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.

I think they are much worse off. The momentum is for a P5 G5 split and I think it will only grow stronger.

I think the G5 should be proactive and work together to create its own playoff as well as maybe putting them all on the same national network (like a TBS NBCSP). Right now they are in such a media shadow that the talking heads on major networks can't even name the majority of those schools. I think the demand for local football is large enough in the nation that the G5 can have a great future in the long run if they plant the right seeds today.

Lets look at Vandy and Tulane, two southern elite academic schools neither of which is a current FB power. One is a former SEC school, one is a current SEC school.

Vandy can tell a kid "play here and you'll get annual games against Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee as well as games against teams like Bama, Auburn, A&M and LSU!"

Tulane has to sell a kid on "play here and you'll get annual games against SMU, Tulsa, Houston and Memphis as well as games against teams like U_F, Temple, Uconn and ECU!"

If a kid has offers to both then it's not hard to see which one he is more likely to pick

What you are describing was already created by the BCS. There were AQ conferences and non-AQ. That made them worse off than before.

Now the distinction is somewhat less. The P5 still get spots in the big bowls, but not in the playoffs, which is the highest profile. So the G5 is better off than as "non-AQ." They have more money. They have easier access to the big bowls. They have an outside shot at the MNC instead of almost zero shot. And they are only behind the Big 5 instead of the Big 6, even if the number has only dropped from 66 to 65 (UConn, USF, Cincy out-TCU and Utah in).

(08-18-2013 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  What you are describing was already created by the BCS. There were AQ conferences and non-AQ. That made them worse off than before.

Now the distinction is somewhat less. The P5 still get spots in the big bowls, but not in the playoffs, which is the highest profile. So the G5 is better off than as "non-AQ." They have more money. They have easier access to the big bowls. They have an outside shot at the MNC instead of almost zero shot. And they are only behind the Big 5 instead of the Big 6, even if the number has only dropped from 66 to 65 (UConn, USF, Cincy out-TCU and Utah in).

I agree with you that from a financial and big-bowl/playoffs access POV, two very important points of view, admittedly, the G5 schools are better off going forward than under the BCS.

But, I disagree about the status-distinction aspect. Seems to me that there has been far more references in the media to the P5 than there ever were to "BCS-AQ" under the BCS regime. Yes, that distinction did exist in the media, but IMO the P5/G5 line is more sharply-drawn.

I think most schools know where they sit in the pecking order now. If the power conferences suddenly shrank to 32 or 48 teams, its not hard to predict who will make the cut and who wouldn't. Also if the power conferences expanded to 72 or 84 teams, you can predict who would get in.

(08-18-2013 11:08 AM)goofus Wrote:  I think most schools know where they sit in the pecking order now.

But the pecking order is much more sharply defined, and defined by conference. Quo is right that 20 years ago, a Wake Forest was considered a notch below a Southern Miss.

Quote:If the power conferences suddenly shrank to 32 or 48 teams, its not hard to predict who will make the cut and who wouldn't. Also if the power conferences expanded to 72 or 84 teams, you can predict who would get in.

Interesting OP and as a rabid fan of a school in the G5 that is likely to go nowhere else than the G5, I think you make an interesting argument about life at the edges of the P5/G5 split. From my standpoint, this isn't an issue that has much of an affect on me as a Marshall fan, since I don't expect Marshall will ever likely move up (although I'm sure they would if asked...I just don't expect it), so I'm not looking at the P5 group with envy. I still like to watch them play (particularly when WVU is playing) but given a choice I'll watch a good G5 match-up first, every time. I'm going to follow Marshall football and basketball and cheer like hell for them every game, regardless of who they are playing. On Saturdays, it just doesn't matter what conference we are in.

I do honestly feel for those handful of schools that have significant aspirations to move on up. Envy is a powerful emotion, and if you are on the "longing" side, that emotion can hurt like the dickens. For the most part, you'll find those schools at the upper echelons of the AAC and MWC. Think Boise State, SDSU, Connecticut, Cincinnati, USF, and a few others. Maybe, that's why those two conferences probably "rank" a bit higher than CUSA, MAC and SBC, even though team for team, I do believe the G5 schools match up to each other fairly well with each other in any given game. I feel sorry for these schools because they are being blocked from achieving what they wish to achieve, although I think some of them would find life fairly difficult in the P5 and end up one of the bottom feeders in most years. For me, I'd rather have a shot at a conference championship (it's been a while for us) on a year to year basis, rather than 6-6 or worse every year. I can tell you from experience, that 6-6 or worse for most of the last decade has been horrible to experience.

