(09-08-2021 09:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  BTW, USC is IMO nowhere close to being off the power train. In terms of brand, USC is still a top elite football brand, up there with anyone. That doesn't change due to a few bad seasons, and USC hasn't even really had a few bad seasons.

It is kind of crazy how the public has collectively memory-holed this idea that Southern Cal has been bad lately. Last ten years they're really only had two or three down years and only one years where they were objectively "bad". Really, their 2010s were better than their 80s or 90s.

10-2
7-6
10-4
9-4
8-6
10-3
11-3
5-7
8-5
5-1

In the 2010s USC had a similar winning percentage as A&M, Auburn, Washington and Michigan. The key fact is that they never really were title or playoff contenders.

(09-07-2021 12:06 PM)bluesox Wrote:  If the big 12 schools do to well they will get raided by the pac 12, acc, and big 10 so they can match the sec at 16

No sure thing to that.

(09-08-2021 09:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 07:07 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  So what's the perception of the P12? I don't see anyone cracking the CFP and USC has fallen off the power train. I bring that up because I see a perception of the SEC followed by the BIG as powers and then everybody else in a scrum.

It depends on how you define "power". Does it mean results on the field, specifically recent results? Or brand value?

Performance and CFP level is what I was referring to. Similar to Texas, they have the history and brand staying power for sure but when was the last time USC was thought of in the same light as the top teams in the SEC, Ohio State, Clemson, et al? Since Pete Carroll left the Trojans are 3-4 in bowls [they did win a Rose Bowl], have only two appearances in the P12 chip game [winning once] but no appearances in the CFP. USC has expectations to perform at a championship level. They've had success but not at a level that meets those expectations. I would argue Oregon has probably surpassed them performance-wise but the P12 as a whole has been down. Someone made a comment about the perception of the B12 minus Texas and Oklahoma and I was just pointing out that there is a perception of "everybody else" after the SEC and B1G as a conference whole.

(09-08-2021 11:22 AM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(09-08-2021 09:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 07:07 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  So what's the perception of the P12? I don't see anyone cracking the CFP and USC has fallen off the power train. I bring that up because I see a perception of the SEC followed by the BIG as powers and then everybody else in a scrum.

It depends on how you define "power". Does it mean results on the field, specifically recent results? Or brand value?

Performance and CFP level is what I was referring to. Similar to Texas, they have the history and brand staying power for sure but when was the last time USC was thought of in the same light as the top teams in the SEC, Ohio State, Clemson, et al? Since Pete Carroll left the Trojans are 3-4 in bowls [they did win a Rose Bowl], have only two appearances in the P12 chip game [winning once] but no appearances in the CFP. USC has expectations to perform at a championship level. They've had success but not at a level that meets those expectations. I would argue Oregon has probably surpassed them performance-wise but the P12 as a whole has been down. Someone made a comment about the perception of the B12 minus Texas and Oklahoma and I was just pointing out that there is a perception of "everybody else" after the SEC and B1G as a conference whole.

Well OK, but then by that standard, most blue-chip brands are in the same boat. Michigan hasn't been contending for CFP titles, neither has Penn State. Ditto for Florida and FSU and Miami. Same with Texas.

Really, nobody other than Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, Oklahoma, Notre Dame and LSU has been in the national title conversation the last 7 or so years. And Oklahoma and Notre Dame haven't won, and LSU was in there just one year.

I consider USC a member of college football royalty. The Trojan program is a key reason the Pac-12 remains a "power football league."

(09-08-2021 11:13 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  In the 2010s USC had a similar winning percentage as A&M, Auburn, Washington and Michigan. The key fact is that they never really were title or playoff contenders.

That seems pretty fair. It wasn't that long ago that WVU beat Clemson like 70-14 or something like that.

(09-08-2021 03:38 PM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  

(09-08-2021 11:13 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  In the 2010s USC had a similar winning percentage as A&M, Auburn, Washington and Michigan. The key fact is that they never really were title or playoff contenders.

That seems pretty fair. It wasn't that long ago that WVU beat Clemson like 70-14 or something like that.

Its funny how when we talk college hoops, we boil the Blue Bloods down to about six schools that most agree on: UCLA, UNC, Duke, Indiana, Kansas and Kentucky.

It seems like in CFB people bequeath the Blue Blood label to many more programs. Clemson is obviously a great program currently, but they are not a Blue Blood. When I think CFB royalty I mark it down to the following: Alabama, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas and USC. After that, you fall in a different tier IMHO.

(09-08-2021 03:38 PM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  

(09-08-2021 11:13 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  In the 2010s USC had a similar winning percentage as A&M, Auburn, Washington and Michigan. The key fact is that they never really were title or playoff contenders.

That seems pretty fair. It wasn't that long ago that WVU beat Clemson like 70-14 or something like that.

