miko33
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
Posts: 13,117
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
|
RE: Why Is The Outdated Term "Power 5" Still Used?
I agree that this is a troll thread started by a notorious poster to try to get a rise out of people. I'm tired of having to sift through troll posts when trying to find some good discussions and news about the happenings in the college sports world. This diminishes the quality of the board when stupid threads are started.
|
|
08-03-2015 10:31 AM |
|
bullet
Legend
Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
|
RE: Why Is The Outdated Term "Power 5" Still Used?
Its the BCS and playoff that have driven the media using the term. Even before the BCS, there was a split in governance. The 6 to be BCS conferences, CUSA and WAC (pre-split) all had 3 votes in the NCAA. The MAC and Big West had 1, just like the Ohio Valley. But no one ever talked about it or labeled conferences. When the BCS came along, the CUSA still had the 3 votes, but they were non-BCS.
The non-BCS were working to get rid of the term, but now P5 is used even more than BCS was.
|
|
08-03-2015 10:36 AM |
|
Sultan of Euphonistan
All American
Posts: 4,999
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 80
I Root For: Baritones
Location: The Euphonistan Tree
|
RE: Why Is The Outdated Term "Power 5" Still Used?
(08-03-2015 10:36 AM)bullet Wrote: Its the BCS and playoff that have driven the media using the term. Even before the BCS, there was a split in governance. The 6 to be BCS conferences, CUSA and WAC (pre-split) all had 3 votes in the NCAA. The MAC and Big West had 1, just like the Ohio Valley. But no one ever talked about it or labeled conferences. When the BCS came along, the CUSA still had the 3 votes, but they were non-BCS.
The non-BCS were working to get rid of the term, but now P5 is used even more than BCS was.
The funny thing was is that in the BCS era the MAC, CUSA, etc were BCS conferences. Trying to infer that they were not was actually factually incorrect though very common at the time.
|
|
08-03-2015 10:19 PM |
|
MplsBison
Banned
Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
|
RE: Why Is The Outdated Term "Power 5" Still Used?
(08-03-2015 10:19 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote: (08-03-2015 10:36 AM)bullet Wrote: Its the BCS and playoff that have driven the media using the term. Even before the BCS, there was a split in governance. The 6 to be BCS conferences, CUSA and WAC (pre-split) all had 3 votes in the NCAA. The MAC and Big West had 1, just like the Ohio Valley. But no one ever talked about it or labeled conferences. When the BCS came along, the CUSA still had the 3 votes, but they were non-BCS.
The non-BCS were working to get rid of the term, but now P5 is used even more than BCS was.
The funny thing was is that in the BCS era the MAC, CUSA, etc were BCS conferences. Trying to infer that they were not was actually factually incorrect though very common at the time.
The WAC, MAC, MWC, CUSA and Sun Belt did not have auto-bids to the BCS bowls.
Seems entirely appropriate that they were not referred to as BCS conferences.
|
|
08-03-2015 10:39 PM |
|
Sultan of Euphonistan
All American
Posts: 4,999
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 80
I Root For: Baritones
Location: The Euphonistan Tree
|
RE: Why Is The Outdated Term "Power 5" Still Used?
(08-03-2015 10:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote: (08-03-2015 10:19 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote: (08-03-2015 10:36 AM)bullet Wrote: Its the BCS and playoff that have driven the media using the term. Even before the BCS, there was a split in governance. The 6 to be BCS conferences, CUSA and WAC (pre-split) all had 3 votes in the NCAA. The MAC and Big West had 1, just like the Ohio Valley. But no one ever talked about it or labeled conferences. When the BCS came along, the CUSA still had the 3 votes, but they were non-BCS.
The non-BCS were working to get rid of the term, but now P5 is used even more than BCS was.
The funny thing was is that in the BCS era the MAC, CUSA, etc were BCS conferences. Trying to infer that they were not was actually factually incorrect though very common at the time.
The WAC, MAC, MWC, CUSA and Sun Belt did not have auto-bids to the BCS bowls.
Seems entirely appropriate that they were not referred to as BCS conferences.
You are correct they did not have auto bids that is why they were not "AQ" however they were officially designated as BCS conferences by being a part of the agreement.
The fact that many of us did not catch on to this fact just goes to show you that people will latch on to things facts be damned.
|
|
08-03-2015 11:02 PM |
|
adcorbett
This F'n Guy
Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
|
RE: Why Is The Outdated Term "Power 5" Still Used?
