It's a small difference....but one that I think is important for the Big 12.

Consider that the Big 12 just happily took 4 of those teams that "no one cares about" and it's widely considered to have strengthened the conference.

If we're being honest, people nationally don't really care about Big 12 teams either - whether it's the holdover 8, the new 4 or the even newer 4. Baylor or Texas Tech or Iowa St or Houston or Arizona St don't drive ratings. If they have a great season, they all CAN draw well, but no Big 12 team inherently drives ratings and discussion.

The PAC's downfall was that they had teams which did drive ratings...and a bunch that didn't. So that inequity drove a split and longer-term issues. The same is likely to happen in the ACC.

Pitt and Georgia Tech and NC State and Louisville aren't much different than West Virginia and Cincy and Colorado and Kansas St. Again, those ACC teams are actually good enough to be on the Big 12 wishlist. But the ACC is in trouble not because they're so bad, but because they're so out-of-line with Florida St and Clemson.

The new Big 12 is remarkably flat. There's no one team that will consistently draw ratings, good or bad. But there are a lot of teams that are competitive with one another and good enough to draw strong ratings when they're good/relevant. It's more just an ensemble effort with various teams taking their turns instead of being carried by a few top brands. This does lower the ceiling somewhat, but absolutely raises the floor, as no one program serves as a linchpin