Its funny how when we talk college hoops, we boil the Blue Bloods down to about six schools that most agree on: UCLA, UNC, Duke, Indiana, Kansas and Kentucky.

It seems with CFB people bequeath the Blue Blood label to many more programs. Clemson is obviously a great program currently, but they are not a Blue Blood. When I think CFB royalty I mark it down to the following: Alabama, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas and USC. After that, you fall in a different tier IMHO.

(09-08-2021 04:15 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-08-2021 03:38 PM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  

(09-08-2021 11:13 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  In the 2010s USC had a similar winning percentage as A&M, Auburn, Washington and Michigan. The key fact is that they never really were title or playoff contenders.

That seems pretty fair. It wasn't that long ago that WVU beat Clemson like 70-14 or something like that.

Its funny how when we talk college hoops, we boil the Blue Bloods down to about six schools that most agree on: UCLA, UNC, Duke, Indiana, Kansas and Kentucky.

It seems like in CFB people bequeath the Blue Blood label to many more programs. Clemson is obviously a great program currently, but they are not a Blue Blood. When I think CFB royalty I mark it down to the following: Alabama, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas and USC. After that, you fall in a different tier IMHO.

Frank has written some good posts on this topic. I agree with his argument that “blue blood” basically means “old money”. That really what it is. It’s not a synonym for “best” or richest.

A Rockefeller would be a “blue blood”, even if they had less money than say Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos. Similarly, despite having won several titles in recent decades, Miami is not a “blue blood” in football nor UConn in basketball, even if they have won titles more recently than say Michigan or Indiana. That doesn’t mean they aren’t more accomplished in recent history, just that they don’t have a brand that has held high status for a very long time.

(09-08-2021 04:15 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-08-2021 03:38 PM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  

(09-08-2021 11:13 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  In the 2010s USC had a similar winning percentage as A&M, Auburn, Washington and Michigan. The key fact is that they never really were title or playoff contenders.

That seems pretty fair. It wasn't that long ago that WVU beat Clemson like 70-14 or something like that.

Its funny how when we talk college hoops, we boil the Blue Bloods down to about six schools that most agree on: UCLA, UNC, Duke, Indiana, Kansas and Kentucky.

It seems like in CFB people bequeath the Blue Blood label to many more programs. Clemson is obviously a great program currently, but they are not a Blue Blood. When I think CFB royalty I mark it down to the following: Alabama, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas and USC. After that, you fall in a different tier IMHO.

Nebraska is without question a blueblood. Whether they remain so 15 years from now or fade like Minnesota remains to be seen. Penn St. pretty certainly is, althugh at the bottom of the stack. And FSU, Florida and Miami dominated college football for a couple decades, so some see they as bluebloods, albeit newer relatives.

(09-08-2021 09:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-08-2021 04:15 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-08-2021 03:38 PM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  

(09-08-2021 11:13 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  In the 2010s USC had a similar winning percentage as A&M, Auburn, Washington and Michigan. The key fact is that they never really were title or playoff contenders.

That seems pretty fair. It wasn't that long ago that WVU beat Clemson like 70-14 or something like that.

Its funny how when we talk college hoops, we boil the Blue Bloods down to about six schools that most agree on: UCLA, UNC, Duke, Indiana, Kansas and Kentucky.

It seems like in CFB people bequeath the Blue Blood label to many more programs. Clemson is obviously a great program currently, but they are not a Blue Blood. When I think CFB royalty I mark it down to the following: Alabama, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas and USC. After that, you fall in a different tier IMHO.

Nebraska is without question a blueblood. Whether they remain so 15 years from now or fade like Minnesota remains to be seen. Penn St. pretty certainly is, althugh at the bottom of the stack. And FSU, Florida and Miami dominated college football for a couple decades, so some see they as bluebloods, albeit newer relatives.

Agree with Nebraska and Penn State- I’d put UF, FSU and Miami in the nouveau riche category. Miami might even fall into the category of the 80s celebrity that made a fortune and won several Oscars back in the day, but hadn’t gotten a new role since the early 2000s.

(09-08-2021 10:59 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(09-08-2021 09:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  BTW, USC is IMO nowhere close to being off the power train. In terms of brand, USC is still a top elite football brand, up there with anyone. That doesn't change due to a few bad seasons, and USC hasn't even really had a few bad seasons.

It is kind of crazy how the public has collectively memory-holed this idea that Southern Cal has been bad lately. Last ten years they're really only had two or three down years and only one years where they were objectively "bad". Really, their 2010s were better than their 80s or 90s.

10-2
7-6
10-4
9-4
8-6
10-3
11-3
5-7
8-5
5-1

Victims of their own success. They were so dominant under Carroll that it makes the drop off they've experienced seem greater than it is. If Saban's replacement averages 9 wins for a decade we'll be talking about how Alabama has lost its shine.