(08-03-2015 10:31 AM)miko33 Wrote: I agree that this is a troll thread started by a notorious poster to try to get a rise out of people. I'm tired of having to sift through troll posts when trying to find some good discussions and news about the happenings in the college sports world. This diminishes the quality of the board when stupid threads are started.
(This post was last modified: 08-03-2015 11:35 PM by adcorbett.)
|
|
08-03-2015 11:33 PM |
|
Attackcoog
Moderator
Posts: 44,737
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
|
RE: Why Is The Outdated Term "Power 5" Still Used?
(08-03-2015 10:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote: (08-03-2015 10:19 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote: (08-03-2015 10:36 AM)bullet Wrote: Its the BCS and playoff that have driven the media using the term. Even before the BCS, there was a split in governance. The 6 to be BCS conferences, CUSA and WAC (pre-split) all had 3 votes in the NCAA. The MAC and Big West had 1, just like the Ohio Valley. But no one ever talked about it or labeled conferences. When the BCS came along, the CUSA still had the 3 votes, but they were non-BCS.
The non-BCS were working to get rid of the term, but now P5 is used even more than BCS was.
The funny thing was is that in the BCS era the MAC, CUSA, etc were BCS conferences. Trying to infer that they were not was actually factually incorrect though very common at the time.
The WAC, MAC, MWC, CUSA and Sun Belt did not have auto-bids to the BCS bowls.
Seems entirely appropriate that they were not referred to as BCS conferences.
They were all BCS conferences during the BCS era. The G5 were not "AQ" conferences. The official term for the P5 in the CFP era is "contract" conferences. That's the wording the CFP used when the new CFP was being planned and rolled out. That said, autonomous conferences is another proper description for the P5 as it is derived from their unique NCAA standing.
|
|
08-04-2015 01:38 AM |
|
cleburneslim
1st String
Posts: 1,551
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 25
I Root For: jax state
Location:
|
RE: Why Is The Outdated Term "Power 5" Still Used?
Power conference seems an appropriate name also as they hold more power currently in the ncaa due to autonomy.
|
|
08-04-2015 02:45 AM |
|
orangefan
Heisman
Posts: 5,208
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 354
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: New England
|
RE: Why Is The Outdated Term "Power 5" Still Used?
|
|
08-04-2015 07:48 AM |
|
MplsBison
Banned
Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
|
RE: Why Is The Outdated Term "Power 5" Still Used?
(08-03-2015 11:02 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote: (08-03-2015 10:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote: (08-03-2015 10:19 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote: (08-03-2015 10:36 AM)bullet Wrote: Its the BCS and playoff that have driven the media using the term. Even before the BCS, there was a split in governance. The 6 to be BCS conferences, CUSA and WAC (pre-split) all had 3 votes in the NCAA. The MAC and Big West had 1, just like the Ohio Valley. But no one ever talked about it or labeled conferences. When the BCS came along, the CUSA still had the 3 votes, but they were non-BCS.
The non-BCS were working to get rid of the term, but now P5 is used even more than BCS was.
The funny thing was is that in the BCS era the MAC, CUSA, etc were BCS conferences. Trying to infer that they were not was actually factually incorrect though very common at the time.
The WAC, MAC, MWC, CUSA and Sun Belt did not have auto-bids to the BCS bowls.
Seems entirely appropriate that they were not referred to as BCS conferences.
You are correct they did not have auto bids that is why they were not "AQ" however they were officially designated as BCS conferences by being a part of the agreement.
The fact that many of us did not catch on to this fact just goes to show you that people will latch on to things facts be damned.
I don't think they were officially part of the agreement, either.
The BCS was an organization that placed teams in four (initially), and later five, bowl games, with the goal of ensuring #1 played #2 in some bowl.
Six of the conferences had automatic bids to the bowls. Notre Dame had a special agreement.
That was it. The rest were simply at-large among any team in FBS, including independents.
|
|
08-04-2015 07:54 AM |
|
MUsince96
All American
Posts: 3,112
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 169
I Root For: Marshall
Location:
|
RE: Why Is The Outdated Term "Power 5" Still Used?
