof.org/news/news/?article_id=537


I'm not sure they own all of that. As a complete guess, when the original Southwest Conference members split (XII, SEC, WAC) the entity probably dissolved. Texas State must have been proactive in obtaining the naming rights. I checked the State of Oklahoma and the Southwest Conference name is not an entity name used for athletic purposes, so it seems Texas State does own it. I doubt the history goes along with it. Like if the Metro Conference was ever re-created, I don't think the history of the old Metro Conference would follow along with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:03 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1509
BePcr07 wrote:
tkalmus wrote:
Interesting, I wonder how they can own the name and subsequent history of stuff like this...
http://tshof.org/news/news/?article_id=537" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I'm not sure they own all of that. As a complete guess, when the original Southwest Conference members split (XII, SEC, WAC) the entity probably dissolved. Texas State must have been proactive in obtaining the naming rights. I checked the State of Oklahoma and the Southwest Conference name is not an entity name used for athletic purposes, so it seems Texas State does own it. I doubt the history goes along with it. Like if the Metro Conference was ever re-created, I don't think the history of the old Metro Conference would follow along with it.

Correct, however the branding and use of the SWC name/logo would/could be actionable. I assume if Texas State does indeed own the name (though I've never seen anything from them about the SWC) that they wouldn't want to enforce their protection of the name against schools like Texas, A&M, Rice, SMU, Tech, etc who are all above them in the conference latter.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 4:05 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 783
Location: Columbus, OH
While we are on the topic of the Southwest Conference, I always wondered why TCU, SMU, Houston, and Rice didn't try to keep the SWC alive. At the time of the SWC collapse the Great Midwest and Metro schools had not yet settled their blood feud. Tulsa was also looking for a conference at the time too. Maybe UTEP and New Mexico could have been enticed by the prospect of playing in those big Texas markets. The pool that those 4 core schools could have drawn from would have included:

Tulsa
Tulane
Memphis
Cincinnati
Louisville
Southern Miss
UTEP
New Mexico

I feel like they could have produced a credible 10 or 12 member league and a byproduct of that move would have been that the WAC would not have over expanded and led to the WAC-MWC split in 1999.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:02 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:33 am
Posts: 332
Location: Austin, Texas
fighting muskie wrote:
While we are on the topic of the Southwest Conference, I always wondered why TCU, SMU, Houston, and Rice didn't try to keep the SWC alive. At the time of the SWC collapse the Great Midwest and Metro schools had not yet settled their blood feud. Tulsa was also looking for a conference at the time too. Maybe UTEP and New Mexico could have been enticed by the prospect of playing in those big Texas markets. The pool that those 4 core schools could have drawn from would have included:

Tulsa
Tulane
Memphis
Cincinnati
Louisville
Southern Miss
UTEP
New Mexico

I feel like they could have produced a credible 10 or 12 member league and a byproduct of that move would have been that the WAC would not have over expanded and led to the WAC-MWC split in 1999.


I agree, but I believe Houston already had one foot out the door....during the last season of the SWC. So, it would have only been SMU, TCU, and Rice. Which is still a nice trio...if they would have stuck together under the SWC flag.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:58 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 783
Location: Columbus, OH
mozilla wrote:
fighting muskie wrote:
While we are on the topic of the Southwest Conference, I always wondered why TCU, SMU, Houston, and Rice didn't try to keep the SWC alive. At the time of the SWC collapse the Great Midwest and Metro schools had not yet settled their blood feud. Tulsa was also looking for a conference at the time too. Maybe UTEP and New Mexico could have been enticed by the prospect of playing in those big Texas markets. The pool that those 4 core schools could have drawn from would have included:

Tulsa
Tulane
Memphis
Cincinnati
Louisville
Southern Miss
UTEP
New Mexico

I feel like they could have produced a credible 10 or 12 member league and a byproduct of that move would have been that the WAC would not have over expanded and led to the WAC-MWC split in 1999.


