OT: The time when UH almost joined the SEC with Texas A&M

Briefly was talking about this in the Realignment thread, and after some digging, I found this in the College Football subreddit.


“I served on the Athletics Advisory Board from 87-94. Stan Binion and I were the two Board of Regent Nominees representing the BOR. We had an overview function of approving budgets, scholastics, hiring and firing coaches, and a macro guidance of the Athletic Department.

Rudy Davalos (AD and head of the Advisory Board) called me on a Wednesday Night (in 91 I think), calling an Emergency Meeting on Friday. We all showed up, and Rudy informed us that UH had been extended an offer to join the SEC along with A&M. We voted “Yes” 12-0. A&M and UH were to hold a joint news conference at 10am Monday to announce the move.

Well…A&M fish tailed. IMO, this weekend the Big 12 was formed in a smoke filled back room. No question. A&M cut the deal with Texas, preventing us from going to the SEC. IMO, we were probably on the inside track to join the Big12, but Governor Richards and Lt. Governor Bullock (Baylor/TT), exercised enough power to screw us out of the deal. We limped along in the SWC for the next year, while they “officially” formed the Big 12, but the die had been cast.

I was there. This happened.“

Bullock had threatened Texas A&M’s construction of the future Reed Arena (basketball)."

5 Likes

Also, found this in the CFB Subreddit


“In 1955, Ole Miss sponsored the University of Houston’s application to the SEC. The SEC elected to take a year to think about it. Houston played two SEC teams that year and lost, but tied #15 Texas A&M. Both the SEC and the SWC turned down Houston’s application.”

3 Likes

Interesting. Thx for sharing. The end of the SWC and having to go to the CUSA really set our program back years…

2 Likes

Oh yeah.

Bullock and Richards, the worst duo for UH.

4 Likes

I would say decades and UH is still recovering, all these years later.

2 Likes

Had we gone to the SEC, would the campus had become more residential over the next 30 years?

Can you name a commuter campus in the current SEC?

1 Like

You opened a long can or worms for uhlaw97 to digest with this thread. Lol

3 Likes

Paging UHLaw……UHLaw in 3….2……1…

4 Likes

Oh don’t worry, uhlaw97 is always omnipresent!

I remember that when it was first posted here.

Listen folks. Unless someone can show me proof of a written offer from the SEC to join that conference, UH was never truly close to joining it.

UH certainly ATTEMPTED to join the SEC…we got close at one point in the 1950s, but were ultimately voted down.

As for this meeting, I’m sure that our Board, acting on the hope that an invite to the SEC might be coming, did indeed vote as described. This does NOT mean that any true written offer/invitation was ever actually extended. Without proof in writing, we were never offered.

The three great realignment lies of coogfans.com:

  1. UH is being “vetted” by the B1G; that rumor came up some years back, and the people that posted it claimed that they had gotten it from people inside the athletic department; of course, when asked, they said they couldn’t name names; fine. Then guess what. It isn’t true. Anyone who knows anything about the B1G (and I know a bit because I’m a B1G alum), knows that the B1G doesn’t even sniff, much less “vet” non-AAU schools like UH, unless they were Notre Dame before its AAU days. Today, that exception doesn’t exist. During the B1G’s most recent expansion moves, more than one news source posted names of schools that truly were being vetted by the B1G. Houston, of course, was NOT on the list. All the schools on the list were AAU members, or Notre Dame.

  2. UH “almost joined” the SEC. See above. We never received a written invite. No invite…then we did NOT “almost join” the SEC.

  3. UH is “negotiating” to join the PAC. One dude on Twitter wrote that TCU and UH were being considered by the PAC, which was ABSURDLY implausible, given that the PAC is known for NOT taking either a) religious schools, or b) schools that aren’t R1. TCU was both. Had the rumor only been UH, then it wouldn’t be implausible, but the minute I heard TCU’s name mentioned, I automatically dismissed it. It was RIGHT, of course. NO news source that covers the PAC, much less the conference itself, ever confirmed that rumor. Jon Wilner once wrote an article saying why he thought that the PAC SHOULD consider adding UH, but that’s a far cry saying that the PAC was actually interested (some have offered Wilner’s article to support that proposition, even though it does NOT do so), much less that we are “negotiating” to join. One guy here even posted that we were “negotiating” to join the PAC, AFTER we had already accepted a Big 12 invite, which was also absurd. No way after we’d fulfilled our decades long dream to join the Big 12, we would then turn right around to join a conference way out West with no local rivals, no local fan or recruit interest, etc. And given that negotiating to join a new conference requires a public vote by the Board of Regents, one which did occur for the Big 12, but did NOT occur for the PAC, any assertions about UH negotiating to join any conference other than the Big 12 were preposterous. Here’s the reality folks. Before disbanding the PAC REJECTED a plan to add four bigger brand Big 12 P4 schools. The idea that the PAC was then going to turn around and then invite three P5 schools…and a G5 school (Houston), or any other combination (TCU, etc) and a G5 school can thus be safely dismissed as well. You don’t turn down bigger brand P5 schools and then turn around and invite a G5 school (which Houston was at the time). That’s ridiculous.

