(02-18-2014 05:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 05:09 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Would you rather be a yearly contender in the G5 or yearly bottom feeder of the P5?

That's actually a tough question.

The impulse is give me the money because it is soooo much better but the reality is the shared conference money (which is much more than just TV money) still isn't close to half of the operating income of the top P5 programs. Donations and ticket sales income that isn't shared (except for minor share of tickets in the B1G) is where the game is won and lost.

The new lucky school given this mythical golden ticket is not going to be financially competitive with the other members of the conference, you won't have the name recognition that will allow you to recruit toe-to-toe year in and out with the league's elite schools.

The best way to move into a power conference is to do it from a position of strength like Virginia Tech moving into the ACC and immediately competing for conference championships.

It didn't work as well for Utah, TCU and WVU which all got chopped down when moving up in competition class. A group of schools with multiple BCS bowls each in the years leading up to it.

Louisiana I heard wants a bid to the Big XII with the expansion they're putting in. They've strung a few bowl winning seasons together. That's nice but quite frankly they are where Virginia Tech was in the 80's once that expansion is done. Its going to take a Boise State type run there to generate power conference interest.

Cincinnati in the not too distant past made a couple of BCS bowls and beefed up the budgets to follow up. They are as ready as what TCU was when they joined the B12. They could go either B12 or ACC and the only school out there that is a legit top candidate for both.

UCF I know its not a popular idea but I could honestly see them wtih a bid to the ACC in 10 years. They've already won a BCS bowl and if they can expand Bright House Stadium when the decision comes for the ACC to expand with 2 schools they have a pretty strong shot. A shot at the B12 is very distant at this point as an odd fit there.

UConn made a BCS bowl but that more had to do with playing in a BCS conference over a strong program. They've never been in the Top 10 before. Recent years have all been downhill. They are probably in line for the ACC after UC and UCF at this point.

There is no denying a strong correlation between football success and earning a P5 bid. Some fans want there to be an easy out where all they have to do is have 60,000 seats and fill it every week.

contender in G5/1-AAA. I like that UC Santa Barbara has a distinct identity and we'd lose it if we were a P5 bottom feeder.

(02-18-2014 06:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 05:48 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I think during the BCS era, it is arguable that a yearly contender was better. I know I never had so much fun as a fan as the last decade and wouldn't have traded spaces with anyone at any school. In the playoff era, with the revenue gap now 3 times or more than what was already a big gap in the BCS era, I'm not sure if it isn't better to be positioned for the future financially. And as Baylor and Duke have proven, no one is always going to be a bottom feeder. The big years may be fewer and farther between, but they will come.

But the premise of the question is yearly bottom feeder.

You can't go Captain Kirk and reprogram the scenario at the academy.

THIS. I didn't think I'd have to get that specific (literally yearly) but I should have known better having read this board plenty of times. I think you're the only one that actually "got it". There's plenty of P5 programs that their big successes are VERY FEW and far between. I'm not sure if Minnesota, Rutgers, Indiana, and Washington State (I'm sure there's others) have ever won a P5 conference (or modern era) title or even come close anytime in recent history. Is that track record worth it to you?

(02-19-2014 01:15 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  'm not sure if Minnesota, Rutgers, Indiana, and Washington State (I'm sure there's others) have ever won a P5 conference (or modern era) title or even come close anytime in recent history.

Washington State played in the Rose Bowl after the '97 and '02 seasons (tied for first in the conference both years and beat the team they tied with).

(02-18-2014 10:31 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  I think I would take being like Iowa State over Arkansas State or Northern Illinois. Sorry stAte fans.

Our fans want to see a winning program but if they were given the choice between running the table in the SBC or becoming The dredges of the Big XII they would take the latter in a heartbeat.

