Growing the AAC into a power conference?
- Thread starter KnightLife1
- Start date
Chances .05%
Obstacles press, and P5.
can it be done, Not likely.
A Tweener status of some sort is very doable though.
Obstacles press, and P5.
can it be done, Not likely.
A Tweener status of some sort is very doable though.
It'll mean a top heavy conference of 3-4 teams. Houston, UCF and USF have the advantages, they just need to live up to the potential. Can't lose any games to UConn, Tulane, Tulsa, Temple, SMU, Etc.
Cincy, Temple and Memphis all have quality recruiting backyards and have the ability to be consistently winning programs also. About 6 or 7 games deep into the '15 season, the AAC had 3 teams in the top 25 rankings, Houston, Temple, Memphis. This past season,Temple beat Penn State and Memphis beat Ole Miss (who beat Alabama).
I'm counting 7 AAC teams that have visited the top 25 in the past few seasons or have the ability to get there in the near future: Houston, Temple, Memphis, UCF, Navy, Cincy, USF. To me that is a relevant mix both in annual standings and attractive TV markets.
How can we so easily say Never when Temple was 2 minutes away from beating Notre Dame last year? I would agree to saying long shot... but Never???
Sadly, it really doesn't matter how "good" the AAC is and/or will be...as the P5 is a "private" club (not NCAA run) that doesn't want to share in their wealth...let alone give up their built in reputation advantage for all their teams, even though more than half are just "check cashers" that add nothing to their conference's wealth.
UCF needs to continue to improve UCF...and all fans need to step up and/or help bring in new fans/supporters as unlike most P5 teams...UCF was born too late to join the Private Country Club so they don't get the tens of millions of $$$ every year from their conf/tv deal...and they don't have generations of sugar daddys that helped build nice things.
Even being a major underdog like that, its still more satisfying knowing that each and all the supporters are helping build UCF from the ground up...something most P5 fans can never say (some of their schools are 150-200 plus years old...programs are over 120 years old, etc...).
I think it is well settled that there is the P5, the AAC, then the G4. This is where it will be for a while.
The P5 is too greedy to ever allow that to happen and the media is too biased toward the P5 for any other conference to get a fair shot.
The AAC could finish with two top 10 teams for seven straight years and have four Access Bowl wins and still would not be added to the P5 "club."
The AAC could finish with two top 10 teams for seven straight years and have four Access Bowl wins and still would not be added to the P5 "club."
No because one season doesn't make a G5 a P5 conference much like how one season doesn't make a school entitled to a big 12 invite.
Its possible. Lets have another good year. Then after that...another good year. In football, we need to be the perennial G5 selection for the New Years Six. In basketball, its important for UConn, Temple, Memphis and Cincy to continue to be good. They have enough history and brand value to carry our conference.
In business, no one gives up millions of dollars voluntarily and gives it to their competitors. They keep as much of it for themselves as possible.
There is a higher likelihood of the United States government developing a budget surplus that pays of ALL of our debt than there is of the AAC becoming a part of a P6.
There is a higher likelihood of the United States government developing a budget surplus that pays of ALL of our debt than there is of the AAC becoming a part of a P6.
Can't never could.* Attitude is a powerful thing.
I don't like to say "never" or "always". Everything changes with time.
I've been saying that we need to focus on our own conference for years.
We don't have to join the P5 or get our "BCS" status back. We just have to wait to for the playoffs to expand. And they will just like they did in FCS / Div 1aa.
FCS started a 4 team playoff in 1978. In 4 years they expanded to 8 teams, The next year it was 12 teams. And 8 years after when the playoffs started, FCS expanded to 16 teams which is where they're at today. Keep in mind that is WITHOUT TV $$$$$ pushing expansion.
UCF is way better off in the AAC than in ANY OTHER conference with a 16 team playoff.
We don't have to join the P5 or get our "BCS" status back. We just have to wait to for the playoffs to expand. And they will just like they did in FCS / Div 1aa.
