Schools get elevated. Not conferences. The cartel will pick one or two AAC schools and move on. Don’t believe me? Ask the MWC.

Another thing, the cartel will not elevate a conference they demoted when the CFP was established. It doesn’t make any sense.

What the ACC did or did not do in the 1980’s has no relevance in the 2020’s. Two different eras. Heck, a WAC school won a NC in the 80’s something that’s entirely impossible today for a G5. Most people forget what helped the ACC perception wise is the addition of Florida State in 1991. There’s not a Florida State level program in the AAC or any G5 conference that could help elevate the AAC to power status.

(09-03-2020 11:46 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Schools get elevated. Not conferences. The cartel will pick one or two AAC schools and move on. Don’t believe me? Ask the MWC.

Another thing, the cartel will not elevate a conference they demoted when the CFP was established. It doesn’t make any sense.

What the ACC did or did not do in the 1980’s has no relevance in the 2020’s. Two different eras. Heck, a WAC school won a NC in the 80’s something that’s entirely impossible today for a G5. Most people forget what helped the ACC perception wise is the addition of Florida State in 1991. There’s not a Florida State level program in the AAC or any G5 conference that could help elevate the AAC to power status.

Everything you've written here has no basis in anything except your personal opinion. Yet you've written these things as if they are authoritative and cannot possibly be wrong. To express opinions as if they are absolutely true is an authoritarian tendency.

1) "Schools get elevated. Not conferences."

Arguably WRONG and this can be easily demonstrated, because there is a very obvious proof: The Big East conference got elevated to power status, first as a basketball conference in the 1980s, and then as a FB conference in the 1990s.

Another example is the elevation of the ACC, which you yourself admitted in your own post, above.


2) "The cartel will pick one or two AAC schools and move on."

Arguably WRONG. There are no indications that the "cartel" (P5) has any plans to "pick up" more schools. The B1G let go their former commissioner who had pushed to expand. The PAC and ACC have shown no signs of interest in further expansion. The SEC is reported to be very satisfied with their current membership. Only the Big-12 has shown any interest in expanding, but the last time they considered the idea, and went to the trouble of a multi-stage process, they rejected it and didn't add a single school.


3) "The cartel will not elevate a conference they demoted when the CFP was established."

Arguably WRONG, because the "cartel" (P5) does not have the authority to dictate whether or not any other conference will be elevated or demoted. That would be a violation of anti-trust law.

The matter of elevating a conference to "Power" and official NCAA "Autonomy" status in the future will be conducted through negotiations between the conference under consideration, its broadcasting sponsor (most likely, ESPN), and the NCAA.

Essentially, the NCAA granted these concessions to create autonomy conferences because they were given an offer that they couldn't refuse, and were richly compensated for doing so. Merely adding another conference to this structure would involve making them another offer that the NCAA won't be able to refuse and will again be richly compensated for. It all boils down to the network's projected broadcasting income potential.


4) "Most people forget what helped the ACC perception wise is the addition of Florida State in 1991."

Arguably WRONG. Much like the situation with the current AAC, the ACC began to be perceived as having the potential to become a power conference when they began to meet some of the following criteria on a regular basis (a) to have a team in the final AP top 10, (b) to have more than one team in the final AP top 25, © to have multiple teams with AP "season high" rankings in the AP top 25, or (d) to have multiple bowl teams.

1980: UNC finished with a national #10 ranking, and Maryland had a season-high #19 AP ranking (two bowl games).

1981: Clemson finished with a national #1 ranking, and UNC finished with a #9 ranking (two bowl games).

1982: Clemson (#8), Maryland (#20), and UNC (#18) all finished the season in the final AP top 25 (two bowl games).

1983: Clemson finished with a national #11 ranking. UNC finished with a #9 ranking (two bowl games). UNC had a season-high #3 AP ranking, and Maryland had a season-high #7 AP ranking (two bowl games).

1984: Maryland finished with a national #12 ranking, and UVA finished with a #20 ranking. Clemson had a season-high #2 AP ranking, and GT had a season-high #12 AP ranking (two bowl games).

1985: Maryland finished with a national #18 ranking, and GT finished with a #19 ranking. UVA had a season-high #20 AP ranking (three bowl games).

1986: Clemson finished with a national #17 ranking. Maryland had a season-high #13 AP ranking, NC State had a season-high #15 AP ranking, and UNC had a season-high #18 AP ranking (three bowl games).

1987: Clemson finished with a national #12 ranking (two bowl games).

