(05-24-2013 12:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 12:15 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 10:44 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 10:28 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The ACC has more teams. But many of them have not performed on the football field. Last year the only B12 team that didn't make it to a bowl game was Kansas. The other 90% of the teams in the B12 did. The ACC will never have a similar success rate, nor will any other conference...

The B12 has no need of a conference championship game, even though many fans of schools left out of the P5 setup wish it to be otherwise, giving them hope for inclusion. There is no rule requiring a conference championship game, nor is there any push for such a rule to be enacted. B12 teams play everyone in every sport every year, just like a true conference should. This gives the B12 a true champion most years, and there are rules in place for determining the champion in case of a tie. So I see no problem, other than the fact that many here wish to force the B12 to include their favorite teams (currently on the outside looking in), even though the B12 has no desire to do so...

I actually agree with you, but in college football (more than any other sport), perception is reality. Right now, the perception is that the B12 is the "easiest" to win of the P5 due to less teams and no Champ game. That perception is going to matter IMO.

I think the perception is the B12 is "unwilling to take the risk" of a CCG....

Why should they take the risk? There is no proof of any reward that outweighs that risk. The only sure benefit of a conference title game is the revenue generated by the game, and in the Big 12's case that additional revenue would be more than offset by the cost of splitting their money pie 12 ways instead of 10.

If there were two or more schools available to the Big 12 that would increase the per-school revenue take of the conference, they would have already been added.

So basically, you're agreeing with me....

(05-24-2013 01:04 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 12:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 12:15 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 10:44 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 10:28 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The ACC has more teams. But many of them have not performed on the football field. Last year the only B12 team that didn't make it to a bowl game was Kansas. The other 90% of the teams in the B12 did. The ACC will never have a similar success rate, nor will any other conference...

The B12 has no need of a conference championship game, even though many fans of schools left out of the P5 setup wish it to be otherwise, giving them hope for inclusion. There is no rule requiring a conference championship game, nor is there any push for such a rule to be enacted. B12 teams play everyone in every sport every year, just like a true conference should. This gives the B12 a true champion most years, and there are rules in place for determining the champion in case of a tie. So I see no problem, other than the fact that many here wish to force the B12 to include their favorite teams (currently on the outside looking in), even though the B12 has no desire to do so...

I actually agree with you, but in college football (more than any other sport), perception is reality. Right now, the perception is that the B12 is the "easiest" to win of the P5 due to less teams and no Champ game. That perception is going to matter IMO.

I think the perception is the B12 is "unwilling to take the risk" of a CCG....

Why should they take the risk? There is no proof of any reward that outweighs that risk. The only sure benefit of a conference title game is the revenue generated by the game, and in the Big 12's case that additional revenue would be more than offset by the cost of splitting their money pie 12 ways instead of 10.

If there were two or more schools available to the Big 12 that would increase the per-school revenue take of the conference, they would have already been added.

So basically, you're agreeing with me....

I think your argument is that the Big 12 is "afraid" to play a conference title game. I'm saying they're smart to not play one. That's a significant difference.

(05-24-2013 01:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 01:04 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 12:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 12:15 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 10:44 AM)uccheese Wrote:  I actually agree with you, but in college football (more than any other sport), perception is reality. Right now, the perception is that the B12 is the "easiest" to win of the P5 due to less teams and no Champ game. That perception is going to matter IMO.

I think the perception is the B12 is "unwilling to take the risk" of a CCG....

Why should they take the risk? There is no proof of any reward that outweighs that risk. The only sure benefit of a conference title game is the revenue generated by the game, and in the Big 12's case that additional revenue would be more than offset by the cost of splitting their money pie 12 ways instead of 10.

If there were two or more schools available to the Big 12 that would increase the per-school revenue take of the conference, they would have already been added.

So basically, you're agreeing with me....

I think your argument is that the Big 12 is "afraid" to play a conference title game. I'm saying they're smart to not play one. That's a significant difference.

Where do you see the word "afraid" in my post? Furthermore, there's no difference in our posts because the "risk" is the point in both of our posts. You just decided to refer to not playing a CCG as "smart" instead of "unwilling," which doesn't change the fact that the "risk" is the reason for the decision. However, I will also admit that the $$ is another reason.

(05-24-2013 12:15 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 10:44 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 10:28 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The ACC has more teams. But many of them have not performed on the football field. Last year the only B12 team that didn't make it to a bowl game was Kansas. The other 90% of the teams in the B12 did. The ACC will never have a similar success rate, nor will any other conference...

