(12-23-2014 10:35 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 03:15 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 10:05 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 03:43 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  IMO, the OP's premise is silly. There are not 32 or 36 "elite" teams in the P5. If you go back and look at actual on-the-field-performance, there are probably less than 10 or so programs that one might claim to be "elite". Specifically, programs that, year in and year out, are often in the national championship conversation. On the other end, there are probably a handful of programs that have been largely uncompetitive for extended periods of time. The rest of the programs - the vast majority - are good, competitive programs who are roughly the same from a competitive standpoint. In some years, some of these programs can hang with the elite programs, and in other years, they fall back with the broader group. On the whole, however, IMO, they are very good programs that are generally (with some exceptions) stronger than the G5 programs as a whole.

I have a feeling that OP wasn't thinking about just how mediocre the top half of the G5 can be when he said it's on par with the bottom half of the P5. We're talking about a group of schools that only managed to get one team ranked. There are maybe <10 teams G5 teams that would compete the P5. None of them, other than Boise State, are now ranked. There are probably <10 P5 teams that would have their hands full in your average G5 conference.

To further your point, the entire G5 this year managed to win only 12 times against P5 teams, against 94 losses. The 12 losing P5 teams had a combined record of 51-93 (including their wins against FCS teams) while the G5 teams they lost to were a combined 92-55. G5 winners included Northern Illinois, Colorado State (twice), East Carolina (twice) and Utah State. So, every year, there are a few G5 teams who can play with the weaker P5 teams. But even those few don't do it consistently. The gulf between the level of play in the P5 vs the G5 has never been wider.

Give P5 money to UConn, UCF, Memphis, BYU, Boise, Cincinnati, Fresno, USF, etc. and they'll outperform Syracuse, Washington State, Pitt, BC, Indiana, Wake Forest, Iowa State, Kansas, Vanderbilt, etc.

I can see why someone would say this about schools like Cinci, BYU, Boise and UCF. But a school like UConn actually did have P5 money for 8 years and still hasn't even been bowl eligible for at least the last 4 years. The same can be said for USF, which is a head scratcher for me with all of their recruiting advantages. Having P5 access is no magic bullet. You need coaching and commitment as well. Schools that are committed to fb can have success without P5 access. Just ask UCF, Boise and BYU.

UConn more than held it's own in the Big East. We're just suffering from the Pasqualoni hire. Every program has an occasional bad hire. In the last 10 years, schools like Michigan, Florida, BC, and Tennessee have struggled with that.

UConn and USF will rebound.

(12-23-2014 10:52 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 10:35 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 03:15 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 10:05 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  I have a feeling that OP wasn't thinking about just how mediocre the top half of the G5 can be when he said it's on par with the bottom half of the P5. We're talking about a group of schools that only managed to get one team ranked. There are maybe <10 teams G5 teams that would compete the P5. None of them, other than Boise State, are now ranked. There are probably <10 P5 teams that would have their hands full in your average G5 conference.

To further your point, the entire G5 this year managed to win only 12 times against P5 teams, against 94 losses. The 12 losing P5 teams had a combined record of 51-93 (including their wins against FCS teams) while the G5 teams they lost to were a combined 92-55. G5 winners included Northern Illinois, Colorado State (twice), East Carolina (twice) and Utah State. So, every year, there are a few G5 teams who can play with the weaker P5 teams. But even those few don't do it consistently. The gulf between the level of play in the P5 vs the G5 has never been wider.

Give P5 money to UConn, UCF, Memphis, BYU, Boise, Cincinnati, Fresno, USF, etc. and they'll outperform Syracuse, Washington State, Pitt, BC, Indiana, Wake Forest, Iowa State, Kansas, Vanderbilt, etc.

I can see why someone would say this about schools like Cinci, BYU, Boise and UCF. But a school like UConn actually did have P5 money for 8 years and still hasn't even been bowl eligible for at least the last 4 years. The same can be said for USF, which is a head scratcher for me with all of their recruiting advantages. Having P5 access is no magic bullet. You need coaching and commitment as well. Schools that are committed to fb can have success without P5 access. Just ask UCF, Boise and BYU.

UConn more than held it's own in the Big East. We're just suffering from the Pasqualoni hire. Every program has an occasional bad hire. In the last 10 years, schools like Michigan, Florida, BC, and Tennessee have struggled with that.

UConn and USF will rebound.