But for most G5 schools, life is good where we are and where we will stay. Those who moved up to G5 are all doing better than we did at the FCS level, have more money and exposure than FCS schools, and do just fine in the recruiting wars, And there is tremendous week to week competition within ALL of our G5 conferences. But we also know who we are and who we ain't, which is why most G5 victories over ANY P5 school are considered upsets, and get top billing on Sports Center. I even think, in disagreement with the poster, the G5, as a whole, is slightly better off, or at least no less worse, than the past several years. Each G5 conference is set for some very interesting story lines this year. We are who we are. Now, let's play some football.

(08-18-2013 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  What you are describing was already created by the BCS. There were AQ conferences and non-AQ.

Yep.

I think this situation MIGHT have a chance to be a tiny bit better, because the G5 have an "access bowl" slot whereas the non-AQ's had no simple guarantee. However, the difference in TV money now vs back when the AQs were created is so astronomical that the access bowl might not really benefit the G5 enough to make much of a difference.

While the BCS may have formalized things a little, the gap was there before that. A few schools have moved up and down, but there would have been a sense 30 years ago that the Big Ten was a step above the MAC, the PAC-10 above the WAC, and various eastern indepedents over other independents. Conference affiliation has become more important with the sport more national, but I think the biggest fundamental gap has always been there (and will be as long as college football remains big and as long as the top division remains as is).

(08-18-2013 09:59 AM)ULdave Wrote:  I think they are much worse off. The momentum is for a P5 G5 split and I think it will only grow stronger.

I think the G5 should be proactive and work together to create its own playoff as well as maybe putting them all on the same national network (like a TBS NBCSP). Right now they are in such a media shadow that the talking heads on major networks can't even name the majority of those schools. I think the demand for local football is large enough in the nation that the G5 can have a great future in the long run if they plant the right seeds today.

I disagree. I think a formalized lower subdivision playoff will not be viewed well. Look at FCS. Nationally, nobody cares about their playoff. Without the designation of being in the top division, the networks wouldn't care about them at all. A P5 split would be the death of many G5 programs.

(08-18-2013 09:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  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.

Good analysis. I tink there is one other distinction from a recruiting stand point.... Kids going to Wake and Vandy are going to get to play the very best schools year in and year out on the big stage.. Whereas the G5 schools will not provide that opportunity

(08-18-2013 12:17 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:59 AM)ULdave Wrote:  I think they are much worse off. The momentum is for a P5 G5 split and I think it will only grow stronger.

I think the G5 should be proactive and work together to create its own playoff as well as maybe putting them all on the same national network (like a TBS NBCSP). Right now they are in such a media shadow that the talking heads on major networks can't even name the majority of those schools. I think the demand for local football is large enough in the nation that the G5 can have a great future in the long run if they plant the right seeds today.

I disagree. I think a formalized lower subdivision playoff will not be viewed well. Look at FCS. Nationally, nobody cares about their playoff. Without the designation of being in the top division, the networks wouldn't care about them at all. A P5 split would be the death of many G5 programs.

I tend to agree with ULdave. I think a G5 playoff would generate a great deal of interest. .

(08-18-2013 01:59 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 12:17 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:59 AM)ULdave Wrote:  I think they are much worse off. The momentum is for a P5 G5 split and I think it will only grow stronger.

I think the G5 should be proactive and work together to create its own playoff as well as maybe putting them all on the same national network (like a TBS NBCSP). Right now they are in such a media shadow that the talking heads on major networks can't even name the majority of those schools. I think the demand for local football is large enough in the nation that the G5 can have a great future in the long run if they plant the right seeds today.

I disagree. I think a formalized lower subdivision playoff will not be viewed well. Look at FCS. Nationally, nobody cares about their playoff. Without the designation of being in the top division, the networks wouldn't care about them at all. A P5 split would be the death of many G5 programs.

I tend to agree with ULdave. I think a G5 playoff would generate a great deal of interest. .

A G-5 playoff would be of no more interest than the current FCS playoff (I suspect some current FCS teams would even be part of this pathetic new left behind division). It would be the NIT to the P5's NCAA 64 team tournament. It would be an unwatched after thought shoved off to some obscure cable channel or available only on the Internet.

