If you look at the new college football playoff and bowl system it was almost okay for everyone. On paper the top four teams regardless of conference affiliation make the playoff. Sounds good right? The 5 biggest leagues get their champion in a major bowl and the best champion of the other five leagues goes to a major bowl. Not perfect but better access than we had in the old BCS system right? But then they had to start the whole powerful 5 thing. It was like the schools in the old BCS leagues looked around and went hey this makes things to equal we better make sure that we keep enough separation between the big money leagues and those other guys!

I don't know if it was them who even created the term. I think it might well have caught on in the media before they were using. They definitely did create the Group of 5 term though (to refer to the team that got the automatic bowl and for revenue purposes). Regardless of who started the term though, power 5, or something like it, will always exist as long as college football is structured like this. FBS is simply too big and too organized around conferences to avoid it. In the BCS era it was BCS conference at first and that gradually made it's way to more commonly being AQ conference (which was more technically correct as all 11 conferences were part of the BCS). In the CFP era it has settled onto power 5, but at first you did see some calling it contract 5 (for the 5 conferences with contract bowl affiliations). At the end of the day, it just became power 5 as more people were using that term.

The term might well change again, but as long as you have the biggest power schools consolidated into a small number of conferences, there's going to be a need for a term to collectively refer to those conferences.

(09-16-2014 04:59 AM)FastTheo Wrote:  

I detest the 'Power 5' label, which is probably a creation of ESPN. How can a team like Indiana or Purdue (who both lost to thr MAC) be called power anything with a straight face?

True. How about "the 5 conferences which wield the most power"?

The most accurate term would be 'contract conferences' and 'non-contract conferences', but good luck getting them to use that.

I just call them by their conference. Or if i am striking up a conversation with some of my coworkers who are alum of ACC, SEC Big 12 schools; cartel 5. I simply explain to them you may be in a conference deemed as a power 5, but you are riding the coat tails of the school(s) which are actually producing.

ecu_pirate

I say "power" is accurate. Like it or not, those five conferences wield 99% of the power. Therefore calling them the Power 5 is accurate.

Hey at least they made up "group of 5" as a euphemism for us...they could have called us the Weak 5, or Nonpower 5, or some such. I mean, if Power 5 describes the one group then whatever term you use to describe the converse non-power 5 isn't going to be pretty. At least "Group of 5" is neutral.

IMHO, you're going to see another division of college football before it's all said and done.

In 1978, the criteria was specific related to the number of scholarships, attendance, number of sports offered, etc.

Now the criteria will simply be the amount of money the school / conference generates in media revenue, the dollar amount of the stipend and other benefits offered.

We will see the AAC, CUSA, MAC, SB and MWC become a division with a playoff like the FCS to crown a national champion.

A step up from FCS schools, but a step below the contract conferences just like it is in high school football with A, AA, AAA, AAAA, AAAAA.

Some schools may still be called up / invited to join a contract conference and the holes will be filled by FCS schools.

It is inevitable.

No matter what system the powers that be come up with, it will continue to denigrate major college football programs (like Houston, BYU, UConn, Boise, etc.) in obscurity except for a select few that are invited into the club.

All the "Power 5" and "Group of 5" crap has turned me off to college football. I still support UCF and the AAC, but I've had no interest watching other games so far this year. I find myself focusing on my NFL fandom more. My Bucs suck, but at least we are on a level playing field.

(09-15-2014 11:25 PM)Bleeds_Purple Wrote:  If you look at the new college football playoff and bowl system it was almost okay for everyone. On paper the top four teams regardless of conference affiliation make the playoff. Sounds good right? The 5 biggest leagues get their champion in a major bowl and the best champion of the other five leagues goes to a major bowl. Not perfect but better access than we had in the old BCS system right? But then they had to start the whole powerful 5 thing. It was like the schools in the old BCS leagues looked around and went hey this makes things to equal we better make sure that we keep enough separation between the big money leagues and those other guys!

It's the same crap they used with the BCS label. Same deal different day. We used to complain about the BCS label vs Non-BCS label when ECU was actually better than many of the so called BCS schools.

It is used for negative recruiting all the time. Total BS. You are either Division 1 or FBS or you're not.

The 4 team playoff is not a true playoff at all just another version of the corrupt BCS system designed to make money for the big conferences and keep everyone else out of the big games and out of the money.

The fact it has not been challenged in court is beyond me.

(09-16-2014 07:03 AM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  All the "Power 5" and "Group of 5" crap has turned me off to college football. I still support UCF and the AAC, but I've had no interest watching other games so far this year. I find myself focusing on my NFL fandom more. My Bucs suck, but at least we are on a level playing field.

Same here Steve. I was an avid college football fan. Didn't matter what game was on. Now, if it doesn't involve ECU / American teams, I'm not interested anymore.

We're just two on a message board that feel that way, I'm trying to imagine how many casual fans / noncontract fans have said to themselves "F... college football, I'm watching something else."

(09-16-2014 07:13 AM)ECUPirated Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 07:03 AM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  All the "Power 5" and "Group of 5" crap has turned me off to college football. I still support UCF and the AAC, but I've had no interest watching other games so far this year. I find myself focusing on my NFL fandom more. My Bucs suck, but at least we are on a level playing field.

Same here Steve. I was an avid college football fan. Didn't matter what game was on. Now, if it doesn't involve ECU / American teams, I'm not interested anymore.

We're just two on a message board that feel that way, I'm trying to imagine how many casual fans / noncontract fans have said to themselves "F... college football, I'm watching something else."

No one denies that the top Group of 5 programs are better than the bottom teams in power 5 conferences. Maybe that use of the terminology is key. Conferences, rather than schools, should be called Power 5 or Group of 5 if those are the terms.

i.e. We should correctly say that Utah is in a power 5 conference; we should not say Utah is a power 5 school. Similarly we should say Boise State is in a Group of 5 conference, not Boise State is Group of 5 (the latter sounding silly anyway).

It's not just the term power 5 it's the threats of breaking off from the rest of us this past summer or the ACC/SEC saying schools must play a power 5 team. So a team beating Wake is a power 5 win but beating ECU is just a win over a crap G5 team?! Then the term power 5 just sounds bad if your not in it much worse than the BCS term. And the playoff says it takes the BEST 4 TEAMS SIMPLE AS THAT. We all know the chance of a non so called power 5 team getting in are slim but the media doesn't need to keep making that oh so clear. Half of the P5 schools have no shot of ever getting in the playoff!

(09-16-2014 07:33 AM)Bleeds_Purple Wrote:  It's not just the term power 5 it's the threats of breaking off from the rest of us this past summer or the ACC/SEC saying schools must play a power 5 team. So a team beating Wake is a power 5 win but beating ECU is just a win over a crap G5 team?! Then the term power 5 just sounds bad if your not in it much worse than the BCS term. And the playoff says it takes the BEST 4 TEAMS SIMPLE AS THAT. We all know the chance of a non so called power 5 team getting in are slim but the media doesn't need to keep making that oh so clear. Half of the P5 schools have no shot of ever getting in the playoff!

They'll take the most athletically talented teams. It will be the teams that look better on paper that have better recruiting rankings (P5 teams). They won't take a G5 school even it we have the best "team".

Can't remember the game on FX1 but the announcers were calling them the "Autonomous 5"

(09-16-2014 04:59 AM)FastTheo Wrote:  [align=justify]

I detest the 'Power 5' label

As we all should, yet the term is allowed to be used on our on forum.

(09-16-2014 09:48 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Can't remember the game on FX1 but the announcers were calling them the "Autonomous 5"

Tim Brando