1988: Clemson finished with a national #9 ranking (two bowl games).

1989: Clemson finished with a national #18 ranking, and NC State finished with a #12 ranking. Duke and NC State had season-high rankings of #20 and #12, respectively (four bowl games)

1990: GT finished with an AP final #2 ranking. Clemson finished with an AP final #9 ranking, and UVA finished an AP final #23 ranking. (five bowl games, including Maryland and NC State).

1991: Clemson finished with a national #18 ranking, and NC State finished with a #14 ranking. GT had a season-high #8 ranking, while UVA and UNC had season-high rankings of #19 and #23, respectively (four bowl games)

.

NOTE: CFB fans from that era will vividly that the ACC was one of the top six major conferences that received top billing in the handful of nationally televised Saturday CFB games before the Big East FB conference came into existence in 1991:

Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, PAC-10, ACC, & SWC

There were seven major conferences in 1991 through 1995:

Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, PAC-10, ACC, SWC & Big East.

There were six major (now referred to as "power") conferences between 1994 - - when the SWC went out of existence - - and 2013, when the Big East FB conference imploded.

Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, PAC-10, ACC, & Big East.

The ACC took a step forward when they added FSU in 1992, but for decades before that, they received the same kind of national media coverage that the Big Ten and SEC received, and played in a similar numbrer of bowl games (as a ratio of bowl games per number of conference teams),

(09-04-2020 01:52 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  [quote='UTEPDallas' pid='16975931' dateline='1599194762']
1) "Schools get elevated. Not conferences."

Arguably WRONG and this can be easily demonstrated, because there is a very obvious proof: The Big East conference got elevated to power status, first as a basketball conference in the 1980s, and then as a FB conference in the 1990s.

Another example is the elevation of the ACC, which you yourself admitted in your own post, above.

The Big East was not "elevated" to Power status in football, it basically was created as a Power conference. It formed in 1991 and was a member of the first Bowl Coalition in 1992 with the SEC, ACC, Big 8, and SWC. The presence of Miami in the conference guaranteed it Power status.

Also, while the ACC of the 1980s was not a power league, as its champ was not guaranteed a spot in one of the four major bowls, it met the criteria for "power" that was used by the BCS later, as its champ averaged a top-12 finish over a four year period during that time. The ACC frequently placed two teams in the final polls during that time, when the polls were top 20, not top 25 so harder to crack.

What guaranteed the ACC inclusion in the first Bowl Coalition was FSU, an undeniable power at that time.

But there's nobody out there like Miami or FSU for a current G5 to attract and raise their stature in the same way. In the five years before joining the ACC, FSU finished 2, 3, 3, 4 and 4 in the final AP poll, with NY6-equivalent bowl wins in 4 of those seasons. Miami's worst finish in the final AP poll the five years before it joined the Big East was 3, with two national championships. There's just nobody out there in independent-land like that for a G5 to hook up with these days.

(09-04-2020 04:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The Big East was not "elevated" to Power status in football, it basically was created as a Power conference.

You have proven the point more effectively than I did!

Exactly as you wrote, the Big East schools (BC, Pitt, Syracuse, etc.) elevated themselves immediately from relative obscurity to power conference status by bringing the Big East conference into existence (in the same way that the goddess Athena is said to have been born directly from the brain of Zeus)!

If you will recall, the argument that had been made was that "only teams, not conferences, can be elevated to the status of a major conference."

But, as you yourself have pointed out, by bringing the Big East into existence, the founding members were able to elevate themselves, instantaneously, to major conference status.

Q.E.D.

===========================================


Q.E.D. is an acronym for the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, i.e., "That which was to be (and has been) demonstrated."


===========================================
.

Learning from how the Big East and ACC teams elevated themselves to big-time status is what the AAC members need to do now or very soon to elevate themselves to power conference status. If they don't seize the opportunity, someone else will.

(09-04-2020 04:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What guaranteed the ACC inclusion in the first Bowl Coalition was FSU, an undeniable power at that time.

Yes, but if you think that the ACC was lucky to get FSU, or that the addition of FSU was just a coincidence, you're not seeing the big picture. They weren't brought together accidentally or by blind luck. Corporate interests cashed in, big-time, by bringing FSU into the ACC. It was as simple as casting a successful TV show.

Nobody had to force FSU to join the ACC. They were lucky to land themselves in a perfect environment to become a top tier program. The ACC was just the kind of quality conference where they could take center stage, nationally. The Clemsons and UNCs and UVAs were an excellent supporting cast, having been perennial top 25 teams, themselves.