FCS started a 4 team playoff in 1978. In 4 years they expanded to 8 teams, The next year it was 12 teams. And 8 years after when the playoffs started, FCS expanded to 16 teams which is where they're at today. Keep in mind that is WITHOUT TV $$$$$ pushing expansion.
UCF is way better off in the AAC than in ANY OTHER conference with a 16 team playoff.
In what world is UCF better in the AAC over ANY OTHER Conference (especially P5)? You've said some pretty delusional things but this takes the cake. The ONE thing the AAC has over any other conference is lower competition to get INTO the playoff. Once there, that's where the benefit ENDS unless the goal is just to make it to the first round in the playoff and call it a day.
Being in ANY of the P5 Conferences increases recruiting ability, retaining quality coach/staff longer, allows facility upgrades faster and more often, and increases national perception etc... the list goes on and on and on, the AAC provides zero of these things.
You're wrong. And when I get time, I will tell you why you're wrong - bc I'm that nice of a person. For now, just know that your post is extremely myopic and short-sighted.
wow talk about delusional. Keep waiting for that 16 team playoff buddy and just being happy making it as a 16 seed instead of growing the program into a power.
While the conference has little to no chance of sniffing the doors of the power five and its big money, an opening does exist for a network to offer more money. Ok so theyre laying off workers right now, but we are still in the middle of our current deal. We have another three to four years to impress to the point of either an improved network deal due to our improved brand name perception - which consisting winning will do - or dismantling the AAC by poaching the programs that did the best to improve its perception.
Derp derp
being desperate to be say you're part of top 65 (if UCF is included teams is weak. Weaker than legitamittly being in the top 16 teams, 10 or IMO top 5 in 2013. That's based on facts not conjecture or affiliation. So take your weak sauce home and take a lap before posting again.
I'll keep this short with the hopes that will help you understand.
First let's get something straight. UCF has had more on the field success, has out recruited and has retained higher statured coaches than many "P5" schools. That's a fact.
Okay.
When the landscape of college football changes which it constantly does, so does every factor within it.
Just like every league that has a legit playoff, there would be no, haves and have nots divisions or conferences. There would be no huge disparity in TV $$$ or bias polls or misranking of players. Call that parity or competition or an equal playing field. Or Whatever. FBS is so different than all other sport leagues bc it's sold it's postseason to outsiders. When that changes, FBS football will be like every other league, division, and age level of football. And all those leagues want to be in the weakest conference, division or league so they will have a better shot at the playoffs.
Now if you still want to leech off a top ~10 program that are spread out in the P5, have no chance at winning, and get a check to lose then by all means continue to spread lies about how being in the P5 is better.
For me, instead of following a crowded trampled path, I rather go where there is no path, and leave a trail.
there is no reason for FBS ever to go past 8. They will back fill with bowls just like now. The only complaint about 4 is all 5 P5 don't get an auto.
6 or 8 will cure that problem. TV won't drive the playoffs up. The excitement, and viewers, already dropped in the 2nd year. It isn't going back up any time soon. You go up to 8, eyeballs on sets, and seats filled will drop even more. If they ever go to 8, Which I think probably will happen the G5 will get an auto bid if in the top 8 in final standings, which means ever 2 to 5 years G5 will be in playoff.
At best $$$ wise the AAC might end up making 1/3 to 1/2 of what P5 will make.
Bottom line is UCF can be big in any conf. So if B12 calls we damned well better answer the call.
6 or 8 will cure that problem. TV won't drive the playoffs up. The excitement, and viewers, already dropped in the 2nd year. It isn't going back up any time soon. You go up to 8, eyeballs on sets, and seats filled will drop even more. If they ever go to 8, Which I think probably will happen the G5 will get an auto bid if in the top 8 in final standings, which means ever 2 to 5 years G5 will be in playoff.