Go 12-0 in the SBC and the statewide media is still going to say its because you play in an easy conference, "youd lose every game in the Big XII". Ideally our Fans dont want to see us thrash Monroe or Troy. Join the b12 and even if you lose, you can still sell your fans on home games against Texas Tech, UT, Baylor, Oklahoma, OK State.

seems like people are changing the question to fit the P5. YEARLY BOTTOM FEEDER as in NEVER A WINNING TEAM aka NMSU football. Am I getting the P5 money for my yearly losing team? If it doesn't go in my pocket than I don't care if they made 100 million a year. I want to be able to enjoy watching my team play and win, not be pissed off and the butt of all jokes on football message boards.

(02-19-2014 02:04 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 01:15 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  'm not sure if Minnesota, Rutgers, Indiana, and Washington State (I'm sure there's others) have ever won a P5 conference (or modern era) title or even come close anytime in recent history.

Washington State played in the Rose Bowl after the '97 and '02 seasons (tied for first in the conference both years and beat the team they tied with).

To answer blunderbuss, BYU won the national title in 1984 if that counts as modern to you when they were in the WAC, however they beat a 6-5 Michigan team to win the title. And no Rose Bowls for Minn & Indiana in the 30 years of me watching college football and no conf. titles for Rutgers either. But all have had good teams here and there.

Bottom feeders in the P5 (I hate using that) get better bowl bids and TV coverage than contenders in G5 (hate using this too); not to mention the piles of cash. That should answer your question.

(02-18-2014 10:31 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  I think I would take being like Iowa State over Arkansas State or Northern Illinois. Sorry stAte fans.

Yeah if you can have the success Iowa State has had in other sports it makes the wait for the end of dry periods in football easier to deal with.

(02-19-2014 01:15 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 06:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 05:48 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I think during the BCS era, it is arguable that a yearly contender was better. I know I never had so much fun as a fan as the last decade and wouldn't have traded spaces with anyone at any school. In the playoff era, with the revenue gap now 3 times or more than what was already a big gap in the BCS era, I'm not sure if it isn't better to be positioned for the future financially. And as Baylor and Duke have proven, no one is always going to be a bottom feeder. The big years may be fewer and farther between, but they will come.

But the premise of the question is yearly bottom feeder.

You can't go Captain Kirk and reprogram the scenario at the academy.

THIS. I didn't think I'd have to get that specific (literally yearly) but I should have known better having read this board plenty of times. I think you're the only one that actually "got it". There's plenty of P5 programs that their big successes are VERY FEW and far between. I'm not sure if Minnesota, Rutgers, Indiana, and Washington State (I'm sure there's others) have ever won a P5 conference (or modern era) title or even come close anytime in recent history. Is that track record worth it to you?

Ok well at least I got the premise. And with that premise, G5 is better.

Reprogrammed to usually a bottom feeder but you can build and develop and maybe parlay a contender year in every so 5 10 years then P5 is where it is at.

Let's take a look at the 2 worst schools in each of the P5 conferences from last season:

ACC:
UVA 0-8, 2-10. Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2011 Chick-fil-A; Last Conf Championship: 1995
NCSU 0-8, 3-9. Last Bowl: Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2012 Music City; Last Conf Championship: 1979

B1G:
Purdue 0-8, 1-11. Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2012 Heart of Dallas; Last Conf Championship: 2000
Illinois 1-7, 4-8. Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2011 Fight Hunger; Last Conf Championship: 2001

B12:
Kansas 1-8, 3-9. Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2008 Insight; Last Conf Championship: 1968
ISU 2-7, 3-9. Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2012 Liberty; Last Conf Championship: 1912


P12:
Cal 0-9 1-11. Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2011 Holiday; Last Conf Championship: 2006
Colorado 1-8, 4-8. Last National Championship: 1990; Last Bowl: 2007 Independence; Last Conf Championship: 2001

SEC:
UK 0-8 2-10. Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2010 BBVA Compass; Last Conf Championship: 1950
Arkansas 0-8 3-9. Last National Championship: 1964; Last Bowl: 2011 Cotton; Last Conf Championship: 1989

I count that 7 of the 10 played in bowls within the prior two seasons and that all 10 played in bowls within the prior five seasons. 4 of 10 have won conference champships in the previous 12 seasons, and some that did not win their conference played in major bowls (e.g., Kansas, 2008 Orange). Kentucky appears to be one of the consistently non-competitive schools, but of course they have won several hoops National Championships.