It was a complete no-brainer for FSU to join the ACC, because the ACC was already considered one of the major conferences in the nation, but FSU used the ACC to propel itself into the stratosphere.

Does anyone imagine that FSU would have chosen to join the CUSA or the MAC, instead of the ACC in that situation? Of course they wouldn't!

They needed to move into an existing major conference, as a place where they could have their moment in the sun.

FSU didn't only use the ACC, but the ACC also used FSU, and by cooperating, they all moved up a notch, together.

(09-03-2020 11:26 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(09-03-2020 10:52 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(09-03-2020 10:35 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(09-03-2020 10:26 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Yes, the AAC has solid programs, many of whom have finished in the top 25.

But the 8-team 1980's ACC had a team with an 80,000 seat stadium ... Who's the AAC's equivalent of 1980's Clemson?

Memphis: The Liberty Bowl (61,000 seat stadium)

Temple and USF have similar sized stadiums, too. But Clemson's was and is even larger, and they've been selling it out all along.

The man asked which AAC school was the closest equivalent of 1980's Clemson. Memphis seems like the correct answer, with respect to top 25 potential and stadium capacity, followed by UCF and Cincinnati.

I asked who was the equivalent of Clemson (80,000 seat consistently sold out stadium with a then recent national championship under its belt). I didn't ask who was closest. Memphis is a quality program that has won a lot of games under two different head coaches. I don't mean disrespect to them at all. I just don't think they are at the level Clemson was in the 80's and early 90's. Their stadium is 19,000 seats smaller now than Clemson's was then. Clemson out that larger stadium consistently while Memphis infrequently sells out theirs. They haven't come close to a national championship, nor have they finished in the top 25 as often as Clemson did then.

Just to be clear, fair and consistent, the Sun Belt's closest team to the AAC's best is Appalachian State, my alma mater and favorite team. That doesn't mean App State is the equivalent, at least not yet. (App State still needs to make a few NY6 bowls and win them to gain Voise State or UCF's level of repsect.)

The ACC in the 80's/early 90's had a second team win the national championship. The AAC has had none.

There's also no FSU equivalent waiting to cement the AAC's status as a power league. No one is going to become the third separate school in 13 seasons to win a national title in the AAC.

Again, I don't know how to be more abundantly clear. I am not trying to disrespect the AAC. I would LOVE for my school to join the AAC because it is crystal clear they are a superior conference to App's. In addition, I would be quite happy to see any G5 team make the CFP. But I don't see that happening. As I said before, UCF was the best G5 team in the best G5 conference with two straight undefeated regular seasons, and even then, they didn't get in. That never would have happened with a 1980's or earl 90's ACC team because every time an ACC went undefeated, it won the national title.

No one is denying the AAC has had multiple top 25 finishers per season, or top 10 finishers with UCF and Houston. But that alone doesn't make the AAC the equivalent of that ACC of yesteryear.

(09-04-2020 05:17 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 04:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The Big East was not "elevated" to Power status in football, it basically was created as a Power conference.

You have proven the point more effectively than I did!

Exactly as you wrote, the Big East schools (BC, Pitt, Syracuse, etc.) elevated themselves immediately from relative obscurity to power conference status by bringing the Big East conference into existence (in the same way that the goddess Athena is said to have been born directly from the brain of Zeus)!

If you will recall, the argument that had been made was that "only teams, not conferences, can be elevated to the status of a major conference."

But, as you yourself have pointed out, by bringing the Big East into existence, the founding members were able to elevate themselves, instantaneously, to major conference status.

Eh, two problems with your argument here:

1) The argument about "only teams, not conferences .. " was made in reference to the current situation involving G5 conferences. The teams in these conferences are already organized into a conference and are not "Power", so the Big East option of scattered independents congealing in to a power league is not available to them, unless you think that it's somehow possible for schools among the G5 to reorganize themselves into new conferences, one of which would be "power". I don't think any such configuration exists, e.g., take the best 3 schools from the AAC, MW, SB, etc. and form a new conference, and no way is it a power conference.

IMO, you're treating the "no conference elevation" argument too pedantically. I mean, I think any advocate of that argument would readily agree that if Alabama, LSU, Florida, and Georgia decided to leave the SEC and join Conference-USA, that would elevate Conference-USA to "power' status. But that's not happening.