People care about the national champion. They want to know who the best team in the entire nation is. They don't care who the Division 3 champ is. They don't care who national JC champ is. They dont care about division II or FCS champs. They want to know who the BEST is. That is found at the top of D1--- and nowhere else. People are not stupid. There is only drama if people care and people will not care if you are not beating the best teams to win a championship.

I can tell you I'll walk away from the college game if my team is playing peewee ball. I just cant work up an ounce of enthusiasm for the concept. Sorry. It is what it is. I'll follow the Houston Texans and will only worry about college players in the April draft. I'll guarantee you---I won't be the only one who walks away and the networks know it.

(08-18-2013 02:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 01:59 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 12:17 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:59 AM)ULdave Wrote:  I think they are much worse off. The momentum is for a P5 G5 split and I think it will only grow stronger.

I think the G5 should be proactive and work together to create its own playoff as well as maybe putting them all on the same national network (like a TBS NBCSP). Right now they are in such a media shadow that the talking heads on major networks can't even name the majority of those schools. I think the demand for local football is large enough in the nation that the G5 can have a great future in the long run if they plant the right seeds today.

I disagree. I think a formalized lower subdivision playoff will not be viewed well. Look at FCS. Nationally, nobody cares about their playoff. Without the designation of being in the top division, the networks wouldn't care about them at all. A P5 split would be the death of many G5 programs.

I tend to agree with ULdave. I think a G5 playoff would generate a great deal of interest. .

A G-5 playoff would be of no more interest than the current FCS playoff. It would be the NIT to the P5's NCAA 64 team tournament. It would be an unwatched after thought shoved off to some obscure cable channel or available only on the Internet.

People care about the national champion. They want to know who the best team in the entire nation is. They don't care who the Division 3 champ is. They don't care who national JC champ is. They dont care about division II or FCS champs. They want to know who the BEST is. That is found at the top of D1--- and nowhere else. People are not stupid. There is only drama if people care and people will not care.

I can tell you I'll walk away from the college game if my team is playing peewee ball. I just cant work up an ounce of enthusiasm for the concept. Sorry. It is what it is. I'll follow the Houston Texans and will only worry about college players in the April draft.

Not me. I would love to see SMU play Boise State for the College Football Division National championship. If people only care about the National Champion why do they watch the bowl games.....

(08-18-2013 03:06 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 01:59 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 12:17 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 09:59 AM)ULdave Wrote:  I think they are much worse off. The momentum is for a P5 G5 split and I think it will only grow stronger.

I think the G5 should be proactive and work together to create its own playoff as well as maybe putting them all on the same national network (like a TBS NBCSP). Right now they are in such a media shadow that the talking heads on major networks can't even name the majority of those schools. I think the demand for local football is large enough in the nation that the G5 can have a great future in the long run if they plant the right seeds today.

I disagree. I think a formalized lower subdivision playoff will not be viewed well. Look at FCS. Nationally, nobody cares about their playoff. Without the designation of being in the top division, the networks wouldn't care about them at all. A P5 split would be the death of many G5 programs.

I tend to agree with ULdave. I think a G5 playoff would generate a great deal of interest. .

A G-5 playoff would be of no more interest than the current FCS playoff. It would be the NIT to the P5's NCAA 64 team tournament. It would be an unwatched after thought shoved off to some obscure cable channel or available only on the Internet.

People care about the national champion. They want to know who the best team in the entire nation is. They don't care who the Division 3 champ is. They don't care who national JC champ is. They dont care about division II or FCS champs. They want to know who the BEST is. That is found at the top of D1--- and nowhere else. People are not stupid. There is only drama if people care and people will not care.

I can tell you I'll walk away from the college game if my team is playing peewee ball. I just cant work up an ounce of enthusiasm for the concept. Sorry. It is what it is. I'll follow the Houston Texans and will only worry about college players in the April draft.

Not me. I would love to see SMU play Boise State for the College Football Division National championship. If people only care about the National Champion why do they watch the bowl games.....

Because its the top level of football. Ever seen a JC bowl game? Bet you didn't even know they existed.

(08-18-2013 03:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 03:06 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 01:59 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 12:17 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  I disagree. I think a formalized lower subdivision playoff will not be viewed well. Look at FCS. Nationally, nobody cares about their playoff. Without the designation of being in the top division, the networks wouldn't care about them at all. A P5 split would be the death of many G5 programs.

