Threatening your way into a conference run by Texas - a school Houston already has a less-than-stellar reputation with - is a terrible idea. Do I think Houston should be in a power conference? Yes and if expansion continues, I think they may. However, this is not the way to do it.
Maybe there is just discussions of what ifs about expansion. Regardless, if the Big 12 were to expand back to 12, do not believe the University of Texas will be the reason the U of Houston is not included. Why would any of the 10 schools want another Texas school in the league? Having four Texas schools is more than enough.
BePcr07, thanks for sharing.
The University of Texas and Texas Tech are the only state schools from Texas residing in the B12. They have their own legislative influence, not the least which include members who are alumni of UT Law School. This is not particularly similar to the Ann Richards-Baylor situation engaging the old Big 8. Agree Lash, why would the Big 12, maybe particularly those outside of Texas, want another addition from Texas when four are there already? This reminds me somewhat of some members of the Illinois legislature last year advocating that another Illinois state university be admitted to the B1G.
Back in the old Southwest Conference days, Houston was a later addition to the established SWC contingent. Then, Houston was doing particularly well in fb and bb and exploited well the recruiting rules of the time. Part of the reason the SWC absorbed them then, was to bring the school and program under their control.
When the SWC broke-up, Houston, Rice, TCU, and SMU got left behind in finding a power-type conference situation. TCU worked/hopped their way back to a power conference. Houston and SMU eventually made it to the now AAC, and edged outside the P5 and much less revenue available compared to P5 conferences. Rice hangs in CUSA.
There were schools, Nebraska in particular, from the old Big8, that just never found a comfort level with the merger with the Texas-4. I wonder what the conference would look like today if just UT, TTU, and Texas A&M were the only ones added, and BYU was the fourth. That was proposed at the time. Even then, however, Texas A&M liked the idea of being in the SEC instead. Maybe Texas and TTU should have just gone then to the Big 8 (thus ten total), and the Big8 plus 2 could have held at that or later expanded with two more from other states. Texas A&M, at that time, could have gone to the SEC as they preferred. Thus, with Baylor, SMU, TCU, Houston, Rice, the SWC could have added others, such as Tulane, UTEP, and Tulsa, to work back to 10, or maybe even twelve. The SWC, if it survived, would not have been the same level of prestige, but similar type schools would still be together, and offered some of them better stability.
I was just speculating about "what ifs", but what happened back then left measures of resentment and dissatisfaction. And seriously, SWC programs at the time, such as Texas and Texas A&M, needed to separate from much of the SWC. How it all unfolded was really the concern.