How about another way at looking at things - who are the biggest misfits geographically? ;D

I'll start off with a few poor fits.......

Louisiana Tech in the Western Athletic Conference (LSU is in the SEC and is a stretch to be southeastern, then you have tech in a western conference?)

Texas Christian University in the Mountain West Conference (Fort Worth is smack dab in the middle of the southern US, not the west, and there ain't no mountains in Texas.....a few hills maybe)

Boston College in the Atlantic Coast Conference (ok, it is on the Atlantic coast, but all the other schools are semicontiguous southern states - it is as mismatched as Miami was in the Big East)

South Florida in the Big East (as big a mismatch as Miami was in the league)

The Sunbelt will be some better geographically with the loss of New Mexico State, Idaho and Utah State but Denver is a very poor fit there too

What are some other geographic mismatches? - Arkansan

Arkansan,

I'll throw this one back to you with a question of my own. It is a question that involves a school you are more than familiar with and wouldn't have a chance of making the misfit list. So I'll ask out of curiosity based on your interesting question.

Would Arkansas have been better off if it never joined the SEC?

Arkansas, as a state, has always had more of a southwest tilt to it than any of the other states on the geographic tier that runs from Minnesota to Louisiana. Add to this that Fayettesville is the in the NW corner of the state, maybe even more removed from true SEC country than is Lexington, KY.

Arkansas saw itself at a national disadvantage being part the only non-Texas member of the SWC. However, the combination of the Big 8 and the SWC powerhouses into the Big 12 has afords Arkansas, IMHO, a compatiability that the SEC could never offer.

What are your opinions on this Ark/SEC/XII issue?

^Yes, big dz, Fayatteville, AR is geographically closer to Stillwater, OK, Norman, OK, and I believe even Columbia, MO and Lawrence, KS are closer, if not nearly as close as Baton Rouge, LA, Oxford, MS, and Starkville, MS. Its in the Ozarks, which is a region shared with Missouri, eastern Oklahoma, and the very southeast corner of Kansas.

The only thing is that while Oklahoma and Missouri are not more than 10 to 25 miles from Fayetteville. Arkansas would be very bit of a stretch to classify as a Great Plains or pseudo prairie state. At least 1/2 or more of Missouri and Oklahoma are either Great Plains and/or Prairie in landscape.

I think it slightly edges out to be in the SEC, and LSU has a similar position of being a little too far west to be in the Southeast. But both of them together square off the western boundary of the SEC. I think LSU fits more in the SEC than Arkansas. If U of Arkansas was in Little Rock or another location more central in Arkansas, then I wouldn't think there would be any debate at all on where it should be, as that would be more closer-in, in the SEC territory.

There's the Guadalupe Mountains just south of the New Mexico border, out in West Texas between Odessa and El Paso, and northwest of Pecos. Its one of two National Parks in Texas -- Guadalupe Mountains National Park and Big Bend National Park. The highest point in Texas is there at 8,749 feet above sea level. While not close to the highest peaks of Colorado or New Mexico, that elevation is only 3,000 feet below the elevation of Mt Hood in Oregon.

Also out in that West Texas/Big Bend Area where I-20 meets I-10, there's several mountain ranges, including Baylor Mountains, Delaware Mountains, Davis Mountains, Barrilla Mountains, Del Norte Mountains, Chisos Mountains. These all range from 4,000 to 7,500 feet above sea level. I've never been there, but I have seen pictures of some mountains in this region, and they seem to be more of a desert type -- arid and semi-arid without forested slopes (except maybe pinon pines). Probably no snow caps, that's for sure. Those mountains are probably 400 or more miles from Ft Worth though, but technically there's mountains in the state of Texas.

Also, I had a professor in college that created an Encyclopedia of the Great Plains. He identified the boundary of the Great Plains as going right through -- in between -- Dallas and Ft. Worth. He identified Dallas as being a "Southern" city, and Ft. Worth a "Great Plains City" or more of a "Western City". So by that definition, it fits barely in the "West". Besides, Horned Frogs have Horns on them, which means the Horns are mountains, so they carry the mountains, not the land.

Your professor was right about Ft. Worth and Dallas. Big D is very southern and Ft. Worth very western. And the two cities are separated by a lot more than just the surburbs of Irving, Arlington and Grand Prairie. I-35 is basically the wet/dry line in Texas. A common misconception is that Texas is dry with tumbleweed everywhere. West of I-35 its dry. Houston gets more rain than Seattle.

And while the Guadalupe Mountains in Texas are rarely snowcapped, they tower over the surrounding area which is realtively low. I've seen El Capitan there from over 80 miles away. The Franklin Mountains in El Paso are probably the most likely to be snowcapped. And there are parts of Texas that are very hilly, notably the Central Texas "Hill Country" starting in NW Austin. While Houston is 50 ft above sea level and the only hills are freeway overpasses and creek banks, DFW is pretty hilly. And Amarillo on the "High Plains" is around 5500 ft. above sea level.