You're stating all this as if they are facts. They are not facts. It is your opinion that those schools will rebound. It's quite possible that neither ever does, or not for a very very long time. I will not make the claim that UCONN and USF will never be relevant again or that they will be relevant in FB next year. I have no idea if they will or won't.

You ask us to take your statement on faith alone. There is no evidence to prove that UCONN and USF WILL become powerhouses in CFB.

(12-23-2014 11:08 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 10:52 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 10:35 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 03:15 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 11:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  To further your point, the entire G5 this year managed to win only 12 times against P5 teams, against 94 losses. The 12 losing P5 teams had a combined record of 51-93 (including their wins against FCS teams) while the G5 teams they lost to were a combined 92-55. G5 winners included Northern Illinois, Colorado State (twice), East Carolina (twice) and Utah State. So, every year, there are a few G5 teams who can play with the weaker P5 teams. But even those few don't do it consistently. The gulf between the level of play in the P5 vs the G5 has never been wider.

Give P5 money to UConn, UCF, Memphis, BYU, Boise, Cincinnati, Fresno, USF, etc. and they'll outperform Syracuse, Washington State, Pitt, BC, Indiana, Wake Forest, Iowa State, Kansas, Vanderbilt, etc.

I can see why someone would say this about schools like Cinci, BYU, Boise and UCF. But a school like UConn actually did have P5 money for 8 years and still hasn't even been bowl eligible for at least the last 4 years. The same can be said for USF, which is a head scratcher for me with all of their recruiting advantages. Having P5 access is no magic bullet. You need coaching and commitment as well. Schools that are committed to fb can have success without P5 access. Just ask UCF, Boise and BYU.

UConn more than held it's own in the Big East. We're just suffering from the Pasqualoni hire. Every program has an occasional bad hire. In the last 10 years, schools like Michigan, Florida, BC, and Tennessee have struggled with that.

UConn and USF will rebound.

You're stating all this as if they are facts. They are not facts. It is your opinion that those schools will rebound. It's quite possible that neither ever does, or not for a very very long time. I will not make the claim that UCONN and USF will never be relevant again or that they will be relevant in FB next year. I have no idea if they will or won't.

You ask us to take your statement on faith alone. There is no evidence to prove that UCONN and USF WILL become powerhouses in CFB.

Even the most ardent UConn fan thinks it's unlikely we could become a powerhouse (consistent top 25). But would we reach the same level of success (or better) as Pitt, Rutgers, BC, and Syracuse while on a level playing field? Absolutely.

(12-24-2014 01:53 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 11:08 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 10:52 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 10:35 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 03:15 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Give P5 money to UConn, UCF, Memphis, BYU, Boise, Cincinnati, Fresno, USF, etc. and they'll outperform Syracuse, Washington State, Pitt, BC, Indiana, Wake Forest, Iowa State, Kansas, Vanderbilt, etc.

I can see why someone would say this about schools like Cinci, BYU, Boise and UCF. But a school like UConn actually did have P5 money for 8 years and still hasn't even been bowl eligible for at least the last 4 years. The same can be said for USF, which is a head scratcher for me with all of their recruiting advantages. Having P5 access is no magic bullet. You need coaching and commitment as well. Schools that are committed to fb can have success without P5 access. Just ask UCF, Boise and BYU.

UConn more than held it's own in the Big East. We're just suffering from the Pasqualoni hire. Every program has an occasional bad hire. In the last 10 years, schools like Michigan, Florida, BC, and Tennessee have struggled with that.

UConn and USF will rebound.

You're stating all this as if they are facts. They are not facts. It is your opinion that those schools will rebound. It's quite possible that neither ever does, or not for a very very long time. I will not make the claim that UCONN and USF will never be relevant again or that they will be relevant in FB next year. I have no idea if they will or won't.

You ask us to take your statement on faith alone. There is no evidence to prove that UCONN and USF WILL become powerhouses in CFB.

Even the most ardent UConn fan thinks it's unlikely we could become a powerhouse (consistent top 25). But would we reach the same level of success (or better) as Pitt, Rutgers, BC, and Syracuse while on a level playing field? Absolutely.

Again, that's a faith based statement. It's possible that could happen, but it's also quite possible that UCONN's location and culture would never allow for a consistently competitive FB program. I know, UCONN did "well" in the big east. But that is hardly a stretch of time long enough to show staying power.

(12-24-2014 01:53 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 11:08 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 10:52 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 10:35 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 03:15 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Give P5 money to UConn, UCF, Memphis, BYU, Boise, Cincinnati, Fresno, USF, etc. and they'll outperform Syracuse, Washington State, Pitt, BC, Indiana, Wake Forest, Iowa State, Kansas, Vanderbilt, etc.