I like "contract conferences" when referring to the "Power 5". They are the conferences with contracts to the NY6 bowls, so it's accurate and less demeaning to the rest of the FBS conferences.
|
|
08-04-2015 08:59 AM |
|
BruceMcF
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13,107
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
|
RE: Why Is The Outdated Term "Power 5" Still Used?
(08-04-2015 08:59 AM)MUsince96 Wrote: I like "contract conferences" when referring to the "Power 5". They are the conferences with contracts to the NY6 bowls, so it's accurate and less demeaning to the rest of the FBS conferences.
The Go5 has contracts too ... they are obligated to send their champion, if it is selected as the best champion among the five.
Though since that is only to the "Access" bowls and not the "Contract" bowls, they could be the C5 and A5. Except that would cause confusion with "Autonomy 5".
(08-04-2015 07:54 AM)MplsBison Wrote: I don't think they were officially part of the agreement, either.
The BCS was an organization that placed teams in four (initially), and later five, bowl games, with the goal of ensuring #1 played #2 in some bowl.
Six of the conferences had automatic bids to the bowls. Notre Dame had a special agreement.
That was it. The rest were simply at-large among any team in FBS, including independents.
You seem to be forgetting the bowl buster rule ... the best of the remaining FBS conference as long as it held a given rank. That rule was created in the first reform of the BCS system and access made easier in the second. The second edition gave a spot to the highest ranking among the other conferences if it was ranked in the top 16 or else ranked higher than an AQ champion.
(This post was last modified: 08-04-2015 09:28 AM by BruceMcF.)
|
|
08-04-2015 09:21 AM |
|
adcorbett
This F'n Guy
Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
|
RE: Why Is The Outdated Term "Power 5" Still Used?
This sort of nitpicking sounds way too pudussy for me. they called it the "power" five. It is not like they said "the only important five" Or referred to the G5 as something like the "little five," or the "biatch five." Calling them the power five is fairly accurate, and is not insulting. I mean damn what the phuck do you think autonomy symbolizes? That is much more insulting than "power five." If you get insulted by referring the five conferences who currently have the most power, if you are offended by that, you need to get some thicker skin, and are probably on the wrong board. Seriously.
(This post was last modified: 08-04-2015 09:34 AM by adcorbett.)
|
|
08-04-2015 09:25 AM |
|
BruceMcF
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13,107
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
|
RE: Why Is The Outdated Term "Power 5" Still Used?
(08-04-2015 09:25 AM)adcorbett Wrote: Calling them the power five is fairly accurate, and is not insulting.
Obviously ~ the OP is quite absurd. But mocking the idea that it really matters what shorthand people use is more fun than just explaining why its absurd.
(This post was last modified: 08-04-2015 09:45 AM by BruceMcF.)
|
|
08-04-2015 09:45 AM |
|
miko33
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
Posts: 13,117
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
|
RE: Why Is The Outdated Term "Power 5" Still Used?
(08-04-2015 09:45 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: (08-04-2015 09:25 AM)adcorbett Wrote: Calling them the power five is fairly accurate, and is not insulting.
Obviously ~ the OP is quite absurd. But mocking the idea that it really matters what shorthand people use is more fun than just explaining why its absurd.
But when does the absurdity end though? People come here for real sports discussions and not to see goofy threads.
|
|
08-04-2015 10:56 AM |
|
MplsBison
Banned
Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
|
RE: Why Is The Outdated Term "Power 5" Still Used?
(08-04-2015 09:21 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: (08-04-2015 08:59 AM)MUsince96 Wrote: I like "contract conferences" when referring to the "Power 5". They are the conferences with contracts to the NY6 bowls, so it's accurate and less demeaning to the rest of the FBS conferences.
The Go5 has contracts too ... they are obligated to send their champion, if it is selected as the best champion among the five.
Though since that is only to the "Access" bowls and not the "Contract" bowls, they could be the C5 and A5. Except that would cause confusion with "Autonomy 5".
(08-04-2015 07:54 AM)MplsBison Wrote: I don't think they were officially part of the agreement, either.
The BCS was an organization that placed teams in four (initially), and later five, bowl games, with the goal of ensuring #1 played #2 in some bowl.
Six of the conferences had automatic bids to the bowls. Notre Dame had a special agreement.
That was it. The rest were simply at-large among any team in FBS, including independents.