2) As I noted, the only reason the Big East was "power at birth" in football was the inclusion of Miami, arguably the most famed college football program at that time. Take away Miami and the 1992 Big East would not have been included in the Bowl Coalition. That feeds in to the "tentpole" problem that the current G5 have. They don't have any super-power tentpoles that can elevate a conference to power status.

(09-04-2020 05:34 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 04:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What guaranteed the ACC inclusion in the first Bowl Coalition was FSU, an undeniable power at that time.

Yes, but if you think that the ACC was lucky to get FSU, or that the addition of FSU was just a coincidence, you're not seeing the big picture. They weren't brought together accidentally or by blind luck. Corporate interests cashed in, big-time, by bringing FSU into the ACC. It was as simple as casting a successful TV show.

Nobody had to force FSU to join the ACC. They were lucky to land themselves in a perfect environment to become a top tier program.

I was around in 1990, living in Florida at the time, and remember well FSU joining the ACC. It was a good marriage - the ACC got the boost of FSU's football status while FSU got membership in the ACC's elite basketball league.

But FSU was a "top tier" program before joining the ACC, which is why the ACC wanted them. As I noted in the last post, in the five years before beginning play in that conference, FSU had finished 2, 3, 3, 4 and 4 in the final AP poll, with 4 wins in NY6-level bowls. They were almost constantly in the national championship conversation those entire five seasons.

(09-03-2020 10:20 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(09-03-2020 09:54 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  .

Here is the evidence indicating that the AAC has the same potential today that the ACC had in the 1980s to become an emerging power conference.


Memphis: 9.5 wins/yr average (2014-2019) (3 final AP top 25 rankings)

UCF: 9 wins/yr average (2013-2019) (5 final AP top 25 rankings)

Navy: 8 wins/yr average (2012-2019) (2 final AP top 25 rankings)

Cincy: 8.2 wins/yr average (2011-2019) (6 final AP top 25 rankings)

Houston: 8.3 wins/yr average (2011-2019) (2 final AP rankings)

USF: 10.5 wins/yr in 2016 and 2017. (2 final AP top 25 rankings)

SMU: Won 10 games in 2019 (AP High ranking #15).

Temple: 10 wins/yr in 2015 & 2016. (AP High rankings #20, #25).

Tulsa: 10+ wins/yr in 2010, 2012, & 2016. (1 final AP top 25 ranking)

Yes, the AAC has solid programs, many of whom have finished in the top 25. It is absolutely the best non-P5 league in the FBS.

But the 8-team 1980's ACC had a team with an 80,000 seat stadium who won a national championship that decade. Who's the AAC's equivalent of 1980's Clemson? The 1990, 8-team ACC had another national champion in Ga. Tech. Who's the AAC's equivalent of that? The late 80's/early 90's had powerful independents waiting out there. There was an FSU ready to walk in and be by far the premier program for a decade, and arguably THE team of the 90's. Who is going to do that for the AAC?

I was a young kid in the 80's, so I'll take others' word for it that the 80's ACC was a tweener like the AAC is today. But aside from the differences I have listed, the AAC faces other obstacles the ACC didn't have to face. The SEC, B1G, Pac-10, Big Eight, and SWC were outperforming the ACC on the field, sure, but there wasn't the same overwhelming, tens of millions of dollars advantage by the power leagues then that the P5 leagues have over the AAC now. Additionally, back then, you didn't have to be part of a power league to ascend all the way to the top ('81 Clemson, '84 BYU, '90 GT). You didn't have to be part of a league at all ('82 PSU, '83 Miami, '86 PSU, '87 Miami, '88 ND, '89 Miami). Now you absolutely must be in a P5 league to get into the CFP. Even UCF's 27-game win streak wasn't enough. The P5 have not only the huge monetary advantage over the AAC that the 80's power leagues didn't have over the ACC. They have CONTROL unlike what they used to have.

It's going to be much more of an uphill battle for the AAC to become a power conference than it ever was for the ACC.

The ACC also had the advantage of being a power conference in basketball in the 80s, arguably the top basketball conference. Its something the AAC needs to focus more on.

(09-04-2020 05:17 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 04:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The Big East was not "elevated" to Power status in football, it basically was created as a Power conference.

You have proven the point more effectively than I did!

Exactly as you wrote, the Big East schools (BC, Pitt, Syracuse, etc.) elevated themselves immediately from relative obscurity to power conference status by bringing the Big East conference into existence (in the same way that the goddess Athena is said to have been born directly from the brain of Zeus)!

If you will recall, the argument that had been made was that "only teams, not conferences, can be elevated to the status of a major conference."

