(05-19-2022 02:51 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 09:12 AM)shere khan Wrote:  there are more good high school football players than the p5 can absorb

Excellent point. The U.S. population hasn't stopped growing. In fact, it has doubled since the mid-1960's.

Thus, there are more quality players out there. This also helps to explain why - on average - there have been about 10 new FBS teams per decade.

Since 2012 (teams that have been ranked in the December top 25):

2012 TX St.
2012 UMass
2013 UTSA
2013 So. Ala.
2013 GA St.
2014 Appalachian State
2014 ODU
2014 GA. So.
2015 Charlotte
2017 Coastal Carolina
2018 Liberty
2023 JMU
2023 SHSU
2023 Jax State

.

Most of the growth has been in older people since the 70s. There are fewer HS seniors than during the peak of the baby boom.

(05-19-2022 07:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Let's look at the MC conference rankings for P5 and G5 for 2021 and 2016. Averages are approximate, used round numbers.

2016

P5 ..... average 46 .......... range 40-52

G5 .... average 83 ........... range 68 - 94


2021

P5 ..... average 50 ......... range 40-68
G5 .... average 80 ........ range 68-92


So what do we see? Yes, there has been some tightening up. The P5-G5 spread was 37 MC points in 2016, it was 30 MC points in 2021.

Still, I'm not sure this is that much of a change. We're still talking 30 points here.

Now what accounts for that? The ranges tell an interesting story. The best P5 and best G5 conferences are basically unchanged. The top P5 was a 40 in 2016, and in 2021. The best G5 was a 68 in 2016 and a 68 in 2021. Also, the G5 bottom hasn't moved much, improved slightly from 94 in 2016 to 92 in 2021.

The big difference is that the P5 bottom has fallen. Last year, the P5 had two conferences, at 58 and 68, well below the bottom of their 2016 range.

Also, the G5 middle has improved. In 2016, the second-place G5 conference was 10 points below the leader, at 78. In 2021, the second-place G5 conference was only a point behind, at 69.

The main thing though seems to be the dropping of the P5 bottom.

Agree, the gap hasn't really changed. There are always variations from year to year. The top of the G5 has been pretty good and likely by themselves skew the #s. Take Cincy, UH, and UCF out and it likely is flat to slightly down.

(05-18-2022 11:51 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  Why has the gap between G5 and P5 football been shrinking in recent years?

It has not. The P5 schools dominate television, revenue, recruiting and future NFL talent. In the 2022 football recruiting class rankings, there were zero G5 schools ranked in the top 40. That includes future P5 schools Cincinnati, Houston, UCF and BYU. In the 2022 NFL draft, 29 of the 32 first round picks were from P5 schools. Two were from G5 schools.

There are always going to be great players that get missed in high schools and wind up at G5 schools. Khalil Mack at Buffalo, Maxx Crosby at Eastern Michigan, Josh Allen at Wyoming and Travis Kelce at Cincinnati are just a few examples. There are going to be good G5 football programs because there are good G5 coaches that can find and develop talent, just like there are P5 schools that stumble and bumble through seasons. But at the end, the advantages from TV and revenue gives the P5 schools a huge advantage in recruiting. Football talent is the only way to close the gap.

The reason why their are more G5 teams in the polls has probably more to do with more G5 teams than ever before.

2021
AAC (11)
SBC (10)
MWC (12)
MAC (12)
CUSA (14)
Total (59)

Future
AAC (14)
SBC (14)
MWC (12)
MAC (12)
CUSA (9)
Total (61)

Back in 1998 it was Big West (6), WAC (16), CUSA (11) and MAC (13) for a total of 46 teams. 23 of them or 50% were located in Texas and points west at the time.

Now only 1/5 are located in the West, not considering those in based in Texas.

You could say the additional southern G5 teams have been a factor.

(05-19-2022 11:16 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 09:16 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  I think the gap is shrinking between the better G5's and the power programs. But, the middle and lower G5's don't seem to be making up ground.

