Conference Realignment

[stinger78]

I think the chances are much better now that the conference champions will all be 1-2 losses maximum because of the removal of divisions. However, in my comment I specifically said that an undefeated conference champion will not be left out. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't see how an undefeated P4 champion will be ranked lower than two undefeated G5 champions. On top of that, I don't see how an undefeated P4 champion could be ranked lower than #12 even if two G5 teams are higher.

My point is that last year, FSU did everything possible -on the field- to get into the playoffs. The committee just decided to exclude them. This year, if you go undefeated and win your conference, the committee has no say in whether you get in or not. (maybe technically possible, but if GT were to go 13-0 having beaten FSU, ND, NC State, mutts, etc and is ranked #15 behind a lot of 9-3 teams, then they system is 100% broken)

The system is 100% broken. Period.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

The system is 100% broken. Period.

You exaggerate. It can’t be much more than 98% broken.

 

[Vespidae]

The system is 100% broken. Period.

I would say 'it's evolving".

Saban made a good point a few days ago. In the NFL, owners want all teams to go 8-8 because it creates the most excitement during the playoffs. Ultimately, you will see more 10-2 regular teams or even 9-3 become national champions as the playoff size grows to 16 or 32. We are a long way from the old AP/UPI days.

 

[orientalnc]

I think the chances are much better now that the conference champions will all be 1-2 losses maximum because of the removal of divisions. However, in my comment I specifically said that an undefeated conference champion will not be left out. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't see how an undefeated P4 champion will be ranked lower than two undefeated G5 champions. On top of that, I don't see how an undefeated P4 champion could be ranked lower than #12 even if two G5 teams are higher.

My point is that last year, FSU did everything possible -on the field- to get into the playoffs. The committee just decided to exclude them. This year, if you go undefeated and win your conference, the committee has no say in whether you get in or not. (maybe technically possible, but if GT were to go 13-0 having beaten FSU, ND, NC State, mutts, etc and is ranked #15 behind a lot of 9-3 teams, then they system is 100% broken)

I agree with you 100%. That said, when the selections were made I do not think FSU was a better team than any of the four teams chosen. Travis Jordan was too much of the FSU offense to ignore his absence. Did they deserve to be in the playoffs in spite of his injury? That is a legit question people have argued about for months. There is no correct answer. Thankfully, that is no longer possible.

 

[orientalnc]

I would say 'it's evolving".

Saban made a good point a few days ago. In the NFL, owners want all teams to go 8-8 because it creates the most excitement during the playoffs. Ultimately, you will see more 10-2 regular teams or even 9-3 become national champions as the playoff size grows to 16 or 32. We are a long way from the old AP/UPI days.

A 16 team playoff requires exactly the same number of weekends as a 12 team playoff.

My UNC connected neighbor said the ACC and Big12 refused approve a 16 team playoff that allowed unlimited SEC teams to be selected over conference champions. This 12 team playoff was compromise. Is he correct? Maybe. At least his friend at UNC claims to know what happened. I remember Sankey saying he thought the highest ranking teams should be in the playoffs irrespective of conference championships.

The way it is now, preseason rankings are the most important rankings of the year. They set the model in a way that on field results struggle to overcome. The SEC narrative is based on the meme that all SEC teams are better then non-SEC teams. So, having a lot of them in the CFP is natural and correct.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

A 16 team playoff requires exactly the same number of weekends as a 12 team playoff.

My UNC connected neighbor said the ACC and Big12 refused approve a 16 team playoff that allowed unlimited SEC teams to be selected over conference champions. This 12 team playoff was compromise. Is he correct? Maybe. At least his friend at UNC claims to know what happened. I remember Sankey saying he thought the highest ranking teams should be in the playoffs irrespective of conference championships.

The way it is now, preseason rankings are the most important rankings of the year. They set the model in a way that on field results struggle to overcome. The SEC narrative is based on the meme that all SEC teams are better then non-SEC teams. So, having a lot of them in the CFP is natural and correct.

Which begs the question, how many decades would the SEC have to be down before they quit getting the benefit of the doubt in preseason rankings?

I’m gonna say 2 decades. Sports writers and influencers hate to give up their smug opinions.

 

[RonJohn]

Which begs the question, how many decades would the SEC have to be down before they quit getting the benefit of the doubt in preseason rankings?

I’m gonna say 2 decades. Sports writers and influencers hate to give up their smug opinions.