I guess my point is that being a "bottom feeder" in a P5 conference is not a death sentence and it does not have to be permanent. These schools have a chance to compete and to have success. Most, if not all, have as good a chance, or better, to qualify for the CFP playoffs or a major bowl as the best schools in the G5.

(02-18-2014 05:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  Depends on what your goals are. If you just want to win championships, the answer is neither. You might as well play in the FCS. But most schools aren't in it for the championships. They are in it for the marketing value. Football is viewed as the portal to the admissions office. For the Wake Forests of the world, there's a lot more value in losing to Florida State than beating Tulane. That's just as true for schools like Memphis.

I don't know if this is true. You think Wake Forest football builds the school brand better than Boise State football?

(02-18-2014 11:31 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  There is no denying a strong correlation between football success and earning a P5 bid. Some fans want there to be an easy out where all they have to do is have 60,000 seats and fill it every week.

To be sure, that's not an "easy out". Schools that sell 60,000 seats per week are actually *significantly* harder to find than schools that perform well on-the-field. The only school that isn't at the power level that sells 60,000 every game is BYU. That's it. One school out of 60-plus in the G5. Add in institutional profile and academic factors, TV markets, and recruiting areas that matter to the P5 and it becomes even tougher.

Now, I agree that the grand total of 3 schools that have moved from the non-power ranks in 1998 (when the BCS was created) to the power ranks today (the first year of the CFP) - TCU, Utah and Louisville - had some meritocratic attributes with great performing athletic departments. Still, they had some heavy off-the-field considerations on top of them: TCU was in the power club until the SWC collapsed in the 1990s (so its history and tradition were much different compared to other G5 schools), Utah is a classic public flagship school in a good-sized market that is exactly what the P5 favor in terms of institutional profile, and Louisville's athletic department revenue numbers were in the upper tier even with comparatively low conference-level revenue from the Big East. Meanwhile, Boise State has had the longest run of excellence on-the-field of any non-power team during the BCS era, yet they're not getting a look from the P5 because of the academic, institutional profile and TV market factors.

So, performance certainly matters, but how *much* that performance matters depends upon meeting the off-the-field factors, as well.

(02-19-2014 09:32 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Let's take a look at the 2 worst schools in each of the P5 conferences from last season:

ACC:
UVA 0-8, 2-10. Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2011 Chick-fil-A; Last Conf Championship: 1995
NCSU 0-8, 3-9. Last Bowl: Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2012 Music City; Last Conf Championship: 1979

B1G:
Purdue 0-8, 1-11. Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2012 Heart of Dallas; Last Conf Championship: 2000
Illinois 1-7, 4-8. Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2011 Fight Hunger; Last Conf Championship: 2001

B12:
Kansas 1-8, 3-9. Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2008 Insight; Last Conf Championship: 1968
ISU 2-7, 3-9. Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2012 Liberty; Last Conf Championship: 1912


P12:
Cal 0-9 1-11. Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2011 Holiday; Last Conf Championship: 2006
Colorado 1-8, 4-8. Last National Championship: 1990; Last Bowl: 2007 Independence; Last Conf Championship: 2001

SEC:
UK 0-8 2-10. Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2010 BBVA Compass; Last Conf Championship: 1950
Arkansas 0-8 3-9. Last National Championship: 1964; Last Bowl: 2011 Cotton; Last Conf Championship: 1989

I count that 7 of the 10 played in bowls within the prior two seasons and that all 10 played in bowls within the prior five seasons. 4 of 10 have won conference champships in the previous 12 seasons, and some that did not win their conference played in major bowls (e.g., Kansas, 2008 Orange). Kentucky appears to be one of the consistently non-competitive schools, but of course they have won several hoops National Championships.

