Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="pj, post: 4729612, member: 2524"] No one eight years ago would have thought the B12, as currently composed, was as attractive a conference as the ACC, as currently composed. FSU, Clemson, UNC, Notre Dame, Duke are all elite athletics schools, and many other programs have good athletic histories; it leads or is competitive in major markets. Meanwhile, the B12 has second-tier programs in its many states (its Texas schools are behind Texas and Texas A&M; Oklahoma State is behind Oklahoma; Iowa State is behind Iowa; Kansas, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah are the only states where it is the leader; it has many low-value programs diluting its value. The only reason people think the B12 is stronger than the ACC is recency bias -- the B12 has been improving its position while the ACC has been bickering and incapable of acting. But there's no reason to assume you can extrapolate recent trends indefinitely into the future. The B12 has stabilized its position with the Arizona/Colorado/Utah adds, but it has also limited its upside. It is now a large plains-mountain conference that can't easily grow further. If the ACC implodes the B12 is well positioned to become a "best of the rest" third national conference in a P3, but if the ACC holds together it will surpass the B12 in future contracts and be third in a P4. [/QUOTE]