The Wrong Time for Baylor’s Stand
By Paul Myerberg // Sep 8, 2011
Seventeen years ago, Baylor had a chance to make a stand. The Southwest Conference was dissolving: what was once a nine-team league had dwindled to eight when Arkansas left for the SEC in 1991, leaving the conference’s long-term future was in doubt. Yet the remaining eight teams held on through 1992 and 1993, playing a seven-game conference slate and adding a fourth game outside of SWC play. The death knell came in March of 1994, when four teams accepted to join the Big Eight, soon to be the Big 12: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor.
That’s when Baylor should’ve made its stand, if Baylor truly means what it says when the university climbs upon its high horse in defense of the “integrity of college athletics.” Or when it warns the masses: “Don’t Mess With Texas Football.”
Baylor didn’t stand up for “Texas Football” then, nor for this unimpeachable “integrity,” as it left for higher ground, bigger deals and fatter paychecks in the Big 12. That move left four key members of “Texas Football” out in the cold: S.M.U., T.C.U., Rice and Houston.
“Will Texans stand by and watch hundred-year-old rivalries be cast aside as the state’s largest universities align themselves with others states across the country?”
That’s not me asking; that’s Baylor asking, just two days ago, and the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife. Really? Baylor’s asking who’s going to stick up for the little guy as rivalries are “cast aside” in pursuit of the highest bidder? The Bears would know about leaving a small fish in a lurch, I suppose, having done so to the Mustangs, Horned Frogs, Owls and Cougars 17 years ago.
Yeah, that was the time to make a stand, not now. Today, such preaching reeks of the newfound faith of a longtime sinner: preach away if you’d like, but don’t think we’ve forgotten your history, friend.
But there’s a bright side to this whole thing, Baylor — you just need to look close. I’m sure Conference USA would welcome you with open arms, perhaps softening the blow should the Big 12 dissolve, as most expect.
One problem: you need the necessary votes. I’m not sure if S.M.U., Rice and Houston are going to have your back. Maybe if you had had theirs 17 years ago?
You can also follow Paul Myerberg and Pre-Snap Read on Twitter.
Tags: Baylor, Big 12, Houston, Rice, S.M.U., T.C.U.
Home
Comments
Leave a Comment
Follow us
RSS | 
Twitter
This is Gospel! Preach it, Brother!
Baylor has to be aware of the hypocrisy that’s spewing from their mouths. Maybe it’s a new administration and their defense is that “we are not like the previous regime.” Either way can’t say that I am happy in the way college football is going.
I tend to be in alignment with this, but with a caveat essentially reiterating my point of yesterday, that being; ‘what is wrong with the CUSA or MWC?’ What is so disconcerting about a conference that shares Baylor and Tulsa, or Iowa State and Wyoming, or Kansas State and New Mexico? Why did Houston, SMU, Rice and TCU suddenly cease to be considered worthy of our attention the moment they left one conference and entered another?
CUSA and MWC are as good as the Big East or ACC. Their conference champions are as strong as conference champions from those other conferences. Baylor makes as much sense being conference companions with Houston and SMU as they do with Tech and the Longhorns. But that doesn’t mean they will simply cease to exist the moment they’re in the MWC or CUSA.
And the fact that they, along with the Cyclones, Jaayhawks, or Wildcats, would not enter either the MWC or CUSA as presumptive favorites is telling in and of itself, when compared to the situation facing first Louisville and now TCU upon their ‘ascension’ (i argue, lateral transfer) to the Big East. Baylor is a fantastic fit for either CUSA or MWC, as are Kansas State and Iowa State, and their place in either conference should under no circumstances be seen as an anathema.
Paul: Yes, I saw that point yesterday. It’s a good one. Everything has to start somewhere. If there’s a power vacuum, maybe it can be filled by a Conference USA. Maybe the MAC becomes the No. 2 Midwestern conference. We won’t know for a while.
“CUSA and MWC are as good as the Big East or ACC” – and what about the money? Do you know what is the REAL difference between a BCS and a non-BCS conference?
Wow that really puts things in perspective in regards to Baylor But I would suggest that you leave the Jab at a “repentant sinner” by the wayside.
[...] Baylor should know. Seventeen years ago, Baylor had a chance to make a stand. The Southwest Conference was dissolving: what was once a nine-team league had dwindled to eight when Arkansas left for the SEC in 1991, leaving the conference’s long-term future was in doubt. Yet the remaining eight teams held on through 1992 and 1993, playing a seven-game conference slate and adding a fourth game outside of SWC play. The death knell came in March of 1994, when four teams accepted to join the Big Eight, soon to be the Big 12: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor. [...]
The tone of this piece implies that Baylor somehow had the power to hold the SWC together, and that they have the power to prevent the A&M -> SEC move from happening. Neither is true.
In reality I think the Texas legislature had much more to do with Baylor moving the Big 12, but it’s silly to think that the Big 8 would have taken any more Texas teams than they already did.
How can you argue that Baylor shouldn’t make even a losing legal attempt to hold off being bumped to a non-AQ conference?!?
Babe,
Regardless of power, which Baylor obviously doesn’t have much in the Bevo conference either, it’s about sticking up for the little guy.
They could have pulled the same stink 17 years ago (with the Gov as a Baylor grad, who knows), but they didn’t since they were in the “in crowd”.
Being a Bible school, you would think Baylor would know, you don’t do something because you can, you do it cause it is the right thing to do.
Hypocrisy at its best!
Love it!!!