I agree, but I believe Houston already had one foot out the door....during the last season of the SWC. So, it would have only been SMU, TCU, and Rice. Which is still a nice trio...if they would have stuck together under the SWC flag.


Yes, Houston had a foot out the door but they were jumping in bed with many of the schools on this list. It would have just been a matter of the other 3 Texas schools being part of that conversation in place of the non-football schools from the Metro and Great Midwest. I'm thinking either 10 members of 12, pending whether or not UAB and USF were commited to FBS football at the time.

SWC-WEST: Tulsa, SMU, TCU, Rice, Houston, Tulane
SWC-EAST: Cincy, L'ville, Memphis, USM, UAB, USF


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 4:46 pm 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore

Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:34 pm
Posts: 54
fighting muskie wrote:
mozilla wrote:
fighting muskie wrote:
While we are on the topic of the Southwest Conference, I always wondered why TCU, SMU, Houston, and Rice didn't try to keep the SWC alive. At the time of the SWC collapse the Great Midwest and Metro schools had not yet settled their blood feud. Tulsa was also looking for a conference at the time too. Maybe UTEP and New Mexico could have been enticed by the prospect of playing in those big Texas markets. The pool that those 4 core schools could have drawn from would have included:

Tulsa
Tulane
Memphis
Cincinnati
Louisville
Southern Miss
UTEP
New Mexico

I feel like they could have produced a credible 10 or 12 member league and a byproduct of that move would have been that the WAC would not have over expanded and led to the WAC-MWC split in 1999.


I agree, but I believe Houston already had one foot out the door....during the last season of the SWC. So, it would have only been SMU, TCU, and Rice. Which is still a nice trio...if they would have stuck together under the SWC flag.


Yes, Houston had a foot out the door but they were jumping in bed with many of the schools on this list. It would have just been a matter of the other 3 Texas schools being part of that conversation in place of the non-football schools from the Metro and Great Midwest. I'm thinking either 10 members of 12, pending whether or not UAB and USF were commited to FBS football at the time.

SWC-WEST: Tulsa, SMU, TCU, Rice, Houston, Tulane
SWC-EAST: Cincy, L'ville, Memphis, USM, UAB, USF


Houston was considered for the Big 12 when it started before Baylor lobbied its way in. Houston went to the new C-USA because they were actually a major program like the schools who went to the Big 12, whereas SMU had their scandal to set them back and Rice and TCU very rarely went to bowl games (TCU only went to bowl games 3 times from '60-'95, and Rice only in '60 and '61 in that time). C-USA from '96-'05 was comparable to today's American, the MW a few years ago, the WAC from '05-'09, and had at least 1 team ranked most years as if it was a major.

Rice, SMU and TCU didn't really have options to redo the Southwest. They could've made a conference with nearby schools who would've likely joined, but based on competitiveness and other factors it would've likely been-
Rice
SMU
TCU
Tulsa (from Independent/MVC)
UTEP (from WAC)
SW Louisiana (now UL-Laf) (from Big West FB/Sun Belt)
La. Tech (from Big West FB/Sun Belt)
North Texas (from Independent/Southland)

While that would be a decent conference now, collectively back then it would've had no high quality programs when it started. That combined with the bad rep the conference was getting, and the WAC was a far better option for the SWC leftovers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 7:59 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 783
Location: Columbus, OH
I didn't think about what poor condition the football programs of the 3 private schools when I considered rebuilding the SWC. Those schools wouldn't have had the strength to pull the trio or Cincy/Louisville/Memphis when the merged Metro/Great Midwest offered better overall tv markets and far superior basketball than a rebuilt SWC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 13, 2014 11:14 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:56 pm
Posts: 132
Okay, on the topic of the SWC -
Since Texas State owns the SWC, lets say they begin building the SWC from among the lower 5 conf schools. Who would you add to make a 12 member conf with Texas State - assuming the schools that you choose are all for joining this conference? (interesting new look? or go for a more traditional regional look?)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], jbb and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group