Disagree. Consider these examples:

Tulsa was a "lower G5 in 2017-2019, but they're making up ground:

2017: 2-10
2018: 3-9
2019: 4-8
2020: 6-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 7-6 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

SMU was a "lower G5 in 2014-16, but they've been making up ground:

2014: 1-11
2015: 2-10
2016: 5-7
2017: 7-6
2018: 5-7
2019: 10-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2020: 7-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 8-4 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

ECU was a "lower G5 in 2020, but they're making up ground:

2020: 3-6
2021: 8-4 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

UTSA was a "lower G5 in 2019, but they've been making up ground:

2019: 4-8
2020: 7-5 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 12-2 (top 25 team, December, 2021) BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

.

I don't think this proves your overall point. You could balance all of those with USFs going the other way. They also all have more G5 teams to play now (which helps win totals).

(05-20-2022 01:18 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Back in 1998 it was Big West (6), WAC (16), CUSA (11) and MAC (13) for a total of 46 teams. 23 of them or 50% were located in Texas and points west at the time.

Plus a handful of what we'd now call G5 as Independents (but your point still stands).

(05-20-2022 04:07 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 01:18 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Back in 1998 it was Big West (6), WAC (16), CUSA (11) and MAC (13) for a total of 46 teams. 23 of them or 50% were located in Texas and points west at the time.

Plus a handful of what we'd now call G5 as Independents (but your point still stands).

Also why I feel the G5 is two access bowls deep now. With so many teams.

Because of the unexpected rise of the AAC and Army….and especially the out of nowhere rise of The Belch. The MWC has stayed steady. CUSA has been one horrendous stinky fart but a lot of that stench is leaving with its gas being passed onto the AAC. I don’t know that the AAC passes the smell test with those 6 stinkers coming in.

(05-20-2022 04:07 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 11:16 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 09:16 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  I think the gap is shrinking between the better G5's and the power programs. But, the middle and lower G5's don't seem to be making up ground.

Disagree. Consider these examples:

Tulsa was a "lower G5 in 2017-2019, but they're making up ground:

2017: 2-10
2018: 3-9
2019: 4-8
2020: 6-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 7-6 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

SMU was a "lower G5 in 2014-16, but they've been making up ground:

2014: 1-11
2015: 2-10
2016: 5-7
2017: 7-6
2018: 5-7
2019: 10-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2020: 7-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 8-4 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

ECU was a "lower G5 in 2020, but they're making up ground:

2020: 3-6
2021: 8-4 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

UTSA was a "lower G5 in 2019, but they've been making up ground:

2019: 4-8
2020: 7-5 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 12-2 (top 25 team, December, 2021) BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

.

I don't think this proves your overall point. You could balance all of those with USFs going the other way. They also all have more G5 teams to play now (which helps win totals).

I should have made my overall point clearer.

I was responding to this statement, which a prior poster wrote:

"lower G5's don't seem to be making up ground..."

My overall point is that SOME lower G5's ARE making up ground.

(05-20-2022 05:23 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 04:07 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 11:16 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 09:16 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  I think the gap is shrinking between the better G5's and the power programs. But, the middle and lower G5's don't seem to be making up ground.

Disagree. Consider these examples:

Tulsa was a "lower G5 in 2017-2019, but they're making up ground:

2017: 2-10
2018: 3-9
2019: 4-8
2020: 6-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 7-6 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

SMU was a "lower G5 in 2014-16, but they've been making up ground:

2014: 1-11
2015: 2-10
2016: 5-7
2017: 7-6
2018: 5-7
2019: 10-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2020: 7-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 8-4 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

ECU was a "lower G5 in 2020, but they're making up ground:

2020: 3-6
2021: 8-4 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

UTSA was a "lower G5 in 2019, but they've been making up ground:

2019: 4-8
2020: 7-5 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 12-2 (top 25 team, December, 2021) BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

.

I don't think this proves your overall point. You could balance all of those with USFs going the other way. They also all have more G5 teams to play now (which helps win totals).

I should have made my overall point clearer.

I was responding to this statement, which a prior poster wrote:

"lower G5's don't seem to be making up ground..."