(09-08-2021 10:59 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(09-08-2021 09:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  BTW, USC is IMO nowhere close to being off the power train. In terms of brand, USC is still a top elite football brand, up there with anyone. That doesn't change due to a few bad seasons, and USC hasn't even really had a few bad seasons.

It is kind of crazy how the public has collectively memory-holed this idea that Southern Cal has been bad lately. Last ten years they're really only had two or three down years and only one years where they were objectively "bad". Really, their 2010s were better than their 80s or 90s.

10-2
7-6
10-4
9-4
8-6
10-3
11-3
5-7
8-5
5-1

Only a single conference championship (2017) and only 3 bids to the PAC 12 championship game. Only 2 single-digit final rankings. Zero CFP appearances....while Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, and Oklahoma are almost annual fixtures. Only 2 PAC bids to the CFP.

Only in 2011 and last year's shortened season did they have fewer than 3 losses. Here's the corresponding rankings:

#6
NR
#19
#24
NR
#3
#12
NR
NR
#17

3-4 in bowl games.

(09-06-2021 07:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-06-2021 06:02 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  We are in a new era of college sports with the NIL.

Houston, Cinci and UCF are all high "upside" programs.

UCF in the Orlando market with no NFL competition is going to be able to go head to head with SEC schools in terms of NIL $ and attracting athletes. They will mop up in their back yard with recruiting and make a dent in Texas now that they will be playing there. With one of the largest student bodies in the country, they are almost guaranteed, if they are playing decent football, to be at the top of attendance and TV viewership. With the right coach, would not surprise me to, in 5 years, see UCF where Florida State was a few years ago - a perennial Nat Champ contender.

Houston, likewise, in their giant market, will find the $ to attract the athletes they need, right in their back yard. Further, they will probably take athletes from Texas, A&M (especially) and LSU. The attendance potential has been shown to be there - they could find themselves, like UCF, to be near top of TV and attendance, and competing for the highest caliber athletes.

Cincinatti is already a Top 10 Football Team. That will only continue - how many recruits will they steal out from under Ohio State because they are competing in the B12?

I'm not mentioning BYU because they are already P5 caliber.

In 5 years, its very possible that these 4 schools rank at the top of the B12 in terms of interest, wins, fan support, and outstrip a lot of the supposedly more attractive properties ensconced in the bigger conferences. When one of these teams wins its first Nat Championship (I'm guessing UCF) over Alabama or Ohio State, the national perception will change and the B12 will be back in the Top 4.

In the meantime, its very likely that Texas is going to be, like Nebraska before them, wishing they didn't switch conferences.

Houston will only rarely win a recruiting battle head to head with Texas A&M, OU or Texas. They can compete with the rest. Texas A&M, OU and Texas compete with top programs from out of state. Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech and Oklahoma St. will occasionally get someone really high, but usually not someone those 3 were pursuing hard.

If Houston builds a consistent winner in the Big 12, and the university continues to improve, they will win the recruiting battle over OU. Texas and TAM may retain an advantage but Houston will be slotted in behind those two.

(09-06-2021 06:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-06-2021 06:02 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  We are in a new era of college sports with the NIL.

Well, I don't think the New Big 12 is going to retain its P5 status after 2025. It seems highly unlikely to me that the SEC and B1G will share playoff money and other trappings of "power" equally with the NB12 when the brand-value gap is so vast.

The NB12 will be viewed as either the top G conference or a true "tweener" that the AAC was striving to be.

I don't think the NCAA can easily strip them of that Power Conference status because the Big XII is a legally-bound Autonomy Conference in NCAA governance, and there would be vicious and ugly lawsuits against the NCAA and the other power conferences if they try to take that status from them. The only way they can potentially lose that status is if those schools already grandfathered into the conference as an Autonomy Conference leave to go to other Power Conferences. Then, it's possible, but not as long as those 8 remaining schools are still in the Big XII.

Why do people still think USC is a blue blood? They have a hard time getting 60,000 people there these days. I’d argue Oregon is more blue blood.

USC is still a very good program, but they don’t scare Utah and I doubt they scare a few others.

(09-07-2021 06:10 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  The Big 12 will cease to be a football power conference the day Texas and Oklahoma leave.

Wrong

(10-12-2021 09:25 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  

(09-07-2021 06:10 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  The Big 12 will cease to be a football power conference the day Texas and Oklahoma leave.

Wrong

You have to forgive him. He's a UConn fan.

Blue Blood's be damned! Give me Elon Musk, Bezo's type money and I can buy all the Blue Bloods, Red Blood's and in between Blood's, and no blood's. While the old rich sleep on their money, Musk and the Bezo's are creating a new world. Same applies in all spheres of endeavor