But, as you yourself have pointed out, by bringing the Big East into existence, the founding members were able to elevate themselves, instantaneously, to major conference status.

Q.E.D.

===========================================


Q.E.D. is an acronym for the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, i.e., "That which was to be (and has been) demonstrated."


===========================================
.

Learning from how the Big East and ACC teams elevated themselves to big-time status is what the AAC members need to do now or very soon to elevate themselves to power conference status. If they don't seize the opportunity, someone else will.

And Big East 2.0 without Miami was viewed as a tweener conference even if it had the computer rankings to say otherwise.

(09-03-2020 10:20 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  It's going to be much more of an uphill battle for the AAC to become a power conference than it ever was for the ACC.

Yes, while the ACC was a kind of a tweener in the 1980s - unlike the other power conferences, its champion was not guaranteed a spot in one of the four major bowls of the day - it was clearly above what the AAC is today. It had state flagships (UNC, UVA, Maryland) and elite privates (WF, Duke, Clemson) and major land-grant schools in Georgia Tech and NC State. The ACC had the dominant schools in 3 states - Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, and arguably the dominant school in South Carolina as well. The AAC has basically nobody like those schools and doesn't have the dominant school in any state. Furthermore, Clemson was an established power in football, a national title winner that decade, and the ACC also met what would be the criteria for being "AQ" 20 years later, namely its champion having a top-12 rank for a rolling four-year period.

Plus, the crucial thing is that the ACC was able to take that last boost up to full Power status by adding FSU, one of the top 3-4 programs in the country at the time. That was the "tentpole" they needed. There is no such program out there for the AAC to add and do the same.

(09-04-2020 07:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-03-2020 10:20 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(09-03-2020 09:54 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  .

Here is the evidence indicating that the AAC has the same potential today that the ACC had in the 1980s to become an emerging power conference.


Memphis: 9.5 wins/yr average (2014-2019) (3 final AP top 25 rankings)

UCF: 9 wins/yr average (2013-2019) (5 final AP top 25 rankings)

Navy: 8 wins/yr average (2012-2019) (2 final AP top 25 rankings)

Cincy: 8.2 wins/yr average (2011-2019) (6 final AP top 25 rankings)

Houston: 8.3 wins/yr average (2011-2019) (2 final AP rankings)

USF: 10.5 wins/yr in 2016 and 2017. (2 final AP top 25 rankings)

SMU: Won 10 games in 2019 (AP High ranking #15).

Temple: 10 wins/yr in 2015 & 2016. (AP High rankings #20, #25).

Tulsa: 10+ wins/yr in 2010, 2012, & 2016. (1 final AP top 25 ranking)

Yes, the AAC has solid programs, many of whom have finished in the top 25. It is absolutely the best non-P5 league in the FBS.

But the 8-team 1980's ACC had a team with an 80,000 seat stadium who won a national championship that decade. Who's the AAC's equivalent of 1980's Clemson? The 1990, 8-team ACC had another national champion in Ga. Tech. Who's the AAC's equivalent of that? The late 80's/early 90's had powerful independents waiting out there. There was an FSU ready to walk in and be by far the premier program for a decade, and arguably THE team of the 90's. Who is going to do that for the AAC?

I was a young kid in the 80's, so I'll take others' word for it that the 80's ACC was a tweener like the AAC is today. But aside from the differences I have listed, the AAC faces other obstacles the ACC didn't have to face. The SEC, B1G, Pac-10, Big Eight, and SWC were outperforming the ACC on the field, sure, but there wasn't the same overwhelming, tens of millions of dollars advantage by the power leagues then that the P5 leagues have over the AAC now. Additionally, back then, you didn't have to be part of a power league to ascend all the way to the top ('81 Clemson, '84 BYU, '90 GT). You didn't have to be part of a league at all ('82 PSU, '83 Miami, '86 PSU, '87 Miami, '88 ND, '89 Miami). Now you absolutely must be in a P5 league to get into the CFP. Even UCF's 27-game win streak wasn't enough. The P5 have not only the huge monetary advantage over the AAC that the 80's power leagues didn't have over the ACC. They have CONTROL unlike what they used to have.

It's going to be much more of an uphill battle for the AAC to become a power conference than it ever was for the ACC.

The ACC also had the advantage of being a power conference in basketball in the 80s, arguably the top basketball conference. Its something the AAC needs to focus more on.

According to the David Glenn Show (he is as big an expert on the ACC as there is), the ACC at some point in the 80's or 90's led all leagues in television revenue due to basketball being relatively more valuable then than it is now.