At best $$$ wise the AAC might end up making 1/3 to 1/2 of what P5 will make.
Bottom line is UCF can be big in any conf. So if B12 calls we damned well better answer the call.
I'll address this point by point with the hopes that will help you understand.
"First let's get something straight. UCF has had more on the field success, has out recruited and has retained higher statured coaches than many "P5" schools. That's a fact."
First off, this is highly irrelevant - what does the Vanderbilt's and Duke's of the FBS world have to do with UCF? The answer is nothing. We aren't competing against them for a spot at the table nor any under performing P5 team for that matter. Furthermore, the coaches that we have retained are nothing like we could within a more prominent conference and yield more money. Scott Frost had to take a pay cut in order to adequately compensate the coaches he wanted. Who in the P5 has EVER had to do that?
"When the landscape of college football changes which it constantly does, so does every factor within it."
No, actually it does not. No matter what happens to the B12 and/or ACC, the PAC 12, B10 and the SEC aren't going anywhere. They will continue to reap the most revenue and highly rated recruits will continue to flock there regardless of landscape. Until the notion of power conferences implode, this is going to be the way it is.
"There would be no huge disparity in TV $$$ or bias polls or misranking of players. Call that parity or competition or an equal playing field. "
Wrong. This will never happen. Regardless if there is a 6, 8 or 16 team playoff, there will ALWAYS be a disparity in TV $$$ because of t.v. ratings. Conferences with blue bloods with rich tradition and history will always historically overshadow net viewership of any G5 conference by a large margin, that's never going to change.
Now if you still want to leech off a top ~10 program that are spread out in the P5, have no chance at winning, and get a check to lose then by all means continue to spread lies about how being in the P5 is better.
Just like the TCU and Baylor's of the world? UCF has never been the type of school to look for a hand out. They have invested heavily in their athletics and I highly doubt that when they ultimately do get a seat at the big boys table, they will switch their stance on the importance of athletics and become like the Vanderbilts and Purdues of the FBS world. If a school in Texas with an enrollment of ~16k students in the middle of no where with little to no tradition can be on the cusp of fighting their way into a 4 team playoff in a preconceived "lesser P5" conference, why can't UCF? You think that would ever happen if Baylor was in the AAC? Doubtful at best.
Last edited:
Just to be clear, you think nothing will change noticeably if the playoffs expand to 16 teams? You believe the landscape will be the same in terms of TV $$$$, conference affiliations, and perceptions with a 16 team playoff?
I'll give you credit for having the balls to even try to debate with me. I really do.
Your view, like I called out before is extremely myopic and short-sighted. How short sighted? 2 years ago, many things changed BC of the new 4 team playoffs. Huge changes like 6 BCS conferences to 5 "P5"s. Complete reshuffling of the deck including massive changes to the postseason - 5 BCS bowls to 10 NYE bowls. Massive changes to BCS to Playoff revenue distribution. Heck we are now PAYING players, you probably didn't see that one coming if you are myopic. All within 2 years....
Go back a few more years, look how much changed in 1998. Go back 3 more years with the Bowl Alliance then a year before that with the Bowl Coalition. Those massive changes put in place new rules and factors that basically transformed everything including the perception of SEC of having a couple of Bluebloods just like a few other conferences to a perception that the SEC (every team) is the GOAT. Every UCF fan should see past that BS, and know the history of cfb which has caused UCF to be where it is today. You clearly don't.
I highly recommend reading up on the history cfb. I hope I've pointed out some key points of historical significant that will help guide your research.