I can see why someone would say this about schools like Cinci, BYU, Boise and UCF. But a school like UConn actually did have P5 money for 8 years and still hasn't even been bowl eligible for at least the last 4 years. The same can be said for USF, which is a head scratcher for me with all of their recruiting advantages. Having P5 access is no magic bullet. You need coaching and commitment as well. Schools that are committed to fb can have success without P5 access. Just ask UCF, Boise and BYU.

UConn more than held it's own in the Big East. We're just suffering from the Pasqualoni hire. Every program has an occasional bad hire. In the last 10 years, schools like Michigan, Florida, BC, and Tennessee have struggled with that.

UConn and USF will rebound.

You're stating all this as if they are facts. They are not facts. It is your opinion that those schools will rebound. It's quite possible that neither ever does, or not for a very very long time. I will not make the claim that UCONN and USF will never be relevant again or that they will be relevant in FB next year. I have no idea if they will or won't.

You ask us to take your statement on faith alone. There is no evidence to prove that UCONN and USF WILL become powerhouses in CFB.

Even the most ardent UConn fan thinks it's unlikely we could become a powerhouse (consistent top 25). But would we reach the same level of success (or better) as Pitt, Rutgers, BC, and Syracuse while on a level playing field? Absolutely.

Pitt and Syracuse level of Success includes national championships and many big time BCS level bowls. Both are down now but both have demonstrated over many years their ability to be really good and to recover from periods of below mediocrity. BC has many years in the last 20 years with 9 and 10 win seasons and are currently a pretty decent team. Uconn has not demonstrated any of this for someone to claim that they will have the same level of success as Syracuse, Pitt and BC on a level playing field.
Those are facts.

(12-24-2014 12:06 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 01:53 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 11:08 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 10:52 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 10:35 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  I can see why someone would say this about schools like Cinci, BYU, Boise and UCF. But a school like UConn actually did have P5 money for 8 years and still hasn't even been bowl eligible for at least the last 4 years. The same can be said for USF, which is a head scratcher for me with all of their recruiting advantages. Having P5 access is no magic bullet. You need coaching and commitment as well. Schools that are committed to fb can have success without P5 access. Just ask UCF, Boise and BYU.

UConn more than held it's own in the Big East. We're just suffering from the Pasqualoni hire. Every program has an occasional bad hire. In the last 10 years, schools like Michigan, Florida, BC, and Tennessee have struggled with that.

UConn and USF will rebound.

You're stating all this as if they are facts. They are not facts. It is your opinion that those schools will rebound. It's quite possible that neither ever does, or not for a very very long time. I will not make the claim that UCONN and USF will never be relevant again or that they will be relevant in FB next year. I have no idea if they will or won't.

You ask us to take your statement on faith alone. There is no evidence to prove that UCONN and USF WILL become powerhouses in CFB.

Even the most ardent UConn fan thinks it's unlikely we could become a powerhouse (consistent top 25). But would we reach the same level of success (or better) as Pitt, Rutgers, BC, and Syracuse while on a level playing field? Absolutely.

Pitt and Syracuse level of Success includes national championships and many big time BCS level bowls. Both are down now but both have demonstrated over many years their ability to be really good and to recover from periods of below mediocrity. BC has many years in the last 20 years with 9 and 10 win seasons and are currently a pretty decent team. Uconn has not demonstrated any of this for someone to claim that they will have the same level of success as Syracuse, Pitt and BC on a level playing field.
Those are facts.

Fair enough...

But UCONN also has no way to prove or disprove any of this unless a P5 miracle invitation comes our way...

What we do know is that in the short time that UCONN football was a peer to Cuse, Pitt, etc., they proved the ability to consistently compete more often than not.

(12-16-2014 08:29 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The bottom half of the P5 is really no different than the top of the G5. The only difference is the lower P5 schools are lucky enough to be receiving $20+ million per year due to their conference affiliation.

How would you feel about the top programs breaking away into four conferences with eight or nine schools? Every week would give us intriguing match ups.

I think it's time to drop the dead weight. The top 32 or 36 programs are professional teams anyway. It's time college football evolves.

But with the conferences holding FB media rights, the only big pot of money untapped is the majority share of March Madness rights that goes to the NCAA, and March Madness would require a free-standing association with more than 32-36 elite schools.