(09-04-2020 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-03-2020 10:20 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  It's going to be much more of an uphill battle for the AAC to become a power conference than it ever was for the ACC.

Yes, while the ACC was a kind of a tweener in the 1980s - unlike the other power conferences, its champion was not guaranteed a spot in one of the four major bowls of the day - it was clearly above what the AAC is today. It had state flagships (UNC, UVA, Maryland) and elite privates (WF, Duke, Clemson) and major land-grant schools in Georgia Tech and NC State. The AAC has basically nobody like those schools. Furthermore, Clemson was an established power in football, a national title winner that decade. It also met what would be the criteria for being "AQ" 20 years later, namely its champion having a top-12 rank for a rolling four-year period.

Plus, the crucial thing is that the ACC was able to take that last boost up to full Power status by adding FSU, one of the top 3-4 programs in the country at the time. That was the "tentpole" they needed. There is no such program out there for the AAC to add and do the same.

You're not the first to mistake Clemson for a private school. They're the South Carolina land grant school known for agricultural education and engineering, kind of the NC State of SC with a private sounding name like Purdue or Auburn.

(09-04-2020 08:07 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-03-2020 10:20 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  It's going to be much more of an uphill battle for the AAC to become a power conference than it ever was for the ACC.

Yes, while the ACC was a kind of a tweener in the 1980s - unlike the other power conferences, its champion was not guaranteed a spot in one of the four major bowls of the day - it was clearly above what the AAC is today. It had state flagships (UNC, UVA, Maryland) and elite privates (WF, Duke, Clemson) and major land-grant schools in Georgia Tech and NC State. The AAC has basically nobody like those schools. Furthermore, Clemson was an established power in football, a national title winner that decade. It also met what would be the criteria for being "AQ" 20 years later, namely its champion having a top-12 rank for a rolling four-year period.

Plus, the crucial thing is that the ACC was able to take that last boost up to full Power status by adding FSU, one of the top 3-4 programs in the country at the time. That was the "tentpole" they needed. There is no such program out there for the AAC to add and do the same.

You're not the first to mistake Clemson for a private school. They're the South Carolina land grant school known for agricultural education and engineering, kind of the NC State of SC with a private sounding name like Purdue or Auburn.

Thanks. I make the same mistake with Penn State and Pitt sometimes. I regard them as straight- public school when really they are quasi - or hybrid -, part state and part private. I'm not sure the NC State/UNC comparison is entirely apt, though, because Clemson is generally regarded as a better academic school than South Carolina, which is not the case with UNC and NC State.

(09-04-2020 08:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 08:07 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-03-2020 10:20 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  It's going to be much more of an uphill battle for the AAC to become a power conference than it ever was for the ACC.

Yes, while the ACC was a kind of a tweener in the 1980s - unlike the other power conferences, its champion was not guaranteed a spot in one of the four major bowls of the day - it was clearly above what the AAC is today. It had state flagships (UNC, UVA, Maryland) and elite privates (WF, Duke, Clemson) and major land-grant schools in Georgia Tech and NC State. The AAC has basically nobody like those schools. Furthermore, Clemson was an established power in football, a national title winner that decade. It also met what would be the criteria for being "AQ" 20 years later, namely its champion having a top-12 rank for a rolling four-year period.

Plus, the crucial thing is that the ACC was able to take that last boost up to full Power status by adding FSU, one of the top 3-4 programs in the country at the time. That was the "tentpole" they needed. There is no such program out there for the AAC to add and do the same.

You're not the first to mistake Clemson for a private school. They're the South Carolina land grant school known for agricultural education and engineering, kind of the NC State of SC with a private sounding name like Purdue or Auburn.

Thanks. I make the same mistake with Penn State and Pitt sometimes. I regard them as straight- public school when really they are quasi - or hybrid -, part state and part private. I'm not sure the NC State/UNC comparison is entirely apt, though, because Clemson is generally regarded as a better academic school than South Carolina, which is not the case with UNC and NC State.

Clemson vs. S. Carolina: IMO, without taking the time to look at rankings, one is not necessarily better than the other. They just offer different programs. USC has a med school and law school, Clemson ag and engineering. Neither is going to be in the AAU anytime soon.

I agree about UNC vs. NC State. All the respect for NCSU's academics, but UNC definitely has the better rep.

As I understand, the University of Pittsburgh is primarily private but because it receives some state funding (with the agreement it will use those monies for scholarships for students from Pennsylvania) is has a "public school component." It is a "hybrid," indeed.

