Aberzombie1892 wrote:anEngineer wrote:I am talking intra-conference competitiveness. There is no consistent Ohio State-Purdue or Oklahoma-Kansas situation in the AAC. That's part of what makes the SEC and ACC fun to watch; anyone is capable of beating anyone else. Some teams might have up or down years but there is no dominance by 1 or 2 teams every year. If the AAC can maintain that element and add P5 wins (to get into the P5-heavy polls), it becomes an attractive product.
To be fair, that's because AAC doesn't have a team that's even remotely consistently the caliber of Ohio State or Oklahoma. Also, the Big 12 seems to be more equal than pretty much any other conference - it had different champ or co-champ every year for 2011-2015 (5 seasons) with a strong possibility of a new champ this year and it doesn't seem like any other conference can claim that level of parity. On the SEC, it seems like Alabama almost consistently dominates the conference - from 2011-2015, only 2 teams other than Alabama won the SEC, and one of the years that Alabama didn't win the SEC champ, it won the national title against the SEC champ (2011 was the Alabama non-SEC champ v. LSU SEC champ national champ game year). The ACC has similar issues with Clemson and FSU - they are the only ACC champs over the 2011-2015 period.
I'm not talking about who wins the conference. I'm talking game to game. That's all the networks care about is people watching games. They really could not care less who wins the conference so long as people know they are going to see a competitive game where either team stands a decent chance to win. The AAC delivers that. The SEC and ACC deliver that. Clemson and Fl St have won but it hasn't been easy. Alabama has steam rolled but you still feel like their opponent is capable of beating them, so you watch (for a while). The rest of the SEC is usually a good game.