We DONT know what went on behind closed doors, and neither do you!! Quit acting like you do, because you dont…
1 Like
But I do know there are no reports much less “lots of them” that indicate that the members of the Big 8 wanted UH.
And I do know that those that were as closely involved as possible have stated on the record that Texas and A&M were the only two that anyone wanted for sure and the others were up to the SWC.
1 Like
Not sure why a conference would have wanted UH in ‘94. The football team was 1-10 and if you exclude the A&M game, we averaged under 17k. The basketball team wasn’t much better, finishing 8-19. I don’t doubt that there may have been some chicanery, especially in the early years of the SWC, and politics got Baylor and Tech in, not anything they had done to earn it. But we got left out because the athletic department was dysfunctional, and attendance was practically non-existent.
3 Likes
The president at Kansas State at the time wrote it in a book.
But, OTOH, if you aren’t aware, then it must not have happened.
Lots of misinformation in this thread.
1 Like
and the trolls keep on trolling…
1 Like
Read through it. There is a comment in there about it was the Big 8’s impression that the four would be Texas, Texas Tech, A&M and Houston.!
The ridiculous self loathing of some makes me want to puke on my shoes.
3 Likes
Ditto…
1 Like
And as I said, the only reason it wasn’t those four is because of certain politicians that were in power at the time that wanted to make sure that their private CHURCH SCHOOL alma mater got in.
Anyone saying otherwise is either misinformed or in a sad state of denial.
6 Likes
A continuing saga of how inept UH was since our administration didn’t have a clue what was happening. And once it did, there was no action.
Not that there was much the administration could have done since there was absolutely no political muscle behind us whatsoever.
2 Likes
I truly believe if Marguerite Ross Barnett had not died of cancer in 1992 the outcome would have been much different.
She was pro-athletics. She was RK before RK.
That was one impressive lady.
2 Likes
No self-loathing. I simply understand why UH wasn’t considered valuable at that time. We were coming off a two-year record of 2-19-1 and were averaging 17k fans. Everyone knows that politics got Baylor and Tech in, but really no one was especially worthy of inclusion after UT and Aggy.
Please give us more details. I was in School at that time. We as students did not feel that way. I wrote about John Moores role during this period in another thread. He is highly responsible too.
Sam we won a Heisman in 1989 and we were on the cover of SI in 1990. We had a history of winning. No one looked at us as not being able to compete. Yes we were stupid with the love coach who ran off a big chunk of the team as he was building “his culture”, which caused us to be horrible for a few years. But had we been included in the Big 12 we would have been competitive and everyone knew it. Texas flat out did not want us in, there is no other way to candy coat that. Dodds and Cunningham absolutely loathed us.
2 Likes
And yet we didn’t prove it in the conferences we were actually in.
TCU did what it took and actually was competitive.
Coog51 you are 100% correct. We finished 10-1 in 1990 while on probation and a limited roster. Finally the wheels fell of due to these probation. Sam is either a troll or has another agenda.
The real question that was never answered or has not been answered is for me this.
Was our demise orchestrated on purpose? You have to ask the question. None of it made sense from an administration point of view or an athletic department point of view.
Administration wise we were portrayed in the worst possible way.
Athletics wise we were portrayed in the worst possible way.
Which schools gained from this?
TCU is a private school. U of H has always had the potential to be a major athletic department. Every single time we were stopped in our track by probation or coaches leaving. Is this a coincidence? You decide.
1 Like
in the 1982 season UH was 5-5
after that 4-7
7-5
4-7
1-10
4-6
9-3
9-2
10-1
4-7
4-7
1-9
1-10
2-9
so in 14 seasons 4 were winning seasons, one was a tie, and 9 were losing seasons with 4 wins or less
so 71.4% of those 14 seasons were not winning seasons
out of 20 seasons 10 were not winning seasons so half the time in the SWC was not a winning season
if the argument being made is that Texas was responsible for making those losing seasons happen then the reality is UH still did not deserve to be in the Big 12 because the athletics program and university administration is so weak that they allow that to happen then they should be left by the wayside for incompetence
in the 25 years since the SWC folded UH has had 10 losing seasons, 1 tie season and 14 winning seasons so only slightly better than .500 on winning seasons which is slightly better than the .500 in the SWC
and with Texas still being responsible for this well there is still no reason for UH to be in the Big 12 if they cannot deal with Texas holding them back even now
Yes, one could definitely make an argument we had more potential than Baylor. As I said, Baylor and Tech got in because of politics, but we had hit rock bottom, and there was no way to know if we would bounce back. They were talking of shutting down football sometime in the early 00s. Texas wasn’t responsible for UH not getting an invitation. Bob Bullock was.
1 Like
Many opinions on here, so here is mine…
Football team records and fan attendance are mentioned as THE defining factors behind what happed with UH & the SWC. Indeed, these are the factors that are publicly stated by the deal makers at the time…and continue to this day.
I don’t agree that attendance and football team record were the defining factors…it was the convenient excuse.
I don’t know if Bill Carr’s tenure as UH AD is considered successful or not (if folks on here can provide some background, please do).
BUT, Carr’s quote from the above referenced article rings true to me:
Carr: What amazed me was that three public institutions left the fourth one behind. Houston was just not acceptable to A&M and Texas, bottom line. You go back to the early origins of the University of Houston and it was a junior college. The Texas A&M people called Houston “Cougar High.” That was part of the disdain that flowed naturally from the hearts and minds of the folks at A&M. They had emotion and more negativity than the [University of] Texas tea-sippers. Theirs was a social disdain. The tea-sippers weren’t emotional, they were sophisticated and snobbish. They looked at the University of Houston as unworthy: “We won’t give them the time of day.”
Yeah, there was definitely some of that, but had we been in the same position we were in the 70s it would have been much more difficult to exclude us. The Big 8 wanted Texas and A&M. The other two could have been any schools, but Tech and Baylor had the political clout at that time.
2 Likes
1 Like