My overall point is that SOME lower G5's ARE making up ground.

Well, yeah. And some are treading water (although in win totals that might look like improvement overall) and some probably losing ground. Just like some national powers have risen and fallen and upper G5's have risen and fallen, etc.

With 130ish teams just about any tier you want to look at for any period of time will have teams rise and teams fall. To the point that even the tiers get kind of hard to make because there is so much variability. You just have to pick a random time frame and run with it, but even another year either way can be a big bump.

If you're looking at "upper G5" or "middle G5" as a specific set of teams, there would almost have to be a mix. If you're looking at it as a fluid group from year to year, I guess you could try to quantify that (but I wouldn't know what you'd find). Like average difference in SP+ of the lower third of G5 schools relative to the upper third or something. If you try to pin those tiers to specific programs you'd have a few constants but the lines are awfully blurry even from year to year.

(05-20-2022 05:23 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 04:07 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 11:16 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 09:16 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  I think the gap is shrinking between the better G5's and the power programs. But, the middle and lower G5's don't seem to be making up ground.

Disagree. Consider these examples:

Tulsa was a "lower G5 in 2017-2019, but they're making up ground:

2017: 2-10
2018: 3-9
2019: 4-8
2020: 6-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 7-6 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

SMU was a "lower G5 in 2014-16, but they've been making up ground:

2014: 1-11
2015: 2-10
2016: 5-7
2017: 7-6
2018: 5-7
2019: 10-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2020: 7-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 8-4 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

ECU was a "lower G5 in 2020, but they're making up ground:

2020: 3-6
2021: 8-4 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

UTSA was a "lower G5 in 2019, but they've been making up ground:

2019: 4-8
2020: 7-5 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 12-2 (top 25 team, December, 2021) BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

.

I don't think this proves your overall point. You could balance all of those with USFs going the other way. They also all have more G5 teams to play now (which helps win totals).

I should have made my overall point clearer.

I was responding to this statement, which a prior poster wrote:

"lower G5's don't seem to be making up ground..."

My overall point is that SOME lower G5's ARE making up ground.

Right, but if some other lower G5s are losing ground, then "lower G5" as a category, which I think is how this was being discussed, is not making up ground. The risers and fallers canceling each other out.

(05-20-2022 06:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 05:23 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 04:07 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 11:16 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 09:16 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  I think the gap is shrinking between the better G5's and the power programs. But, the middle and lower G5's don't seem to be making up ground.

Disagree. Consider these examples:

Tulsa was a "lower G5 in 2017-2019, but they're making up ground:

2017: 2-10
2018: 3-9
2019: 4-8
2020: 6-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 7-6 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

SMU was a "lower G5 in 2014-16, but they've been making up ground:

2014: 1-11
2015: 2-10
2016: 5-7
2017: 7-6
2018: 5-7
2019: 10-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2020: 7-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 8-4 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

ECU was a "lower G5 in 2020, but they're making up ground:

2020: 3-6
2021: 8-4 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

UTSA was a "lower G5 in 2019, but they've been making up ground:

2019: 4-8
2020: 7-5 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 12-2 (top 25 team, December, 2021) BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

.

I don't think this proves your overall point. You could balance all of those with USFs going the other way. They also all have more G5 teams to play now (which helps win totals).

I should have made my overall point clearer.

I was responding to this statement, which a prior poster wrote:

"lower G5's don't seem to be making up ground..."

My overall point is that SOME lower G5's ARE making up ground.

Right, but if some other lower G5s are losing ground, then "lower G5" as a category, which I think is how this was being discussed, is not making up ground. The risers and fallers canceling each other out.

Sure, but the same could be said of the lower P5, as well.

The "lower P5" - as a category - hasn't been making up any ground, either, for that matter.