I guess my point is that being a "bottom feeder" in a P5 conference is not a death sentence and it does not have to be permanent. These schools have a chance to compete and to have success. Most, if not all, have as good a chance, or better, to qualify for the CFP playoffs or a major bowl as the best schools in the G5.

Yes, this is extremely instructive.

Also, the main thing for G5 schools is that there simply isn't any margin for error. Just look at NIU last season - 1 loss sends them from a BCS bowl down to the Poinsetta Bowl. Meanwhile, a 10-2 power conference team will almost always make it into a CFP bowl in the new system, a 3 or 4-loss power conference team gets to go to a high profile bowl that's often on New Year's Day (i.e. Capital One, Outback) and maybe even into a CFP bowl depending upon the year, and even 6-6 power conference teams still get to go to high paying games like the Gator Bowl or Holiday Bowl. For 90% of us as college football fans, the bowl that we end up at is more relevant year-to-year since so few teams legitimately are competing for the national championship at any given time.

Now, has it been more fun for NIU fans watching their team over the past couple of years than it has been for me as an Illini fan? Absolutely. Watching a bad team blows no matter how powerful of a conference you might be in. However, there's no way in the world that I'd trade places with NIU. Who knows where a 3-loss NIU team would go for a bowl (if they even go to a bowl at all). In 2007, 3 losses for Illinois equaled going to the Rose Bowl. I'll happily take the latter.

I think there is also a distinction between "yearly contender" and consistently playing in the BCS (or in the future, the playoff). As I said before, there isn't much I would trade our BCS years (esp the Rose Bowl) for anything. Best fan experience of my life. If before we were in the Big 12, someone said "you can trade that experience- wipe it from your memory- for a spot in a Power 5 conference", I would not have made that trade. Nothing better than being looked down on, climbing the mountain and proving the naysayers wrong. Fans of teams that are in the "club" just will never know just how good that felt. But a yearly contender for conference championships of the G5, even winning a few, but never taking the next step into the BCS/ playoffs like we were in the early 2000s... those were fun years/games at the time, but after the fact kinda morph into any other years. I would trade those years for bottom feeder years with the perks of a P5 conference in retrospect.

(02-18-2014 10:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 07:23 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 05:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  Depends on what your goals are. If you just want to win championships, the answer is neither. You might as well play in the FCS. But most schools aren't in it for the championships. They are in it for the marketing value. Football is viewed as the portal to the admissions office. For the Wake Forests of the world, there's a lot more value in losing to Florida State than beating Tulane. That's just as true for schools like Memphis.

This is an astute insight. And I believe it is 100% correct.

However, your conclusion from the insight is wrong. Let me ask you this: who has gotten more positive publicity from their football programs over the past 10 years: Washington State or Boise State? Indiana or Cincinnati? Colorado or Utah? Mississippi State or TCU?

The answer is obvious: there is a lot more publicity in being the successful underdog. The media LOVES underdog stories.

Indiana or Cincinnati? Ask your basketball coach if he'd rather be in the Big Ten or the AAC. Then ask Indiana's coach. I bet they'll give you the same answer.

That wasn't the question. Of course we'd rather be in the Big 10. The question was which would be better for the institutional goal of receiving positive press coverage for football: P5 bottom feeder or top of G5.

Indiana is not a bottom feeder in basketball, so that wouldn't be a good comparison

But Cincinnati vs Indiana is actually an excellent comparison of two institutions that are currently very similar. IU has more branch campuses and a better liberal arts & business schools, while UC has a better engineering school and does more research. 30 years ago IU was a much better school than UC, but for the most part today they're remarkably similar. Which school grabbed more headlines this year for sports?