The B12 has no need of a conference championship game, even though many fans of schools left out of the P5 setup wish it to be otherwise, giving them hope for inclusion. There is no rule requiring a conference championship game, nor is there any push for such a rule to be enacted. B12 teams play everyone in every sport every year, just like a true conference should. This gives the B12 a true champion most years, and there are rules in place for determining the champion in case of a tie. So I see no problem, other than the fact that many here wish to force the B12 to include their favorite teams (currently on the outside looking in), even though the B12 has no desire to do so...

I actually agree with you, but in college football (more than any other sport), perception is reality. Right now, the perception is that the B12 is the "easiest" to win of the P5 due to less teams and no Champ game. That perception is going to matter IMO.

I think the perception is the B12 is "unwilling to take the risk" of a CCG....

The perception is that fans of schools left out want the B12 to be forced to include schools that do little to help with the B12's payout per school or power rating. All making the conference bigger will do is make it so that not all B12 schools play each other every year, leading to unbalanced schedules and differences in SOS among conference members...

I'm waiting for the day when a conference has a barely bowl eligible team win their conference championship game, which could have happened with the Pac12 last season. That will never happen with the B12's setup. But it may very well happen in some other conference someday...

(05-24-2013 02:50 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 12:15 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 10:44 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 10:28 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The ACC has more teams. But many of them have not performed on the football field. Last year the only B12 team that didn't make it to a bowl game was Kansas. The other 90% of the teams in the B12 did. The ACC will never have a similar success rate, nor will any other conference...

The B12 has no need of a conference championship game, even though many fans of schools left out of the P5 setup wish it to be otherwise, giving them hope for inclusion. There is no rule requiring a conference championship game, nor is there any push for such a rule to be enacted. B12 teams play everyone in every sport every year, just like a true conference should. This gives the B12 a true champion most years, and there are rules in place for determining the champion in case of a tie. So I see no problem, other than the fact that many here wish to force the B12 to include their favorite teams (currently on the outside looking in), even though the B12 has no desire to do so...

I actually agree with you, but in college football (more than any other sport), perception is reality. Right now, the perception is that the B12 is the "easiest" to win of the P5 due to less teams and no Champ game. That perception is going to matter IMO.

I think the perception is the B12 is "unwilling to take the risk" of a CCG....

The perception is that fans of schools left out want the B12 to be forced to include schools that do little to help with the B12's payout per school or power rating. All making the conference bigger will do is make it so that not all B12 schools play each other every year, leading to unbalanced schedules and differences in SOS among conference members...

I'm waiting for the day when a conference has a barely bowl eligible team win their conference championship game, which could have happened with the Pac12 last season. That will never happen with the B12's setup. But it may very well happen in some other conference someday...

Yep. Wisconsin was 7-5 and won the BIG. Ga Tech was 6-6 and gave FSU a close game. In a winner take all, anything could happen.

Big 12 has a somewhat worse situation. The #1 team may have to play on the road at the end of the season and get beat. It's much tougher on the road than a neutral field. Both Ok St and KSt lost on the road in the second to last game of the season. A CCG may give you the opportunity to correct public perception.

(05-24-2013 09:19 AM)bigredmachine Wrote:  I know many people dismiss this, but NIU sits within 60 miles of Chicago and has over 200,000 alums in the area. The Orange Bowl was the top rated TV game on New Year's. NIU has a long way to go facilities, budget, and support-wise to measure up against the Big 12, but if the Big 12 added NIU and Cincinnati, WVU would have UC as a partner and Iowa St. would have NIU. Laugh now, but stranger things have happened. NIU had a 50% increase in applications after the OB. Give a couple of years and who knows.

Would you like NIU to join the AAC?

(05-24-2013 02:50 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'm waiting for the day when a conference has a barely bowl eligible team win their conference championship game, which could have happened with the Pac12 last season. That will never happen with the B12's setup. But it may very well happen in some other conference someday...

Yes, the downside risk is that the school that is not normally better is better on the day. The upside benefit is the possibility that the school that is normally better on the day goes ahead and wins, boosting their resume and improving their chances of getting into the semi-finals playoff.

Problem is, even if the Big12 expanded to 12 schools, it probably wouldn't drop down to eight conference games with one locked cross division game, so it still wouldn't give its better teams the SEC style opportunity to duck the strongest teams in the other division, which helps boost SEC top-25 positions.