Then, after that, start reading up on strategy. Of course, Porter is a heavy weight in the field. I'll leave you with this in hopes that shines a light past your myopic and short-sighted view that has clearly caused you to develop a pessimistic attitude, and has also stifled your critical thinking especially with regards to possibilities outside of current conditions, "Every industry has an underlying structure, or a set of fundamental economic and technical characteristics, that gives rise to these competitive forces. The strategist (UCFhonors), wanting to position his or her company (UCF) to cope best with its industry environment or to influence that environment (Playoff, tv$$$ ect...) in the company’s (UCF's) favor, must first learn what makes the environment tick." - Porter
https://hbr.org/1979/03/how-competitive-forces-shape-strategy
You're welcome. :drops mic:
Last edited:
https://forums.rivals.com/threads/history-of-conference-realignment.150039/
Here is to help you on the History of Conference Realignment
I have to give you props Honors, I think you are the only one on this forum that could write a page of text without invalidating a single point I outlined above. Also, using the statement "...myopic and short-sighted" is extremely redundant. I let it pass the first time you used it, but your continual use of it shows you either have no idea what myopic means, or you're too incompetent to formulate a non redundant retort.
Additionally, it doesn't take balls to debate with you, just a little common sense. Everything you outlined shows a change lately in the college football landscape - sure. Have many things changed in short succession? Yep. Unfortunately for you, none of those changes you mentioned goes against my original statements - in fact, some of them such as paying players actually HELPS my viewpoint.
Just because the Big East imploded from it's own short sighted view and the likelihood of the Big 12 following suit will also change the P5 landscape, these instances do not refudiate my original assertion that the B1G, the SEC and the PAC12 aren't going anywhere and that UCF being in a power 5 conference is not only necessary, but required for continual high level success.
If you're going to reply, why don't you start with why any of these changes dispute my assertions, otherwise this debate will go in circles indefinitely. : Picks up the mic, and awaits Honors to make a meaningful contribution :
I'll address this point by point with the hopes that will help you understand.
"First let's get something straight. UCF has had more on the field success, has out recruited and has retained higher statured coaches than many "P5" schools. That's a fact."
First off, this is highly irrelevant - what does the Vanderbilt's and Duke's of the FBS world have to do with UCF? The answer is nothing. We aren't competing against them for a spot at the table nor any under performing P5 team for that matter. Furthermore, the coaches that we have retained are nothing like we could within a more prominent conference and yield more money. Scott Frost had to take a pay cut in order to adequately compensate the coaches he wanted. Who in the P5 has EVER had to do that?
We hired and retained the same coach ND hired. ND is a blueblood. We had a blueblood coach for 11 years. That's a refute of your point. Other coaches we had went on to do great things like Gene being HC of a national championship team. UCF would've never hired him as our HC. That's a refute of your point. Ect...
"When the landscape of college football changes which it constantly does, so does every factor within it."
No, actually it does not. No matter what happens to the B12 and/or ACC, the PAC 12, B10 and the SEC aren't going anywhere. They will continue to reap the most revenue and highly rated recruits will continue to flock there regardless of landscape. Until the notion of power conferences implode, this is going to be the way it is.
I name several factors that changed when the 4 team playoff was created. You come back with prestige of 3 of 11 conferences got better. Okay those names like the Big East in basketball will always be there. You made my point. That's a refute of your point. Things change when the landscape changes. The sec big 10 and the PAC 12 all changed when the playoffs started. That's a refute of your point.
"There would be no huge disparity in TV $$$ or bias polls or misranking of players. Call that parity or competition or an equal playing field. "
Wrong. This will never happen. Regardless if there is a 6, 8 or 16 team playoff, there will ALWAYS be a disparity in TV $$$ because of t.v. ratings. Conferences with blue bloods with rich tradition and history will always historically overshadow net viewership of any G5 conference by a large margin, that's never going to change.
Several schools had none of those rich tradition or history but recently became successful. While several schools have history and tradition of winning but find themselves in the G5. That's a refute of your point. Don't have time to educate you on each one, SMU, Oregon, Tulane, Colorado, Army, and yes even Florida's "Big 3" ect... Many teams have won or lost for decades but that history doesn't matter now. Bc it only about what have you done lately. That's a refute of your point.