Let's look at news headlines according to google search analytics over the past 2 years:



  IUvUC.jpg (Size: 30.54 KB / Downloads: 85)

As you can see, Cincinnati got significantly more attention during September & October both years. IU begins to rise in November, when basketball coverage starts (they had the #1 ranking in preseason in November 2012).


(This comparison works particularly well for UC and IU because their names are well-suited for comparison on a search engine. Schools with "state" in their names or that are commonly referred to using different names (like UNC, Cal, or ECU) are harder to compare.)

(02-19-2014 10:12 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 09:32 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Let's take a look at the 2 worst schools in each of the P5 conferences from last season:

ACC:
UVA 0-8, 2-10. Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2011 Chick-fil-A; Last Conf Championship: 1995
NCSU 0-8, 3-9. Last Bowl: Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2012 Music City; Last Conf Championship: 1979

B1G:
Purdue 0-8, 1-11. Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2012 Heart of Dallas; Last Conf Championship: 2000
Illinois 1-7, 4-8. Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2011 Fight Hunger; Last Conf Championship: 2001

B12:
Kansas 1-8, 3-9. Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2008 Insight; Last Conf Championship: 1968
ISU 2-7, 3-9. Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2012 Liberty; Last Conf Championship: 1912


P12:
Cal 0-9 1-11. Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2011 Holiday; Last Conf Championship: 2006
Colorado 1-8, 4-8. Last National Championship: 1990; Last Bowl: 2007 Independence; Last Conf Championship: 2001

SEC:
UK 0-8 2-10. Last National Championship: n/a; Last Bowl: 2010 BBVA Compass; Last Conf Championship: 1950
Arkansas 0-8 3-9. Last National Championship: 1964; Last Bowl: 2011 Cotton; Last Conf Championship: 1989

I count that 7 of the 10 played in bowls within the prior two seasons and that all 10 played in bowls within the prior five seasons. 4 of 10 have won conference champships in the previous 12 seasons, and some that did not win their conference played in major bowls (e.g., Kansas, 2008 Orange). Kentucky appears to be one of the consistently non-competitive schools, but of course they have won several hoops National Championships.

I guess my point is that being a "bottom feeder" in a P5 conference is not a death sentence and it does not have to be permanent. These schools have a chance to compete and to have success. Most, if not all, have as good a chance, or better, to qualify for the CFP playoffs or a major bowl as the best schools in the G5.

Yes, this is extremely instructive.

Also, the main thing for G5 schools is that there simply isn't any margin for error. Just look at NIU last season - 1 loss sends them from a BCS bowl down to the Poinsetta Bowl. Meanwhile, a 10-2 power conference team will almost always make it into a CFP bowl in the new system, a 3 or 4-loss power conference team gets to go to a high profile bowl that's often on New Year's Day (i.e. Capital One, Outback) and maybe even into a CFP bowl depending upon the year, and even 6-6 power conference teams still get to go to high paying games like the Gator Bowl or Holiday Bowl. For 90% of us as college football fans, the bowl that we end up at is more relevant year-to-year since so few teams legitimately are competing for the national championship at any given time.

Now, has it been more fun for NIU fans watching their team over the past couple of years than it has been for me as an Illini fan? Absolutely. Watching a bad team blows no matter how powerful of a conference you might be in. However, there's no way in the world that I'd trade places with NIU. Who knows where a 3-loss NIU team would go for a bowl (if they even go to a bowl at all). In 2007, 3 losses for Illinois equaled going to the Rose Bowl. I'll happily take the latter.

It's a good point that being a bottom-feeder is not an eternal sentence.

However, the amount of positive publicity that NIU has received over the past two years is more than the Illini have gotten over the past 10 years. NIU may have less room for error, but that's more because of their institutional profile than their conference.

But what if you compare schools that are otherwise equal, which schools have a better opportunity at the top?