(05-24-2013 02:55 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 02:50 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'm waiting for the day when a conference has a barely bowl eligible team win their conference championship game, which could have happened with the Pac12 last season. That will never happen with the B12's setup. But it may very well happen in some other conference someday...

Yep. Wisconsin was 7-5 and won the BIG. Ga Tech was 6-6 and gave FSU a close game. In a winner take all, anything could happen.

To be fair, all three of those teams (2011 UCLA, 2012 Wisconsin, and 2012 Georgia Tech) were in their conference title game only because the teams that would have been there were ineligible.

For both Wisky and Ga Tech, there were two teams ahead of them who were ineligible. These situations are flukes, and something similar could happen in the Big 12. For example, in 2012, the Big 12's BCS team would have been a four-loss team that lost its last two regular-season games, if their top two teams had been on probation (as was the case in the Big Ten and ACC divisions).

(05-24-2013 09:50 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 08:05 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 08:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 12:45 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Oh... one less game is obvious. Sorry for the tripping up and blowing the CCG. That's life. Hasn't hurt the SEC for the past seven years. Do not be a chicken.... SOS in the Big XII won't get you in but it might get the loser of the SEC/B1G CCG game in.

CCGs are two-edged swords, if you win them they can help if you lose them they will hurt. In the above scenario, Texas might be hurt vis-a-vis LSU, but not FSU, since FSU usually plays a soft schedule. The one game likely won't be missed at all.

FSU usually plays a soft schedule? Really? FSU gets to do something the Big 12 doesn't get...a high profile SEC opponent and the end of the year (Florida).

... which of course is a two-edge sword, as FSU loses to Florida at least as often as it beats them. FSU is historically the best shot the ACC will have to make the playoffs, but a loss in the Florida game will be impossible to overcome, being so high-profile and so late in the season.

And that's fine. It just means the ACC will always be in the conversation. Can't always say that for the Big 12 and definitely not for the AAC

The Big 12 doesn't have a high-profile end of season OOC game, and yet it's been in the title-game conversation far more often than has the ACC over the past decade.

(05-24-2013 03:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:50 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 08:05 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 08:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  CCGs are two-edged swords, if you win them they can help if you lose them they will hurt. In the above scenario, Texas might be hurt vis-a-vis LSU, but not FSU, since FSU usually plays a soft schedule. The one game likely won't be missed at all.

FSU usually plays a soft schedule? Really? FSU gets to do something the Big 12 doesn't get...a high profile SEC opponent and the end of the year (Florida).

... which of course is a two-edge sword, as FSU loses to Florida at least as often as it beats them. FSU is historically the best shot the ACC will have to make the playoffs, but a loss in the Florida game will be impossible to overcome, being so high-profile and so late in the season.

And that's fine. It just means the ACC will always be in the conversation. Can't always say that for the Big 12 and definitely not for the AAC

The Big 12 doesn't have a high-profile end of season OOC game, and yet it's been in the title-game conversation far more often than has the ACC over the past decade.

Absolutely true but we are talking about the future. ACC has more opportunties to jump ahead of the Big 12. If FSU and Miami don't take a nosedive we're having a different conversation. Just keep an eye on Texas and OK. I have a feeling they are going through a period where they aren't in the conversation either.

(05-24-2013 03:36 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:50 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 08:05 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  FSU usually plays a soft schedule? Really? FSU gets to do something the Big 12 doesn't get...a high profile SEC opponent and the end of the year (Florida).

... which of course is a two-edge sword, as FSU loses to Florida at least as often as it beats them. FSU is historically the best shot the ACC will have to make the playoffs, but a loss in the Florida game will be impossible to overcome, being so high-profile and so late in the season.

And that's fine. It just means the ACC will always be in the conversation. Can't always say that for the Big 12 and definitely not for the AAC

The Big 12 doesn't have a high-profile end of season OOC game, and yet it's been in the title-game conversation far more often than has the ACC over the past decade.

Absolutely true but we are talking about the future. ACC has more opportunties to jump ahead of the Big 12. If FSU and Miami don't take a nosedive we're having a different conversation. Just keep an eye on Texas and OK. I have a feeling they are going through a period where they aren't in the conversation either.

That is the difference. Our two big dogs have been down the last 2 years and the rest pick up the slack. OkState went 12-1 beating Stanford in the Fiesta and narrowly missed the national title, Baylor won 10 games and a heisman, KSU steps up, etc... Your two go down and many ACC fans simply wonder why they can't get their act together.