(05-21-2022 12:46 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 06:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 05:23 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 04:07 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 11:16 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  Disagree. Consider these examples:

Tulsa was a "lower G5 in 2017-2019, but they're making up ground:

2017: 2-10
2018: 3-9
2019: 4-8
2020: 6-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 7-6 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

SMU was a "lower G5 in 2014-16, but they've been making up ground:

2014: 1-11
2015: 2-10
2016: 5-7
2017: 7-6
2018: 5-7
2019: 10-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2020: 7-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 8-4 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

ECU was a "lower G5 in 2020, but they're making up ground:

2020: 3-6
2021: 8-4 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

UTSA was a "lower G5 in 2019, but they've been making up ground:

2019: 4-8
2020: 7-5 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 12-2 (top 25 team, December, 2021) BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

.

I don't think this proves your overall point. You could balance all of those with USFs going the other way. They also all have more G5 teams to play now (which helps win totals).

I should have made my overall point clearer.

I was responding to this statement, which a prior poster wrote:

"lower G5's don't seem to be making up ground..."

My overall point is that SOME lower G5's ARE making up ground.

Right, but if some other lower G5s are losing ground, then "lower G5" as a category, which I think is how this was being discussed, is not making up ground. The risers and fallers canceling each other out.

Sure, but the same could be said of the lower P5, as well.

The "lower P5" - as a category - hasn't been making up any ground, either, for that matter.

In any given year, some of the 60 odd schools in the G5 will have good seasons, and almost all of them will regress to the mean over time. That cyclical ebb and flow doesn't mean that anybody has been "making up ground". As the better programs (most of whom have been playing at a fairly high level for decades) get absorbed into power conferences and are replaced by schools moving up from FCS it becomes easier for those who remain in the G5 to have the occasional outstanding season. After all, most of the games they play in those seasons are against each other, not powerful opponents.

(05-19-2022 09:08 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 08:02 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 07:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Let's look at the MC conference rankings for P5 and G5 for 2021 and 2016. Averages are approximate, used round numbers.

2016

P5 ..... average 46 .......... range 40-52

G5 .... average 83 ........... range 68 - 94


2021

P5 ..... average 50 ......... range 40-68
G5 .... average 80 ........ range 68-92


So what do we see? Yes, there has been some tightening up. The P5-G5 spread was 37 MC points in 2016, it was 30 MC points in 2021.

Still, I'm not sure this is that much of a change. We're still talking 30 points here.

Now what accounts for that? The ranges tell an interesting story. The best P5 and best G5 conferences are basically unchanged. The top P5 was a 40 in 2016, and in 2021. The best G5 was a 68 in 2016 and a 68 in 2021. Also, the G5 bottom hasn't moved much, improved slightly from 94 in 2016 to 92 in 2021.

The big difference is that the P5 bottom has fallen. Last year, the P5 had two conferences, at 58 and 68, well below the bottom of their 2016 range.

Also, the G5 middle has improved. In 2016, the second-place G5 conference was 10 points below the leader, at 78. In 2021, the second-place G5 conference was only a point behind, at 69.

The main thing though seems to be the dropping of the P5 bottom.

2016: 83-46=37 point gap

2021: 80-50=30 point gap

difference: 7 point reduction in the size of the gap

A 7 point drop=7/37 = 18.9% reduction

That's nearly a 20% shrinkage of the gap.

Whether one considers a 20% shrinkage in the gap over a 5 year period a large or small amount of shrinkage depends on one's perspective, but if the gap were to continue shrinking at that same 18.9% pace every five years going forward, the gap between the P5 and the G5 would be completely eliminated in 25 years.

G5 is going to be taking a step back with UC, UH and UCF joining the P5. Not to mention the regional recruiting power of BYU now in a P5.

That certainly seems likely, at least for a couple of years, but the experience of the MWC after TCU & Utah suggests that those effects might be relatively temporary.

For example, the Mountain West Conference took a hit in 2011/2012, when three of their best FB/MBB schools (TCU, Utah, & BYU) departed, but it didn't take them too long to bounce back after they responded by adding BSU, Fresno St., Nevada, Utah St., SJSU, & Hawaii (FB).