It wasn't prevalent until the mid 2000s. The SEC only made 2 BCS title games in the first 8 years. Undefeated Auburn was left out of the game in 2004. I think the SEC learned that they needed to lobby and make noise to get the rankings up and ensure a spot in the championship game. After they started pressing their slogan and hyping the SEC as much as possible, they had a team in all of the last 8 BCS games. They even had two teams in one of those games. I haven't looked back, but I assume the over the top hyping started around the 2004 Auburn snub. It only took two years to get results.

The ACC should be involved in an orchestrated marketing effort. The ACC ads on TV are meaningless. I don't even remember what is there. Everybody remembers the "just means more" ads of the SEC. Discussions with reporters should be orchestrated. Where do you think all of the press got the "#1 DL in college football" talk about FSU? Too many "reporters" are just parrots. I have heard some of the FSU Youtube people say that the phrase "#1 DL in college football" is what the FSU coaches told them. The coaches should understand the talking points. SIDs should know the exact statements and phrasings. If everyone in the ACC describes the advantages of the ACC with the same words, it will be parroted by reporters and the general public will start to believe it. (Not the kind of world I am proud to be living in, but it is where we are. The ACC can let the SEC and Big12 continue to beat them at this game, or they can start to play by the same rules.)

 

[cpf2001]

Yeah, 2004 really feels like a turning point for the SEC.

And both of the conferences that had teams that got in over them that year have been picked clean (one of them by the SEC directly).

 

[Vespidae]

The ACC should be involved in an orchestrated marketing effort.

Hubris. Marketing isn’t just promotion (tv ads). It’s the product too. And the ACC is not as attractive to a) players (as measured by number who make it to the NFL) and b) a large fanbase (as most P2 schools are very large land grant schools with built in advantages).

There’s nothing wrong with being third.

Besides, a few years ago, Clemson was in the conversation for four years. But not anymore. Did marketing do that? No, Dabo did it. The ACC can’t even agree if it’s a basketball conference or a football conference. The SEC doesn’t have that problem.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Marketing can’t trump having 3 or 4 teams in the top ten. We need about 6 teams to start 4-0. Of course, unless they play us.

 

[cpf2001]

There’s nothing wrong with being third.

The ACC needs to up their marketing game to even have people believe they are in third.

 

[RonJohn]

Hubris. Marketing isn’t just promotion (tv ads). It’s the product too. And the ACC is not as attractive to a) players (as measured by number who make it to the NFL) and b) a large fanbase (as most P2 schools are very large land grant schools with built in advantages).

There’s nothing wrong with being third.

Besides, a few years ago, Clemson was in the conversation for four years. But not anymore. Did marketing do that? No, Dabo did it. The ACC can’t even agree if it’s a basketball conference or a football conference. The SEC doesn’t have that problem.

Miss State gets the credit for being an SEC team. Arkansas gets the credit for being an SEC team. Kentucky gets the credit for being an SEC team. Auburn gets the credit for being an SEC team. All of those teams have had some good years in the past couple of decades, but none of them have been consistently top tier. The SEC pushed a narrative that being in the SEC automatically makes a team better, and it has stuck. I have said many times that in 2008 Mississippi was touted as being a bottom tier SEC team that didn't matter for anything. Then three weeks later they were suddenly a prime example of how deep the SEC is and that no SEC team can rest for even two seconds because of the strength of the entire conference. The SEC was able to push a narrative that beating an SEC team doesn't matter for strength of conferences, but that an SEC team losing to an SEC team doesn't matter for strength of teams or conferences. They were able to spin the same team two opposite ways in three weeks in order to maximize the emphasis on strength of the SEC.

The hubris is in the constantly morphing of what is important and what determines who is strong and who is weak. The SEC is best because of X, but tomorrow X doesn't matter and it is because of Y, then the next day X nor Y matter and the SEC is best because of Z.

The SEC might be the best conference with respect to football. However, the ACC just allows the narratives to go unfettered and without any collective response from the ACC or ACC teams. The ACC does not even try to drive a narrative. The ACC is by any objective measure better than the Big12. Yet the Big12 is driving a narrative about the Big12 and it is seen all over social media. Many in the public are buying into it. The ACC should be pushing a narrative that the ACC is good. The ACC should be pushing a narrative that the ACC is on par with the Big10 and SEC. If Clemson loses on Saturday, there will be a narrative push that the SEC is the dominant conference and teams from the SEC can whip up on the top team from the ACC. If Clemson wins on Saturday, the SEC will push that this is Clemson's Super Bowl, but a normal week for the mutts. The ACC however will remain quiet and not say anything. Where is the hubris in that?

 

[Vespidae]

The ACC needs to up their marketing game to even have people believe they are in third.

Since the ACC is already third, it sounds like a total waste to me until ACC university presidents decide that winning football games is important. Product is more important than promotion.