(05-24-2013 03:41 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:36 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:50 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... which of course is a two-edge sword, as FSU loses to Florida at least as often as it beats them. FSU is historically the best shot the ACC will have to make the playoffs, but a loss in the Florida game will be impossible to overcome, being so high-profile and so late in the season.

And that's fine. It just means the ACC will always be in the conversation. Can't always say that for the Big 12 and definitely not for the AAC

The Big 12 doesn't have a high-profile end of season OOC game, and yet it's been in the title-game conversation far more often than has the ACC over the past decade.

Absolutely true but we are talking about the future. ACC has more opportunties to jump ahead of the Big 12. If FSU and Miami don't take a nosedive we're having a different conversation. Just keep an eye on Texas and OK. I have a feeling they are going through a period where they aren't in the conversation either.

That is the difference. Our two big dogs have been down the last 2 years and the rest pick up the slack. Your two go down and you wonder why they can't get their act together.

Who picked up the slack? K St? Both FSU and Clemson finished ranked higher than them last year. Ok St? One hit wonder. That same year Clemson and VT played in BCS bowls.

Actually I don't think the Big 12 needs a championship game as long as they continue to:

1. Play a 9-game conference game
2. Extend the schedule to late November so that they still have games going on while the SEC & B1G is playing the CCG.

(05-24-2013 04:11 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  Actually I don't think the Big 12 needs a championship game as long as they continue to:

1. Play a 9-game conference game
2. Extend the schedule to late November so that they still have games going on while the SEC & B1G is playing the CCG.

They do that now. Honestly, I don't think the Big 12 needs a CCG. There really is no one out there that makes sense for them to add. My only request would be for them to upgrade their non-conference schedules.

(05-24-2013 03:47 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:41 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:36 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:50 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  And that's fine. It just means the ACC will always be in the conversation. Can't always say that for the Big 12 and definitely not for the AAC

The Big 12 doesn't have a high-profile end of season OOC game, and yet it's been in the title-game conversation far more often than has the ACC over the past decade.

Absolutely true but we are talking about the future. ACC has more opportunties to jump ahead of the Big 12. If FSU and Miami don't take a nosedive we're having a different conversation. Just keep an eye on Texas and OK. I have a feeling they are going through a period where they aren't in the conversation either.

That is the difference. Our two big dogs have been down the last 2 years and the rest pick up the slack. Your two go down and you wonder why they can't get their act together.

Who picked up the slack? K St? Both FSU and Clemson finished ranked higher than them last year. Ok St? One hit wonder. That same year Clemson and VT played in BCS bowls.

Clemson and VT both got stomped in those BCS bowl games too. Clemson, the ACC Champ that year, got beaten so badly they're still trying to live it down...

(05-24-2013 04:36 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:47 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:41 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:36 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The Big 12 doesn't have a high-profile end of season OOC game, and yet it's been in the title-game conversation far more often than has the ACC over the past decade.

Absolutely true but we are talking about the future. ACC has more opportunties to jump ahead of the Big 12. If FSU and Miami don't take a nosedive we're having a different conversation. Just keep an eye on Texas and OK. I have a feeling they are going through a period where they aren't in the conversation either.

That is the difference. Our two big dogs have been down the last 2 years and the rest pick up the slack. Your two go down and you wonder why they can't get their act together.

Who picked up the slack? K St? Both FSU and Clemson finished ranked higher than them last year. Ok St? One hit wonder. That same year Clemson and VT played in BCS bowls.

Clemson and VT both got stomped in those BCS bowl games too. Clemson, the ACC Champ that year, got beaten so badly they're still trying to live it down...

VT lost in OT and on a controversial TD call so that's not getting stomped. Clemson on the other hand..........

(05-24-2013 03:47 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:41 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:36 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:50 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  And that's fine. It just means the ACC will always be in the conversation. Can't always say that for the Big 12 and definitely not for the AAC

The Big 12 doesn't have a high-profile end of season OOC game, and yet it's been in the title-game conversation far more often than has the ACC over the past decade.

Absolutely true but we are talking about the future. ACC has more opportunties to jump ahead of the Big 12. If FSU and Miami don't take a nosedive we're having a different conversation. Just keep an eye on Texas and OK. I have a feeling they are going through a period where they aren't in the conversation either.

That is the difference. Our two big dogs have been down the last 2 years and the rest pick up the slack. Your two go down and you wonder why they can't get their act together.