Now if you still want to leech off a top ~10 program that are spread out in the P5, have no chance at winning, and get a check to lose then by all means continue to spread lies about how being in the P5 is better.
Just like the TCU and Baylor's of the world? UCF has never been the type of school to look for a hand out. They have invested heavily in their athletics and I highly doubt that when they ultimately do get a seat at the big boys table, they will switch their stance on the importance of athletics and become like the Vanderbilts and Purdues of the FBS world. If a school in Texas with an enrollment of ~16k students in the middle of no where with little to no tradition can be on the cusp of fighting their way into a 4 team playoff in a preconceived "lesser P5" conference, why can't UCF? You think that would ever happen if Baylor was in the AAC? Doubtful at best.
This is actually a good question / point. Honestly I don't know how Baylor went from bottom dweller to the top. Statistically, I guess 1 in 64 has to happen in 100 years. Those are odds or a path that I don't want UCF to attempt. Here is my point. I don't want to be in conference where the rules favor 2 bluebloods at the detriment of the other 8. TCU established their name without being under the shadow of UT and OU. I'm saying it's easier to establish your team without being under the spotlight of bluebloods in a conference. When UCF established a Bosie or TCU image then we can jump. But we don't won't to be perceived as a one and done like Utah and Colorado. That's a conversation for over a beer.
Clearly you don't understand or have been ignoring my points. I've respectfully have been refuting all your points throughout this thread.
Last edited:
Lol being in a 16 team playoff doesn't mean you are a top 16 team. Weak sauce is wanting to settle as a mid major school. Surely UCF leaders don't have this loser mentality
Derp derp. Being in a BCS or Power 5 conference DOSEN'T MEAN YOU EVER WON ANYTHING LIKE A BCS BOWL OR NYE BOWL. UCF has. Settling as a mid major is more like most P5 schools who no prayer of ever winning, anything!
With the size and potential this school has, it should never settle for anything. There is no reason in a P5 conf, that we can not become an FSU or Auburn.
Comparing top end possibilities to Duke, WK, or Cuse, Iowa St, ect is idiotic.
Comparing top end possibilities to Duke, WK, or Cuse, Iowa St, ect is idiotic.
Honors, this is refreshing. You actually taking the time to explain your view. I will highlight some fallacies that you used to invalidate your points.
"We hired and retained the same coach ND hired. ND is a blueblood. We had a blueblood coach for 11 years. That's a refute of your point. Other coaches we had went on to do great things like Gene being HC of a national championship team. UCF would've never hired him as our HC. That's a refute of your point. Ect..."
Are you really defining O'Leary as blue blood coach since he was hired at Notre Dame for 5 seconds? This is the weakest of all your points. While it is true that Gene did go on to do great things, he is far from the norm. For every Gene there are MANY more coaches that do NOT go on to have the success he did. The point I want to stress however, is that UCF didn't hire Gene at the top of his game or pull him from a top program. He used UCF as a stepping stone to elevate his career. If we were in a P5 conference, there is a much higher probability that he would have stayed. This counter refutes your point.
I name several factors that changed when the 4 team playoff was created. You come back with prestige of 3 of 11 conferences got better. Okay those names like the Big East in basketball will always be there. You made my point. That's a refute of your point. Things change when the landscape changes. The sec big 10 and the PAC 12 all changed when the playoffs started. That's a refute of your point.
There is a reason I only named 3 of the 11 conferences. I actually agree with you whole heartedly that landscape of football has completely changed in the last 30 years more so than any other span of time of the history of College Football. Here is why I only acknowledged the 3 and omitted how easily things changed for the other 8 - ESPN has solely created the environment for specific conferences to excel. Since ESPN has established the big 3 as the kings of College Football, and since ESPN holds the majority of the cards - it is in ESPN's best interest to have the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. This all but guarantees a disparity in team competitiveness and solidifies their investments while blocking out the have nots. Even with UCF's rise to fame with the Fiesta Bowl win, ESPN has been quick to relegate UCF back to obscurity. Why? Because it's not in their best interest, and is also why you're not going to see much instability for these 3 specific conferences any time soon. Also, you are correct in saying, the B10, PAC 12 and SEC changed when the playoffs started, they got all that more sway/bias towards teams that will make it in further solidifying my point.
