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.
![[smoke]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/smokin.r191677.gif "Cool [smoke]")