Still, TCU has a lot closer ties to New Orleans, Tulsa and even Memphis than Laramie, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas and Northern Colorado.

The whole Mid-Continent is a geographic mis-match.

You are correct sir in that the University of Arkansas campus is far removed from most all of the other SEC campuses - we actually are closer to many of ther BIG 12 schools than the closest SEC school - in truth though, we are at the fringes on both conferences (although moreso with the SEC) - in culture though, Arkansas is more southern than midwestern - we have much more in common with Tennessee and Mississippi than we do Nebraska and Colorado - if there ever was a conference with Arkansas in the middle, it would consist of the Oklahoma schools, Missouri and Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas - not likely to ever happen - Arkansas State is a little more central in the Sunbelt, however I can't forsee any conference affiliations with them unless the UA really falters or ASU really improves

Regarding the mountains of Texas.......I stand corrected - thank the rest of you for pointing that out - Arkansan

Clearly TCU would be a better fit if it simply stayed in CUSA, with 3 of its former SWC rivals.

Probably the school that TCU might have the strongest relationship with in the MWC is also its closest in the MWC -- U New Mexico (625 miles away). There seems to be some very subtle rivalries between U New Mexico and a handful of schools located in Texas. Particularly New Mexico and Texas Tech (which were former conference mates of the old Border States Conference), Baylor, before former Baylor basketball coach, Dave Bliss? was fired. He used to coach at UNM before going to Baylor. Also, Dennis Franchione left UNM to coach at TCU. He's now at A & M which brings in another relationship that UNM has to another Texas school.

Also, New Mexico, though one of its schools (UNM) is in the MWC, and the other will be in the WAC (NMSU), it is identified loosely in the Big 12 territory. This past spring, the Big 12 held an annual meeting at a mountain resort in New Mexico, which seems odd on the surface. No teams in the Big 12 are in New Mexico.

However, I do remember when the Big 12 was formed, they took the Big 12 name and registered it as a trademark to retain ownership of it. At the same time, they did the same thing with the name Big 14, so if they ever thought the need to expand, the name wouldn't be taken by another conference. The news article also showed a map of the Big 12 conference region, and it included the western boundary as not only Colorado, but all of New Mexico. I don't know if this map was pointing to New Mexico being officially identified as Big 12 territory, even though the two teams there are in two different conferences. I also heard that besides Baylor being considered for the 4th Texas school, TCU, and SMU, were also considered, as well as UNM might have been an alternative 4th new member that would have taken the place of a 4th Texas school. Maybe I misheard that and it was rumor that I read somewhere.

Odds and ends on different posters comments:

Arkansan: I fully agree with you that Arkansas has far more in common with SEC teams than it does with a good portion of the XII. But I'm sure you will agree with me that it has EVERYTHING in common with The Big XII South (all six members) and with Missouri than it does with a good percentage of the SEC.

sportsgeog: interesting comment on copywrites on numbers by the B12. The question here is: will anyone bother to use those numbers again now that we are in an age of instability in conference membership and those numbers can change? Look at the Big Ten; virtually its whole history it was ten, with the exception of the few years between Chicago going out and MSU going in, as well as since Penn State was admitted. And the conference knew that eleven would not be a final number.

and one of my own: if college football became more of a level playing field, it is a shame for schools like TCU (and, for that matter UT, A&M, etc.) that the old SWC didn't stay together. It was a classic for schools in one state with all the internal rivalries that entails (with the necessary inclusion of Arkansas to give it the interstate presence it needed). If $$$$$$ were not an issue and cheating hadn't done it in, the concept of what the SWC for the Texas schools would, IMHO, been a vast improvement of what they got in the B12.

^I think the only certainty right now with the Big 10 expanding is that they have an unofficial offer laying on the table for Norte Dame to expand. Syracuse, Pittsburgh, and Missouri are contingency schools that the Big 10 would place up in the queue if Norte Dame ever tells the Big 10 flat out that they will never ever join the Big 10. Even if those three schools are placed up in the queue, they may still either never act on it, or something would drive them to take a 12th school. They are a fairly traditional conference.

As far as Texas, Texas A & M, Texas Tech, and Baylor being worse off in the Big 12 than the SWC. I don't agree generally. The 3 flagship state schools of these 3 all have not had a drop off of attendance in their games. UT and A & M have both expanded their stadiums since joining the Big 12. UT has talked about going from 80K to over 100K in their stadium some day.

These 3 Texas schools have aligned themselves with the 2 Oklahoma schools that have had a relationship with the old SWC. Both OU and OSU were at one time, in the very early years, members of the SWC. UT has had a very long and traditional rivalry with OU.

