Overall impact of P5/G5 distinction on G5 schools
I've been trying to wrap my mind around what I think is a fundamental question brought on by the P5/G5 split associated with the new playoff system:
All factors considered, does the new playoff regime make G5 conference schools better or worse off than they were before, when they were non-AQ conference schools under the BCS?
On the "yes" side I see one major factor: money. There is no doubt that when all the postseason money, from bowls and playoffs, is added up, G5 conferences will have gotten a significant raise over what they got from the BCS. They also have more formal access to the major bowls than they have ever had before.
On the "no" side I see a major factor, albeit an intangible one: The P5/G5 split has created a cachet for P5 conferences and a stigma for G5 conferences. This status-distinction first emerged under the BCS regime, which distinguished BCS-AQ from non-AQ conferences. But since the P5/G5 distinction hit the media in the past year, the status effect seems to be magnified above that of the BCS system. As examples of this effect, P5 conferences seem to be strongly identifying as "P5" and showing more willingness to make administrative decisions among themselves, and to limit competition to playing other P5 schools.
Don't get me wrong: I am NOT saying that the playoff system, or before it the BCS, created a distinction among conferences that otherwise would not exist. The SEC and B1G had far more prestige than the Sun Belt and WAC twenty years ago as well. Likewise, at the school level, Alabama was a big-boy program in 1990 and Wyoming was small-time.
But nevertheless, back in 1990 these distinctions were informal and were not routinely mentioned in the media and among college decision makers. Now, the P5/G5 distinction seems to be regularly invoked among decision makers and media, particularly at P5 conferences, and has become a source of positive identity for them while casting a negative aspersion on G5 conferences.
So how has this categorical distinction between groups of conferences rubbed off at the school level? I think the primary impact has been at the boundaries between them. For example, at the top of the food chain, schools like Alabama and USC have not gained any real "shine" from being in the P5 category, as these programs were already max-level prestigious. Likewise, schools at the bottom of FBS, such as say South Alabama, have not suffered any real stigma from being G5, since (let's face it) they didn't have any status to lose.
But for lower-rung (in a football sense) P5 schools, schools like Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, and Iowa State in the P5, and schools like Houston, San Diego State, and UCF in the G5, the former have gained significant media/marketing shine while the latter have suffered from the G5 label. To give an example, 25 years ago, Wake Forest and Vandy were regarded as football basket-cases, and schools like SDSU and Tulane were as well. They were all regarded by fans and media (and recruits) as essentially being at the same level. Vandy and Wake didn't get any real shine that boosted them above SDSU and Tulane from being in the SEC and ACC respectively. From a recruit's point of view, if you went to Wake you weren't doing any better than a recruit that went to Tulane.
But I don't think the same situation applies today. Everyone knows that even though their programs are still weak, Iowa State and Wake are "P5" whereas Tulane and SDSU are "G5", and this is affecting how all of them are viewed by media, fans, and recruits. A recruit evaluating Iowa State versus Tulane today will likely be swayed by Iowa State's P5 status in a way they wouldn't have been swayed a generation ago.
So overall, weighing these factors, I would say that G5 schools are actually worse off under the new regime, since long-run, the intangible yet real G5 stigma is going to translate into a program-building disadvantage that the extra dollars spun off by the system will not compensate for.
(This post was last modified: 08-18-2013 09:35 AM by quo vadis.)
|