I tend to agree with ULdave. I think a G5 playoff would generate a great deal of interest. .

A G-5 playoff would be of no more interest than the current FCS playoff. It would be the NIT to the P5's NCAA 64 team tournament. It would be an unwatched after thought shoved off to some obscure cable channel or available only on the Internet.

People care about the national champion. They want to know who the best team in the entire nation is. They don't care who the Division 3 champ is. They don't care who national JC champ is. They dont care about division II or FCS champs. They want to know who the BEST is. That is found at the top of D1--- and nowhere else. People are not stupid. There is only drama if people care and people will not care.

I can tell you I'll walk away from the college game if my team is playing peewee ball. I just cant work up an ounce of enthusiasm for the concept. Sorry. It is what it is. I'll follow the Houston Texans and will only worry about college players in the April draft.

Not me. I would love to see SMU play Boise State for the College Football Division National championship. If people only care about the National Champion why do they watch the bowl games.....

Because its the top level of football. Ever seen a JC bowl game? Bet you didn't even know they existed.

Yep .....have had family members and very close friends play in them. My cousin played in the Rose bowl in one of those games

(08-18-2013 03:20 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 03:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 03:06 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 02:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-18-2013 01:59 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I tend to agree with ULdave. I think a G5 playoff would generate a great deal of interest. .

A G-5 playoff would be of no more interest than the current FCS playoff. It would be the NIT to the P5's NCAA 64 team tournament. It would be an unwatched after thought shoved off to some obscure cable channel or available only on the Internet.

People care about the national champion. They want to know who the best team in the entire nation is. They don't care who the Division 3 champ is. They don't care who national JC champ is. They dont care about division II or FCS champs. They want to know who the BEST is. That is found at the top of D1--- and nowhere else. People are not stupid. There is only drama if people care and people will not care.

I can tell you I'll walk away from the college game if my team is playing peewee ball. I just cant work up an ounce of enthusiasm for the concept. Sorry. It is what it is. I'll follow the Houston Texans and will only worry about college players in the April draft.

Not me. I would love to see SMU play Boise State for the College Football Division National championship. If people only care about the National Champion why do they watch the bowl games.....

Because its the top level of football. Ever seen a JC bowl game? Bet you didn't even know they existed.

Yep .....have had family members and very close friends play in them. My cousin played in the Rose bowl in one of those games

Well, Ill admit it. I never knew they existed until an ex-player brought the subject up. I had simply never heard of them and they certainly are not covered in the main stream media. A new G-5 playoff wouldn't be that obscure, but it would be much closer to that than it would be to the top level of football.

Personally, I think a split wont happen because the networks don't want it. Too many people think like I do. They don't want a nice chunk of the current college football watching audience to walk out the door. That's a healthy fear--because it will happen.

(08-18-2013 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  What you are describing was already created by the BCS. There were AQ conferences and non-AQ. That made them worse off than before.

The BCS was only a small part of it. There have always been labels that disadvantaged some teams and programs even when they were really, really good. For one example, in 1975 Arizona State was undefeated and probably finished #2 in the polls only because they were in the WAC, and would have finished #1 if they were already in the Pac-10 -- or even if they were indy. The BCS was just one of those labels.

The larger part of the change in perception has been the hype machine of ESPN and others in sports media. Every day fans can watch ESPN or listen to sports-talk radio (which is even worse) and hear over and over again about (for example) the invincibility of the SEC and how Boise State is a mediocre team with a weak schedule who would be under .500 if they played in the SEC. The constant repetition of stuff like that is a lot more damaging to the perception of the best "G5" teams than the institutional structure of the BCS or CFP.

(08-18-2013 12:09 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  While the BCS may have formalized things a little, the gap was there before that. A few schools have moved up and down, but there would have been a sense 30 years ago that the Big Ten was a step above the MAC, the PAC-10 above the WAC, and various eastern indepedents over other independents. Conference affiliation has become more important with the sport more national, but I think the biggest fundamental gap has always been there (and will be as long as college football remains big and as long as the top division remains as is).

Yes, there was already a gap, but the BCS tag multiplied it.

It took the perception that a PAC 10 school was better than a WAC school to a new level by creating a new recruiting pitch; you want automatic access to the biggest bowls? Don't sign with Utah, sign with Washington.

I don't think it really helped the top schools as much as the bottom feeders in the BCS leagues.