Of course, within months of people making that claim on the board, the PAC promptly collapsed, proving the rumor to be nonsensical…and also proving that we had joined the RIGHT conference, one that absorbed four of the members of that other failing/failed conference: the PAC.

Could things change in the future?

Sure.

Is it likely to happen anytime soon?

No.

I can’t see an invite to the SEC coming as long as UT and aTm are members.

And unless/until we become AAU, an invite to the B1G isn’t even plausible, much less possible. When we do become AAU (which may be several years away), even then, it’s unlikely. The B1G has never had any desire to add a TX school, and if they did have such a desire, then they’d have at least two, and probably three, larger brands to choose from than UH.

3 Likes

Some have said they DO have a desire to be in Texas and have already sent out feelers to TAMU.

Yes, UH needs to work on its fan support.brand but the University is a UT-Austin like growth stock with a higher ceiling than TT, TCU, or Baylor.

You are too Bearish on the potential of the University of Houston.

I won’t say everything rides on Fritz and how quickly he gets us in Playoff contention but we need THAT to prove we have a fan base…a brand…just that they only come out when we are good and with that comes impressive TV ratings

As I said, if the B1G has such a desire, they’d have at least two (UT and aTm), and possibly three (UT, aTm, and Tech) larger brands to choose from.

Personally, I don’t think the B1G is actively looking at adding a Texas school, but if they were, then it would NOT be UH.

It’d be either UT or aTm. And if they can’t get either one, then they won’t add UH simply for the sake of having a school in TX. The P2 don’t add dilutive brands these days, regardless of the state, or their desire to have a school in a state.

In TX, only UT and aTm would be value additive, not UH.

Hence the rumors about feelers being sent to aTm, and NOT UH>

Tech isn’t a bigger brand than UH.

They only beat us in attendance but they look up to us in every other measurable…including path to becoming an AAU.

On UT and TAMU, they opted to BE IN THE SEC (over the B1G), so those two options are NOT on the table.

1 Like

I’m guessing that if you looked at both attendance and viewership, Tech would be significantly ahead of us.

That’s what sports brand size is all about. Tech would definitely be a bigger sports brand than UH in that regard.

But…UT and aTm beat both UH and Tech in that regard.

So if the B1G wants to add a TX school, they’ll invite one of those two, and if they can’t have one of those two, then they’ll simply do without.

They won’t add a value dilutive brand like UH simply for the sake of having a presence in TX that they’ve never needed in order to be the richest conference.

LAW…Texas A&M and Texas do NOT want to be in the B1G so it’s a moot point to talk about.

I imagine UT had a standing invitation to join both, and THEIY selected the SEC.

Texas Tech may bring a bigger fan brand TODAY but UH is the better fit.

TCU worries me more than TT

We’ll see about that. aTm and UT for now are relishing the renewal of their old rivalry. But just as was true in the Big 12, that can quickly change, and send aTm looking elsewhere. The B1G would be the only logical place to go.

How is UH a “better fit?” Not seeing it. The bigger brand is always the better fit when it comes to conference expansion. Tech is a bigger brand, and would get the nod, assuming both Tech and UH both ultimately become AAU. Of course, it won’t come down to that, because the real contest would be between UT and aTm.

TCU??? You gotta be kidding. They will NEVER be AAU. Not even close. The B1G would NEVER consider a school that only does $15 million in research per year. NEVER!!! You may be literally the ONLY person in the world concerned that TCU would get a B1G invite.

UT/aTm (especially aTm based on some rumors), and Tech (to a much lesser degree) should concern you.

You should NEVER be concerned that a small, private R2 school that will never be AAU like TCU will get a B1G invite.

AIN’T happening.

Please make it stop. I remember 2,136,454 back and fourths on this subject before.

6 Likes

No one says you have to listen.

1 Like