My brother-in-law's nephew attends Pitt and strongly enjoys it.

(09-04-2020 08:34 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 08:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 08:07 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-03-2020 10:20 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  It's going to be much more of an uphill battle for the AAC to become a power conference than it ever was for the ACC.

Yes, while the ACC was a kind of a tweener in the 1980s - unlike the other power conferences, its champion was not guaranteed a spot in one of the four major bowls of the day - it was clearly above what the AAC is today. It had state flagships (UNC, UVA, Maryland) and elite privates (WF, Duke, Clemson) and major land-grant schools in Georgia Tech and NC State. The AAC has basically nobody like those schools. Furthermore, Clemson was an established power in football, a national title winner that decade. It also met what would be the criteria for being "AQ" 20 years later, namely its champion having a top-12 rank for a rolling four-year period.

Plus, the crucial thing is that the ACC was able to take that last boost up to full Power status by adding FSU, one of the top 3-4 programs in the country at the time. That was the "tentpole" they needed. There is no such program out there for the AAC to add and do the same.

You're not the first to mistake Clemson for a private school. They're the South Carolina land grant school known for agricultural education and engineering, kind of the NC State of SC with a private sounding name like Purdue or Auburn.

Thanks. I make the same mistake with Penn State and Pitt sometimes. I regard them as straight- public school when really they are quasi - or hybrid -, part state and part private. I'm not sure the NC State/UNC comparison is entirely apt, though, because Clemson is generally regarded as a better academic school than South Carolina, which is not the case with UNC and NC State.

Clemson vs. S. Carolina: IMO, without taking the time to look at rankings, one is not necessarily better than the other. They just offer different programs. USC has a med school and law school, Clemson ag and engineering. Neither is going to be in the AAU anytime soon.

I agree about UNC vs. NC State. All the respect for NCSU's academics, but UNC definitely has the better rep.

Yeah, I haven't looked at the rankings either. I have worked in academia for 30+ years, and Clemson > SC is just my off-the-cuff understanding of how they stand in the academic status firmament. I've always understood Clemson to be regarded as a cut above overall. Of course, that doesn't necessarily apply to all programs. E.g., SC has a world-class International Business program.

(09-04-2020 07:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 05:17 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 04:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The Big East was not "elevated" to Power status in football, it basically was created as a Power conference.

You have proven the point more effectively than I did!

Exactly as you wrote, the Big East schools (BC, Pitt, Syracuse, etc.) elevated themselves immediately from relative obscurity to power conference status by bringing the Big East conference into existence (in the same way that the goddess Athena is said to have been born directly from the brain of Zeus)!

If you will recall, the argument that had been made was that "only teams, not conferences, can be elevated to the status of a major conference."

But, as you yourself have pointed out, by bringing the Big East into existence, the founding members were able to elevate themselves, instantaneously, to major conference status.

Eh, two problems with your argument here:

1) The argument about "only teams, not conferences .. " was made in reference to the current situation involving G5 conferences. The teams in these conferences are already organized into a conference and are not "Power", so the Big East option of scattered independents congealing in to a power league is not available to them, unless you think that it's somehow possible for schools among the G5 to reorganize themselves into new conferences, one of which would be "power". I don't think any such configuration exists, e.g., take the best 3 schools from the AAC, MW, SB, etc. and form a new conference, and no way is it a power conference.

IMO, you're treating the "no conference elevation" argument too pedantically. I mean, I think any advocate of that argument would readily agree that if Alabama, LSU, Florida, and Georgia decided to leave the SEC and join Conference-USA, that would elevate Conference-USA to "power' status. But that's not happening.

2) As I noted, the only reason the Big East was "power at birth" in football was the inclusion of Miami, arguably the most famed college football program at that time. Take away Miami and the 1992 Big East would not have been included in the Bowl Coalition. That feeds in to the "tentpole" problem that the current G5 have. They don't have any super-power tentpoles that can elevate a conference to power status.

A few points here that I think are relavant.

Yes, in the past (at least during the TV era), individual non-power schools have been elevated once reaching a certain attractiveness. This effectively prevented non-power conferences from building the kind of "organically grown" kingpin programs from within needed to elevate the conference as a whole. That kind of organic growth is the only way a non-power conference can grow its fan base enough to become a power conference (because no existing king pin program would ever leave its current conference to join a lower paying non-power conference).