Who picked up the slack? K St? Both FSU and Clemson finished ranked higher than them last year. Ok St? One hit wonder. That same year Clemson and VT played in BCS bowls.

You are way off.

KSU was top 5 pretty much all year, destroyed your division champ, and finished 7 spots above FSU and 9 spots above Clemson in the final BCS standings.

Post-bowls does not matter for BCS/Playoff considerations besides if FSU gets to jump KSU after beating Northern Illinois that is bogus. I can't find one poll that prior to the bowls had either of your teams in the top 10. In fact not only was KSU ahead of you, so was OU.

As for 2011 you can pass off OSU as a one hit wonder but they beat a very good Stanford team and WVU owned Clemson so it's not like the Tigers were that good.

Also VT was not invited to the Sugar Bowl on merit, but rather on marketability vs the only other options which were limited due to the SEC getting two teams into the title game. With two SEC teams in the national title game the Sugar Bowl could not pick any more.

So they got the #1 pick overall (to replace SEC champ #1 lsu) and took Michigan. Then the fiesta had the 1st at large pick and took Stanford. The sugar's at large pick then chose between the following allowable teams:

#23 WVU - 3 loss BE team
#11 VT- 2 loss team with a solid travel base
#8 KSU- 2 losses but unimpressive and not a recent power
#12 Baylor- RG3 won the Heisman but an up and down season
#7 Boise- Two losses dampened the cinderella appeal
#14 OU- 3 losses

The only school with a similar fan following that was eligible was Oklahoma who was being passed over in favor of KSU and BU by two of our own league tie ins due to low fan enthusiasm at the time.

If the SEC doesn't get their rematch, the Big 12 gets two teams in as the Fiesta likely grabs KSU and VT is SOL.

If OkSt goes to the title over Bama the selection is probably:

1- Sugar (replace LSU)- Bama
2- Fiesta (replace OSU)- KSU
3- Fiesta (1st at large)- Stanford/Michigan
4- Sugar (2nd at large)- Michigan/Stanford
5- Orange (Last at large)- WVU

So to say it's an anomaly is accurate.

(05-24-2013 04:38 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 04:36 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:47 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:41 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:36 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Absolutely true but we are talking about the future. ACC has more opportunties to jump ahead of the Big 12. If FSU and Miami don't take a nosedive we're having a different conversation. Just keep an eye on Texas and OK. I have a feeling they are going through a period where they aren't in the conversation either.

That is the difference. Our two big dogs have been down the last 2 years and the rest pick up the slack. Your two go down and you wonder why they can't get their act together.

Who picked up the slack? K St? Both FSU and Clemson finished ranked higher than them last year. Ok St? One hit wonder. That same year Clemson and VT played in BCS bowls.

Clemson and VT both got stomped in those BCS bowl games too. Clemson, the ACC Champ that year, got beaten so badly they're still trying to live it down...

VT lost in OT and on a controversial TD call so that's not getting stomped. Clemson on the other hand..........

Fortunately for Clemson, Tavon Austin has graduated. So they won't have to worry about him scoring any more TDs against them...

(05-24-2013 03:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The Big 12 doesn't have a high-profile end of season OOC game, and yet it's been in the title-game conversation far more often than has the ACC over the past decade.

After accounting for realignment, the two conferences are 2-4 in the NCG.

I know that is longer than the mentioned ten years ~ I guess with a history as short as the Big12, 10 years is a long time ago.

(05-24-2013 03:36 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:50 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 08:05 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  FSU usually plays a soft schedule? Really? FSU gets to do something the Big 12 doesn't get...a high profile SEC opponent and the end of the year (Florida).

... which of course is a two-edge sword, as FSU loses to Florida at least as often as it beats them. FSU is historically the best shot the ACC will have to make the playoffs, but a loss in the Florida game will be impossible to overcome, being so high-profile and so late in the season.

And that's fine. It just means the ACC will always be in the conversation. Can't always say that for the Big 12 and definitely not for the AAC

The Big 12 doesn't have a high-profile end of season OOC game, and yet it's been in the title-game conversation far more often than has the ACC over the past decade.

Absolutely true but we are talking about the future. ACC has more opportunties to jump ahead of the Big 12. If FSU and Miami don't take a nosedive we're having a different conversation. Just keep an eye on Texas and OK. I have a feeling they are going through a period where they aren't in the conversation either.

In other words, the ACC will be relevant in national title conversations if OK and TX are a lot worse and Miami and FSU are a lot better than they have been the past 10 years. Wake me up when it happens.