Several schools had none of those rich tradition or history but recently became successful. While several schools have history and tradition of winning but find themselves in the G5. That's a refute of your point. Don't have time to educate you on each one, SMU, Oregon, Tulane, Colorado, Army, ect...
Oregon is an out-liar in the list you produced because of the massive infusion of wealth from Phil Knight. Why did he have to do that? Because like you said, Oregon even though they are in a p5 conference, they lack rich tradition and had to supplement that deficit by said large $$$ infusion in order to compete with the big boys for recruits. Even with the best facilities in College Football and a good coach, they were still only able to secure a 32nd ranked recruiting class. Take Michigan for example, they have been horrible recently, but they have rich tradition. All it took was 1 good hire to gain them back to national prominence. That's what tradition combined with a good coach does. If you take ALL THE TEAMS you listed (minus Oregon), the viewership (which is what my original point addressed) is not even close to any SINGLE top teams overall ratings in the PAC12, B10 and SEC. Why is this important? P5 conference affiliation, combined with ESPN's backing creates a snowball effect for success. You can't have one without the other, the AAC is not going to get us there no matter how much success we have if we remain in the AAC.
This is actually a good question / point. Honestly I don't know how Baylor went from bottom dweller to the top.
As I mentioned above, P5 conference affiliation and ESPN's backing. It is true that the B12 is not one of ESPN's baby's, they are still invested in the B12 (for now) and with Art Briles being able to elevate their success on the field, they have garnered support from ESPN (both required to move the needle of national perception) - but even with their high level of success, since Baylor/TCU lack tradition - the inner circle still snuffed them during the 2014 CFP.
I don't want to be in conference where the rules favor 2 bluebloods at the detriment of the other 8. TCU established their name without being under the shadow of UT and OU. I'm saying it's easier to establish your team without being under the spotlight of bluebloods in a conference.
Unfortunately, blue blood affiliation is a necessary evil in order to gain prestige. If/when OU and Texas leave the B12 and UCF is invited, you're going to see that the B12 either loses its power 5 status, or becomes the AAC 2.0 regarding national perception and regardless of on field success, they are never going to get to the level of UF/FSU in terms of being able to recruit with the big boys and garner national respect (see Boise/BYU as examples) for a long time despite large amounts of alums. It does however put us much farther ahead of other G5 candidates in terms of potential and growth. The only exception is that an antitrust lawsuit breaks up all the conferences and forces an AFC/NFC type league and levels the playing field both monetarily and blue blood exclusitivity.
Clearly you don't understand or have been ignoring my points. I've respectfully have been refuting all your points throughout this thread.
I understand just fine, just showing you how you're wrong.
"We hired and retained the same coach ND hired. ND is a blueblood. We had a blueblood coach for 11 years. That's a refute of your point. Other coaches we had went on to do great things like Gene being HC of a national championship team. UCF would've never hired him as our HC. That's a refute of your point. Ect..."
Are you really defining O'Leary as blue blood coach since he was hired at Notre Dame for 5 seconds? This is the weakest of all your points. While it is true that Gene did go on to do great things, he is far from the norm. For every Gene there are MANY more coaches that do NOT go on to have the success he did. The point I want to stress however, is that UCF didn't hire Gene at the top of his game or pull him from a top program. He used UCF as a stepping stone to elevate his career. If we were in a P5 conference, there is a much higher probability that he would have stayed. This counter refutes your point.
I name several factors that changed when the 4 team playoff was created. You come back with prestige of 3 of 11 conferences got better. Okay those names like the Big East in basketball will always be there. You made my point. That's a refute of your point. Things change when the landscape changes. The sec big 10 and the PAC 12 all changed when the playoffs started. That's a refute of your point.