There are only a few non-BCS schools that are institutionally similar to public BCS schools. In 2000, the only non-BCS schools with over $400 million endowments and 22,000 students (in other words, above the 10th percentile for BCS schools) were Buffalo, Cincinnati, New Mexico, Utah, BYU, and Louisville.

Compare these schools to the public BCS schools that are in a similar size profile: WSU, the AZ and OR schools from the PAC; Arkansas, SC, Auburn, TN, and the MS schools from the SEC; KSU, TT, and OSU from the Big 12; WVU and Temple from the BE; and Clemson and FSU from the ACC.

Which group ended up more successful over the next decade? Despite starting with much bigger athletic budgets, fan support, and facilities, it's hard to say that the average school in the BCS group did a lot better over the next decade than the non-BCS group. If you take out FSU, Auburn, and Tennessee (which have gigantic facilities and fanbase advantages), the two groups' subsequent performance is practically dead-even.

(02-19-2014 09:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 11:31 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  There is no denying a strong correlation between football success and earning a P5 bid. Some fans want there to be an easy out where all they have to do is have 60,000 seats and fill it every week.

To be sure, that's not an "easy out". Schools that sell 60,000 seats per week are actually *significantly* harder to find than schools that perform well on-the-field. The only school that isn't at the power level that sells 60,000 every game is BYU. That's it. One school out of 60-plus in the G5. Add in institutional profile and academic factors, TV markets, and recruiting areas that matter to the P5 and it becomes even tougher.

Now, I agree that the grand total of 3 schools that have moved from the non-power ranks in 1998 (when the BCS was created) to the power ranks today (the first year of the CFP) - TCU, Utah and Louisville - had some meritocratic attributes with great performing athletic departments. Still, they had some heavy off-the-field considerations on top of them: TCU was in the power club until the SWC collapsed in the 1990s (so its history and tradition were much different compared to other G5 schools), Utah is a classic public flagship school in a good-sized market that is exactly what the P5 favor in terms of institutional profile, and Louisville's athletic department revenue numbers were in the upper tier even with comparatively low conference-level revenue from the Big East. Meanwhile, Boise State has had the longest run of excellence on-the-field of any non-power team during the BCS era, yet they're not getting a look from the P5 because of the academic, institutional profile and TV market factors.

So, performance certainly matters, but how *much* that performance matters depends upon meeting the off-the-field factors, as well.

I should have said 40,000 seats but the point remains that a lot of people think having good fans makes you entitled but you've got to show it on the field.

When the AAC has expanded so far notice a common theme, almost every school in that conference with the exception of South Florida has been to one of the 6 CFP bowl games in their history. The AAC went with tradition over markets otherwise Tulsa and ECU wouldn't have been accepted.

(02-18-2014 05:09 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Would you rather be a yearly contender in the G5 or yearly bottom feeder of the P5?

depends if you are talking football or basketball

in football: bottom feeder in the p5

in basketball: g5 annual contender

The reason is, in basketball you can afford to be "king of the turds"...a great team in a G5 is going to rise in the polls easier, get the preseason tourney invites and get the lion share of the conference tv games, which fuels recruiting, national rankings, fan support/interest, etc. It's easier to do because in hoops it's easier to build a great team quicker than in football.

In football if you are in a P5 conference, you get the big bucks, have a better shot at a decent bowl (P5 bowls line ups are really good so you don't have to be a top 4 team in a p5 conference to get a decent bowl so it's not a stretch to go from bottom feeder to .500 and get a decent bowl some years etc).

It's a tougher question than I initially thought. I have had fun watching my team win a lot of games recently, even though most of the wins were against G5 teams. If I was rooting for Indiana and Illinois and they won few games every year, I'm not sure if I'd be as interested every year - they have as tough a time getting top recruits away from Ohio State and Michigan as NIU does. So it's almost a miracle for them to have success.