 

[Vespidae]

The SEC pushed a narrative that being in the SEC automatically makes a team better, and it has stuck.

It has stuck because it’s perceived as accurate. Bill Belichick quipped that he didn’t mind drafting players from an SEC team who didn’t play much because he said he knew who they practiced against.

The SEC placed 20% of NFL players in 2021. That will only go up as Texas and Oklahoma join. The ACC was around 12%.

All the marketing promotion in the world will be useless until you back it up. The SEC runs ads because they can. The ACC can’t run that message. They can’t even agree on a message.

 

[RonJohn]

It has stuck because it’s perceived as accurate. Bill Belichick quipped that he didn’t mind drafting players from an SEC team who didn’t play much because he said he knew who they practiced against.

The SEC placed 20% of NFL players in 2021. That will only go up as Texas and Oklahoma join. The ACC was around 12%.

All the marketing promotion in the world will be useless until you back it up. The SEC runs ads because they can. The ACC can’t run that message. They can’t even agree on a message.

It is accurate that Mississipi was a bottom of the barrel SEC team in 2008? Or is it accurate that Mississippi was an example of how deep the SEC was in 2008 and that any SEC team can beat any SEC team? I am asking because those can't both be true, but they were both pushed in 2008 only three weeks apart. The sports public bought it both times and never understood the contradiction, and never gave WF or the ACC credit for beating a "tough SEC team that can beat any other SEC team".

I agree with you that the ACC can't agree on a message. What I have been trying to say is that the ACC needs to develop a message and then push it. If Clemson beats the mutts, then the ACC should push the narrative that the SEC isn't as tough this year. The SEC had a losing record against P5 opponents last year.(at least until rivalry weekend) If the ACC had been pushing their advantage in OOC games against the SEC all season, it might have put a chink into the armor of the SEC superiority that assisted Alabama in getting into the playoffs. Don't sit quietly while your opponent is telling everyone that an advantage you have means nothing. Drive that message. Even if it doesn't catch completely, it will have people second guessing. As to an overall message, it needs to be developed. Concentrate on sports? Highlight sports and also highlight life after sports? I don't know what a good message would be, but the ACC is 20 years behind in developing and marketing SOME kind of message.

 

[Vespidae]

Don't sit quietly while your opponent is telling everyone that an advantage you have means nothing.

My last post and it’s time to move on.

All the media, newspapers, cable sports, streaming … want one thing: exposure. Eyeballs. Readers. Viewers.

The P2 has the largest chunk of that base. If your goal is exposure, why would you waste your time on what’s going on at Louisville? Or Pitt?

Will it change? Probably not. I don’t see the ACC suddenly growing 30% because of “marketing”. Most of its fanbase Is small, urban and that’s not likely to change.

An SEC stadium nearby expanded capacity this year. Sold every game out. Sold every premium club out. (The waitlist is over 5,000 just for the option of spending $3,500 a year.) Every hotel room is sold out. 90,000 people will be here Saturday and so will dozens of recruits, scouts, and media personnel.

How do you think running a few ads is going to compete with that? Something that’s evolved over decades? Highly unlikely. How do you think NFL combines are going to evaluate players? Same as they always did … by performance.

The ACC has a good product. But they don’t place as many players into the League, they don’t dominate social or alumni life (smaller fan bases) and it is what it is. Promotion isn’t going to change that.

If you want to change the narrative, back it up.

 

[RonJohn]

If you want to change the narrative, back it up.

The ACC is currently letting the Big12 control the narrative about the third conference. The Big12 can't back it up, but they are still pushing the narrative. The ACC needs to market itself.

 

[TechPhi97]

Undefeated Auburn was left out of the game in 2004.

But USC and Oklahoma were both undefeated. Not to mention Utah was undefeated. Ultimately, Auburn's poor schedule led them to be 3rd. Both AP and Coach's Poll had them 3rd, and the computer polls (which included SOS) had them 3rd. So, it's a different story when 3 undefeated teams are going for 2 spots.

 

[cpf2001]

Since the ACC is already third, it sounds like a total waste to me until ACC university presidents decide that winning football games is important. Product is more important than promotion.

You don’t have a product left for long if your conference collapses because you start losing bids to the Big 12 and enough people start believing leaving the ACC for the Big 12 would be an upgrade.

 

[Vespidae]

You don’t have a product left for long if your conference collapses because you start losing bids to the Big 12 and enough people start believing leaving the ACC for the Big 12 would be an upgrade.

Well good luck with that. FSU isn't making a lot of progress on that front.

But go ahead. Spend $100 million.