There is a reason I only named 3 of the 11 conferences. I actually agree with you whole heartedly that landscape of football has completely changed in the last 30 years more so than any other span of time of the history of College Football. Here is why I only acknowledged the 3 and omitted how easily things changed for the other 8 - ESPN has solely created the environment for specific conferences to excel. Since ESPN has established the big 3 as the kings of College Football, and since ESPN holds the majority of the cards - it is in ESPN's best interest to have the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. This all but guarantees a disparity in team competitiveness and solidifies their investments while blocking out the have nots. Even with UCF's rise to fame with the Fiesta Bowl win, ESPN has been quick to relegate UCF back to obscurity. Why? Because it's not in their best interest, and is also why you're not going to see much instability for these 3 specific conferences any time soon. Also, you are correct in saying, the B10, PAC 12 and SEC changed when the playoffs started, they got all that more sway/bias towards teams that will make it in further solidifying my point.
Several schools had none of those rich tradition or history but recently became successful. While several schools have history and tradition of winning but find themselves in the G5. That's a refute of your point. Don't have time to educate you on each one, SMU, Oregon, Tulane, Colorado, Army, ect...
Oregon is an out-liar in the list you produced because of the massive infusion of wealth from Phil Knight. Why did he have to do that? Because like you said, Oregon even though they are in a p5 conference, they lack rich tradition and had to supplement that deficit by said large $$$ infusion in order to compete with the big boys for recruits. Even with the best facilities in College Football and a good coach, they were still only able to secure a 32nd ranked recruiting class. Take Michigan for example, they have been horrible recently, but they have rich tradition. All it took was 1 good hire to gain them back to national prominence. That's what tradition combined with a good coach does. If you take ALL THE TEAMS you listed (minus Oregon), the viewership (which is what my original point addressed) is not even close to any SINGLE top teams overall ratings in the PAC12, B10 and SEC. Why is this important? P5 conference affiliation, combined with ESPN's backing creates a snowball effect for success. You can't have one without the other, the AAC is not going to get us there no matter how much success we have if we remain in the AAC.
This is actually a good question / point. Honestly I don't know how Baylor went from bottom dweller to the top.
As I mentioned above, P5 conference affiliation and ESPN's backing. It is true that the B12 is not one of ESPN's baby's, they are still invested in the B12 (for now) and with Art Briles being able to elevate their success on the field, they have garnered support from ESPN (both required to move the needle of national perception) - but even with their high level of success, since Baylor/TCU lack tradition - the inner circle still snuffed them during the 2014 CFP.
I don't want to be in conference where the rules favor 2 bluebloods at the detriment of the other 8. TCU established their name without being under the shadow of UT and OU. I'm saying it's easier to establish your team without being under the spotlight of bluebloods in a conference.
Unfortunately, blue blood affiliation is a necessary evil in order to gain prestige. If/when OU and Texas leave the B12 and UCF is invited, you're going to see that the B12 either loses its power 5 status, or becomes the AAC 2.0 regarding national perception and regardless of on field success, they are never going to get to the level of UF/FSU in terms of being able to recruit with the big boys and garner national respect (see Boise/BYU as examples) for a long time despite large amounts of alums. It does however put us much farther ahead of other G5 candidates in terms of potential and growth. The only exception is that an antitrust lawsuit breaks up all the conferences and forces an AFC/NFC type league and levels the playing field both monetarily and blue blood exclusitivity.
Clearly you don't understand or have been ignoring my points. I've respectfully have been refuting all your points throughout this thread.
I understand just fine, just showing you how you're wrong.
Agree that a BIG12 without the Sooners and the Whorns would stand a chance of losing their P5 status. Thats probably unpopular, but I think the P5 is quickly moving to a P4. No clue where that puts UCF in the shuffle however.