However, we may be in a new era. Power conferneces are now at 10-14 members each and have little room to expand anymore without losing cohesiveness. Furthermore, with the huge payouts coming from the CFP and other sources, a G5 school could literally be worth 15-20 million in media value---yet adding it would be dilutive to the earnings of every P5 conference as they all are looking at 35 million per team (or more) in total conference payouts.

So, that area between the current G5 per team payout and 35 million per team P5 payout leaves an awful lot of room for potential growth for the current members of a G5 league before they become attractive P5 expansion targets. In other words, we may have entered a new era where a conference can avoid being poached of its most valuable members for a long enough period of time to organically grow into a low end power conference.

(09-04-2020 08:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 08:34 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 08:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 08:07 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, while the ACC was a kind of a tweener in the 1980s - unlike the other power conferences, its champion was not guaranteed a spot in one of the four major bowls of the day - it was clearly above what the AAC is today. It had state flagships (UNC, UVA, Maryland) and elite privates (WF, Duke, Clemson) and major land-grant schools in Georgia Tech and NC State. The AAC has basically nobody like those schools. Furthermore, Clemson was an established power in football, a national title winner that decade. It also met what would be the criteria for being "AQ" 20 years later, namely its champion having a top-12 rank for a rolling four-year period.

Plus, the crucial thing is that the ACC was able to take that last boost up to full Power status by adding FSU, one of the top 3-4 programs in the country at the time. That was the "tentpole" they needed. There is no such program out there for the AAC to add and do the same.

You're not the first to mistake Clemson for a private school. They're the South Carolina land grant school known for agricultural education and engineering, kind of the NC State of SC with a private sounding name like Purdue or Auburn.

Thanks. I make the same mistake with Penn State and Pitt sometimes. I regard them as straight- public school when really they are quasi - or hybrid -, part state and part private. I'm not sure the NC State/UNC comparison is entirely apt, though, because Clemson is generally regarded as a better academic school than South Carolina, which is not the case with UNC and NC State.

Clemson vs. S. Carolina: IMO, without taking the time to look at rankings, one is not necessarily better than the other. They just offer different programs. USC has a med school and law school, Clemson ag and engineering. Neither is going to be in the AAU anytime soon.

I agree about UNC vs. NC State. All the respect for NCSU's academics, but UNC definitely has the better rep.

Yeah, I haven't looked at the rankings either. I have worked in academia for 30+ years, and Clemson > SC is just my off-the-cuff understanding of how they stand in the academic status firmament. I've always understood Clemson to be regarded as a cut above overall. Of course, that doesn't necessarily apply to all programs. E.g., SC has a world-class International Business program.

I went to Purdue for grad school. It's amazing how many highly educated people think it's a small elite private school.

When I was living in CA, I'd tell them that they're right about it being elite, but that it's a public school that is larger than every school in California. Which isn't strictly true (at the time it was the same size as UCLA), but it opened the eyes of people who think that everything important happens on the coasts.

(09-04-2020 10:06 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 08:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 08:34 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 08:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-04-2020 08:07 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  You're not the first to mistake Clemson for a private school. They're the South Carolina land grant school known for agricultural education and engineering, kind of the NC State of SC with a private sounding name like Purdue or Auburn.

Thanks. I make the same mistake with Penn State and Pitt sometimes. I regard them as straight- public school when really they are quasi - or hybrid -, part state and part private. I'm not sure the NC State/UNC comparison is entirely apt, though, because Clemson is generally regarded as a better academic school than South Carolina, which is not the case with UNC and NC State.

Clemson vs. S. Carolina: IMO, without taking the time to look at rankings, one is not necessarily better than the other. They just offer different programs. USC has a med school and law school, Clemson ag and engineering. Neither is going to be in the AAU anytime soon.

I agree about UNC vs. NC State. All the respect for NCSU's academics, but UNC definitely has the better rep.

Yeah, I haven't looked at the rankings either. I have worked in academia for 30+ years, and Clemson > SC is just my off-the-cuff understanding of how they stand in the academic status firmament. I've always understood Clemson to be regarded as a cut above overall. Of course, that doesn't necessarily apply to all programs. E.g., SC has a world-class International Business program.

I went to Purdue for grad school. It's amazing how many highly educated people think it's a small elite private school.

When I was living in CA, I'd tell them that they're right about it being elite, but that it's a public school that is larger than every school in California. Which isn't strictly true (at the time it was the same size as UCLA), but it opened the eyes of people who think that everything important happens on the coasts.

I lived in Lafayette for three years. Purdue people are crazy smart.