omniorange
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
|
RE: ESPN floats FSU to Big 12 scenario (Link)
(02-26-2016 05:47 PM)ken d Wrote: (02-26-2016 04:53 PM)omniorange Wrote: (02-26-2016 04:28 PM)ken d Wrote: (02-26-2016 03:28 PM)omniorange Wrote: (02-26-2016 01:33 PM)ken d Wrote: I would stretch that to say there is a Greater 1 and a Lesser 4 among the P5. The ACC's problem is that it is more in direct competition with that 1 than any other conference because of its geographical overlap.
The problem for all the P5s except the SEC is the fact that there are no more elite brands available to be added. What we have is what we are going to get.
In terms of both $$$ and perception it is indeed a Greater 2 and a Lesser 3.
Also, I have never bought into the notion that the ACC's "problem" is that it is more in direct competition with the SEC. That is an excuse. FSU and Florida are basically even in terms of results on the field, Clemson has outperformed South Carolina historically except for the Spurrier period, and Louisville has accomplished more than Kentucky on the football field. Obviously the ACC programs are "competing" just fine.
If anything it appears that the flagship attribute of the SEC institutions may be what is winning out in the fans' minds of those states giving them better fan support, donor $$$, etc., rather than on the field performance where the direct athletic competition is happening.
Nor is the ACC's problem strictly a "private school" one per se as some others have suggested over the years. Now, do both contribute to the issues? Sure. But it goes deeper than this as mentioned ad nauseum. For too long too many programs in the ACC have not taken football as seriously as it should have been and these are programs that operate in states in which there is no true in-state competition from either the SEC or the B1G - North Carolina, New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland (when they were in the league). This seems to be changing, at least the recent coaching hires appear to be a step in the right direction. But it still needs to be proven on the field.
While acknowledging that the B1G is behind the SEC in terms of total number of brand names in football I also think you may be underestimating the B1G in terms of that number because 3 have been inconsistent lately (Michigan, PSU and Nebraska) much like the ACC's Miami - although each of the three have performed better than the Hurricanes since 2008.
But you echo a point I have been saying for a while now. Since it is unlikely that the ACC will add an elite brand in football, the conference will need to get the next level down brands to rise up.
This is something the B1G has gotten with three next level down brands that have stepped up to the plate in MSU, Wisconsin, and Iowa.
The ACC has had similar results since 2008 with VT, GT, and now Clemson but not as good as the B1G trio, imho. The league can, and must, get better or it won't survive - at least in terms of still being a power conference.
Cheers,
Neil
I don't know that I'd put Iowa into an "elite" category just because they had a great year in 2015. In the ten years before that they only won 73 games, including bowls, and were ranked twice. That's kinda pedestrian.
There can only be so many "elite" teams. At the top - legitimate perennial NC contenders - there are only a few. Some jump into the conversation sporadically, some even hang around for more than just a few years. I think VT and Kansas State are examples of the latter. The ACC surely hopes that Clemson will hang around for a while. But they've only been in the rarefied air for a few years, and I doubt the national perception of the Tigers is an "elite program" yet.
As you said - brands take decades to develop, and perceptions are slow to change. And, there are still only 25 spots in the Top 25, so if some programs move in, others have to move out. It's a zero sum game in that respect.
I didn't put Iowa in the "elite brand" category. I put them in the next level down category who along with MSU and Wisconsin stepped up when Michigan, PSU, and relative newcomer Nebraska didn't perform as elite brand programs. I thought you might have caught this since I basically compared the B1G three to Clemson, VT, and GT, none of which are elite brands, imho, but next level down.
Edit: I should probably add my demarcation point for football brands is an arbitrary one of 1980 and onward.
Cheers,
Neil
Sorry. I interpreted your characterizing them as "next level down brands that have stepped up" to mean that they stepped up to become elite brands. IMO, the B1G has one elite brand, and that is Ohio State. The ACC also has one - Florida State. Clemson is a "wannabe elite" and they have a chance over time to get there, while Miami is a "used to be elite" that has the potential to get there again. But the "potential" label is a tough one to carry around. It evokes in me images of "I coulda been a contendah".
We will have gotten where we need to be when non-ACC fans no longer assume our champion didn't have to face enough serious challenges to earn that title. We're not that far away, and we are a lot closer than we were 5-10 years ago.
Understood. Interpretation of "elite brands" is extremely varied among posters. I, myself, consider 15 such programs as elite (in alpha order) - Alabama, Auburn, Florida, FSU, Georgia, LSU, Miami, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Penn State, Texas, and Southern Cal.
Cheers,
Neil
|
|