You seem to be forgetting the bowl buster rule ... the best of the remaining FBS conference as long as it held a given rank. That rule was created in the first reform of the BCS system and access made easier in the second. The second edition gave a spot to the highest ranking among the other conferences if it was ranked in the top 16 or else ranked higher than an AQ champion.
But it wasn't specifically limited to the best team from the remaining conferences, it was open to any FBS team that had a high enough rank. Like Navy, had they climbed that high.
So it was the six BCS conferences and then everyone else in FBS.
|
|
08-04-2015 12:21 PM |
|
adcorbett
This F'n Guy
Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
|
RE: Why Is The Outdated Term "Power 5" Still Used?
(08-04-2015 12:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote: But it wasn't specifically limited to the best team from the remaining conferences, it was open to any FBS team that had a high enough rank. Like Navy, had they climbed that high.
So it was the six BCS conferences and then everyone else in FBS.
No that is not true. The BCS "best of the rest rule" specifically required you to be a conference champion, in addition to finishing in the top 12, or finish in the top 16 and be ahead of a BCS champion. BOISE St was snubbed on year on that because they were the highest ranked team, and in the top 12, but TCU won the conference making them ineligible for an automatic bid, and they were only eligible as an at-large team, and were not picked. Navy could not win the conference champion loophole since they were not in a conference, and could only be guaranteed a spot if they finished in the top 3 or top 4 (if the number 3 team was an autobid). I don't even think the ND rule applied to them.
(This post was last modified: 08-04-2015 01:06 PM by adcorbett.)
|
|
08-04-2015 01:05 PM |
|
quo vadis
Legend
Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
|
RE: Why Is The Outdated Term "Power 5" Still Used?
(08-04-2015 01:05 PM)adcorbett Wrote: (08-04-2015 12:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote: But it wasn't specifically limited to the best team from the remaining conferences, it was open to any FBS team that had a high enough rank. Like Navy, had they climbed that high.
So it was the six BCS conferences and then everyone else in FBS.
No that is not true. The BCS "best of the rest rule" specifically required you to be a conference champion, in addition to finishing in the top 12, or finish in the top 16 and be ahead of a BCS champion. BOISE St was snubbed on year on that because they were the highest ranked team, and in the top 12, but TCU won the conference making them ineligible for an automatic bid, and they were only eligible as an at-large team, and were not picked. Navy could not win the conference champion loophole since they were not in a conference, and could only be guaranteed a spot if they finished in the top 3 or top 4 (if the number 3 team was an autobid). I don't even think the ND rule applied to them.
It didn't. Notre Dame was an AQ if it finished in the top 8 of the BCS standings. That applied only to them.
|
|
08-04-2015 01:11 PM |
|
MplsBison
Banned
Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
|
RE: Why Is The Outdated Term "Power 5" Still Used?
(08-04-2015 01:05 PM)adcorbett Wrote: (08-04-2015 12:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote: But it wasn't specifically limited to the best team from the remaining conferences, it was open to any FBS team that had a high enough rank. Like Navy, had they climbed that high.
So it was the six BCS conferences and then everyone else in FBS.
No that is not true. The BCS "best of the rest rule" specifically required you to be a conference champion, in addition to finishing in the top 12, or finish in the top 16 and be ahead of a BCS champion. BOISE St was snubbed on year on that because they were the highest ranked team, and in the top 12, but TCU won the conference making them ineligible for an automatic bid, and they were only eligible as an at-large team, and were not picked. Navy could not win the conference champion loophole since they were not in a conference, and could only be guaranteed a spot if they finished in the top 3 or top 4 (if the number 3 team was an autobid). I don't even think the ND rule applied to them.
I don't think that's true. Navy would've been given the auto-bid to a BCS bowl if they were ranked in the top 16 and ahead of the Big East champion.
|
|
08-04-2015 01:12 PM |
|
BruceMcF
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13,107
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
|
RE: Why Is The Outdated Term "Power 5" Still Used?
(08-04-2015 01:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote: I don't think that's true. Navy would've been given the auto-bid to a BCS bowl if they were ranked in the top 16 and ahead of the Big East champion.
Who knows whether they might have been granted it, since its a counter-factual, but under the rules set down, if they were not granted it, all they could do would be to complain about it. It was only the non-AQ FBS champions that had a formal pathway under that rule. Notre Dame had a separate pathway. BYU, Navy, and Army did not have a formal path.
|
|
08-04-2015 01:31 PM |
|