It is not ACC or east coast bias, it is the regionalism I have been saying over and over. The Big 12 is like a FSU/Clemson less ACC would be is a solid mid level conference. But they are/will be conferences whose influence diminishes as it moves further and further from it's core and is more like a G5 conference once it gets to areas far from it's core. We have agreed on that point in earlier exchanges. Is it ACC bias to say the above? Or is it Big 12 bias to say the Big 12 is more than the above? My views on this is strongly affected by VT history. I remember VT being an independent fighting the conference darling of the area, the ACC. The ACC was so ingrained in the state of Virginia that even though we were the biggest school and the most successful football program, the lure of THE conference was a huge impediment. It got a little better once we were in the Big East, which could boast of more top 10 teams than the Big 12 can now. But even though the BE was stronger in football than the ACC was at the time, the BE in and of itself did very little for VT. We did most of that ourselves. Fighting the darling conference is an uphill battle and the Big 12 will never be the darling of the DMV/VA/NC region. But the SEC can be. And I fully believe the SEC will fairly quickly become the darling of the TX/OK area. That is P2 football ruling. No disrespect to the Big 12 for what they are. It just does not have the cred to help east coast teams. The bias you perceive is more your bias that the east just doesn't see the Big 12, its current solid competitive state and potential like you do. And you are amazed that there could be any reason other than east coast bias that the non blueblood schools shouldn't just be drooling to be a part of the Big 12.