As far as US geography, Texas is a very huge state. Dallas/Ft. Worth and Houston are both 2 of the 10 largests metro areas in the nation. They are both at ~5 million or more in size. They share that size and above with Detroit, Boston, Philly, DC/Balt., NYC, Chicago, Atlanta, Miami, LA, and SF, and these other 3 metros are not far off as well: Phx, Seattle, and Minn/SP. The problem with Texas in its relationships with other states surrounding them is that there are no comparable major cities like these two metros really close by. Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, and Phoenix, and perhaps Denver (even though not but 1/2 DFW size, it is a ver significant regional population center).

Dallas to Atlanta is ~800 miles
Dallas to Miami is ~1,300 miles
Dallas to Chicago is ~1,000 miles
Dallas to Phoenix is ~1,100 miles
Dallas to Denver is ~900 miles

So you can see there are no closeby major metro areas comparable to DFW and Houston. Even San Antonio is bigger than most metro areas within 750 miles of it, except DFW and Houston. It has 1.8 million. Austin is comparable to a few metro areas in surrounding states (1.4 million).

Even Chicago is 275 miles from Detroit, though Detroit is 4 million people less than Chicago, they are both over 5 million. MSP is 400 miles from Chicago. Detroit is 600 miles to NYC, 550 miles from DC/Balt., and 550 miles from Philly. So these major Midwestern cities of Chicago and Detroit are not as removed from the major East Coast population centers. They don't seem as remote.

But Texas and it two major metro areas are more remote. Of the states that border Texas (OK, AR, LA, and NM, as well as two other near states: KS, CO), there are only 2 major metro areas of 1 million or more:

Oklahoma City (1.1 million)
New Orleans (1.3 million)

and two additional mid-major metro areas that are nealy 1 million:

Tulsa (900,000)
Albuquerque (750,000)

& Other mid-major metros nearby in these states:

Baton Rouge (700,000)
Wichita (600,000)
Little Rock (600,000)

So there isn't the kind of population centers close by to Texas or in neighboring states that are on the level of DFW, Houston, and even San Antonio and Austin.

So, from this observation, which state should Texas be lumped together with?

I think the logical answer is Oklahoma.

Texas was one of the Confederate states, that is true. But its not the heart of the south. Oklahoma, didn't become a state until 1907. It didn't become a territory until 1889. Before that it was know as Indian Territory. Yet, people that get technically about what region Oklahoma should be in, usually its technically included in southern states, that is if you are separating the country by 4 super-regions (NE, South, Midwest, and West). But yet it was 23 years after the Civil War that Oklahoma became a territory, and 42 years after the Civil War it became a state.

Texas was once its own nation. It was also once a part of Mexico. So it isn't quite typical history of a southern state. Louisiana is too deep south for it to be lumped together with them.

So both of these states have had atypical histories when compared to the other southern states. They both have more of a variety of landscapes when compared to other southern states. Texas contains bayous, the cotton belt, humidity, like the states in the southeast. But it also contains Great Plains (Austin north and northwestward to Ft. Worth, Odessa/Midland, Lubbock, Roswell, Wichita Falls, and Amarillo north to Oklahoma City, Wichita, Dodge City, Salina, Denver, Cheyenne, Grand Island, Kearney North Platte, Scottsbluff, Pierre, Rapid City, Bismarck, Minot, Billings, Regina (SK), Saskatoon (SK), Calgary, Edmonton. All of these cities and towns are the hubs of the Great Plains, and the southernmost point is Austin, TX and the northern point is Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada). It also contains desert and mountains in the far west.

It also has a huge Latino population.

So Texas is a different type of state. It and Oklahoma both are western states as much as southern states. There is a survey that I talked about somewhere that most Oklahomans believe that they are Midwesterners, and they have a city called "Midwest City". Because it and Oklahoma have such a big difference to other southern states, I think they are the two states that naturally fit together. Arkansas and Louisiana have relationships with Texas, but they fit best with the deep south.

So UT, A & M, and TTU have all thrived in the Big 12. Baylor may be better off with its association with Big 12 schools, but it performed better on the field when it was a SWC school. TCU, actually on the field has done better as a WAC/CUSA school. SMU dropped off after the death penalty and has not recovered, really. Rice has always been Rice. It has had some moderately good seasons on the field since being in the WAC, but attendance has not increased.

Houston perhaps is the team that has suffered the most since the breakup of the old SWC. In the mid-1970's it joined the SWC. It wasn't really a good institutional fit for the SWC as the lone Urban Grant. But in the late 70's, Houston went to Cotton Bowls. Including playing Norte Dame in their 1977 National Championship game and beating Nebraska in the 1980 Cotton Bowl. In the late 80's/early 90's it had a Heisman Trophy winner in Andre Ware, and David Klinger was quite a passer the following years. Since leaving the SWC, Houston has fallen off as a national playing team. All of these 4 schools have a history of some national noteriety at some point, all having played in a few Cotton Bowls, TCU's 1938 National Championship, SMU's 1982 undefeated season and final #2 national ranking. Even Rice went to a couple Cotton Bowls in its history.

I think that overall, UT, A & M, and TTU are all better off in the Big 12, because they are better institutional fit among the Big 8 schools and the alignment with schools in Oklahoma.

I think the 4 schools of TCU, SMU, Rice, and Houston would have been better off just keeping the SWC conference together and should have sought Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis, USM and may La Tech, and maybe eventually UTEP, and let the more eastern CUSA schools form CUSA off by themselves. The national identity and heritage would be with them more if they retained that conference name instead of joining the WAC and CUSA, which in 1996 became far-flung conferences.

Excellent commentary and history sportgeog - thanks - Arkansan

i concur....great historical info, sportsgeog

and frankly, I don't disagree with you. I do believe that the 3 Texas state u 's have done just fine with the Big 12. My point (probably unclear) was the special nature of SWC football and all the in-bred, in-state rivalries that it promoted. I do fully realize that a conference with four (SMU, TCU, Baylor, and Rice) private institutions was just not going to make it in the modern world of college football. That said, the SWC offered that special form of excitement being almost entirely (short of Ark) in the same state.

^Thanks Arkansan and big dz.

big dz,

Actually that's what the Big West is trying to be in California. Not a football league, but in other sports.

I would say that its disappointing that an historical conference has to disappear, that it is somehow could have survived. If it wasn't for the scandals of the 80's, the SWC may have kept going with those 4 teams. I actually think that if the SWC was the organizing agent and not a CUSA, then with Tulsa, Tulane, Memphis, and USM, and maybe La Tech and eventually UTEP, it would probably have had the same success as CUSA. TCU would have stayed with its success. USM would be there. Tulane and the 1998 year.

The only team missing in the CUSA would be Louisville. But maybe Louisville and Cincinnati should have joined the Big East in the early 1990's when it formed. UAB might not have made the move-up, and maybe USF might not have either. Or if they did, they would be the 11th or 12th member. It certainly wouldn't be where the SWC was before, but it would move on and survived.

I don't think a conference that is located entirely within a whole state is good. Not having some conference opponents outside your state can prevent exposure nationally, as you don't go across into other states to play games.

UT and A & M kinda went down during the last decade of the SWC. TTU wasn't as good as it is, until joining the Big 12, save for a conference championship in the 2nd last year of the conference. This might have been to the scandals and the rep of the conference. But college football over the years is losing the moniker more and more as a "regional sport", to a "national sport". I think it becoming even more of a "national sport" is a good thing compared to it being confined to the Midwest, the South, Texas, and the West Coast. Keeping a conference in one state plays up the old "regionalisms" of the sport.

Prior to the breakup, there was serious discussion with Tulsa, Tulane and Memphis about possibly joining the SWC. Houston scuttled the SWC staying together with those schools potentially joining a new SWC. They were stunned about being left behind, thought they were too good for Rice, TCU and SMU and told them they would not stay with them. That was when the 3 privates sought other options and ended up in the WAC. That was their best option at the time. Houston continued to sink in CUSA and finally realized it was better to have those schools back with them.

Rice and TCU were actually the main powers in the SWC in the 50s. TCU went to 4 and Rice 3 Cotton Bowls during that decade. From 1942 to 1961, Rice, TCU and Baylor all went to both the Orange and Sugar Bowls.

The Big 12 copyrighted both the Big 14 and Big 16. My understanding is that they still have the rights to those names. I think every combination of Big 8 and SWC schools was probably considered. There was talk of OU and OSU re-joining the SWC. I think that got the Big 8 people on the ball to initiate the Big 12. There was discussion of UT and A&M alone joining the Big 8. There was discussion of a complete merger of the Big 8 and SWC. There was discussion of the Big 12 + BYU + 1 other school (UNM was probably discussed).

I concur on Louisiana Tech as an obvious mis-fit and on Boston College. But I think they both made the best decisions given their options.

After the SU/BC/VT/ND expansion fiasco, I thought it would be good (not that it was the least bit likely) if the ACC #12 was Temple. That would have made Temple happy since they have no home. It would have made the BE happy since they would not have lost BC and they didn't want Temple. It would have made Duke and UNC happy. They would have someone they could beat some in fb and someone who could beat them some in bb. It would also be a school in a contiguous state very close to Maryland in a market even bigger than Boston. All the unhappy parties in the ACC expansion would have had something to be happy about. And with Miami and VT, the ACC really didn't need a strong fb program. I doubt that it would have made any difference in their TV contracts. They would have lost very little in fb and gained a little in bb.