Little has been said about the six MWC additions, but consider their FB accomplishments over the decade since the MWC realignment (2012-2021):

Boise: 6 10+ win seasons (7 bowls (5-2); finished 5 seasons in the AP Top 25.
Utah St.: 4 10+ win FB seasons (8 bowl games (6-2) )
Fresno: 4 10+ win FB seasons (6 bowl games); finished 2018 in the AP Top 25.
Hawaii: Won 10 FB games in 2019 (4 bowl games (3-1) )
San Jose St.: Went 7-1 (.875) in 2020; finished 2020 in the AP Top 25.
Nevada: 6 bowl games between 2012 & 2021.

In addition, some of the MWC remainers bounced back surprisingly well after TCU, BYU, and Utah departed, for example:

Air Force: 4 10+ win FB seasons (6 bowl games (5-1) )
San Diego St.: 5 10+ win FB seasons (9 bowls); 2 finishes in the AP top 25.

(05-19-2022 09:08 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The MWC has 1 more P5 to recruit against and the AAC has 3 more P5s.

True, but that may not make a huge difference, since the MWC already had to recruit against BYU, and the AAC already had to recruit against UC, UCF, & UH, which were already recruiting - in recent years - as if they were P5 programs (with the exception of UCF basketball).

Moreover, any potential recruiting concerns may be largely offset by the addition of four new recruiting regions (Miami/Ft.L/WPB, northern Alabama (UAB), Central N.C. (UNCC), Central Texas (UTSA), plus the Houston area, which will still be represented by an AAC school, and an enhanced presence in metro Dallas/FW.

It may be possible that the AAC will be able to respond to the loss of UC, UCF, and UH nearly as effectively as the MWC responded to the loss of TCU, Utah, and BYU.

.

(05-21-2022 08:41 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 09:08 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  [quote='Milwaukee' pid='18241543' dateline='1652965350']
[quote='quo vadis' pid='18241502' dateline='1652963809']
Let's look at the MC conference rankings for P5 and G5 for 2021 and 2016. Averages are approximate, used round numbers.

2016

P5 ..... average 46 .......... range 40-52

G5 .... average 83 ........... range 68 - 94


2021

P5 ..... average 50 ......... range 40-68
G5 .... average 80 ........ range 68-92


So what do we see? Yes, there has been some tightening up. The P5-G5 spread was 37 MC points in 2016, it was 30 MC points in 2021.

Still, I'm not sure this is that much of a change. We're still talking 30 points here.

Now what accounts for that? The ranges tell an interesting story. The best P5 and best G5 conferences are basically unchanged. The top P5 was a 40 in 2016, and in 2021. The best G5 was a 68 in 2016 and a 68 in 2021. Also, the G5 bottom hasn't moved much, improved slightly from 94 in 2016 to 92 in 2021.

The big difference is that the P5 bottom has fallen. Last year, the P5 had two conferences, at 58 and 68, well below the bottom of their 2016 range.

Also, the G5 middle has improved. In 2016, the second-place G5 conference was 10 points below the leader, at 78. In 2021, the second-place G5 conference was only a point behind, at 69.

The main thing though seems to be the dropping of the P5 bottom.

2016: 83-46=37 point gap

2021: 80-50=30 point gap

difference: 7 point reduction in the size of the gap

A 7 point drop=7/37 = 18.9% reduction

That's nearly a 20% shrinkage of the gap.

Whether one considers a 20% shrinkage in the gap over a 5 year period a large or small amount of shrinkage depends on one's perspective, but if the gap were to continue shrinking at that same 18.9% pace every five years going forward, the gap between the P5 and the G5 would be completely eliminated in 25 years.

Whether one considers a 20% shrinkage in the gap large or small isn't really the question. A better question is whether there is a 20% (or 18.9%) shrinkage at all since you are only looking at two data points - snapshots of a questionably relevant measure - between two dates arbitrarily chosen. By a more statistically relevant measure - MSR - using more than 600 data points, it would appear that the gap has increased by 50% over the past 10 years.

Other examples have been cited here as "evidence" of a shrinking gap - specifically recent performance by three G5 schools: ECU, Tulsa and SMU. Using MSR data since 2008, ECU's five year trailing MSR (a methodology designed to detect and clarify trends) declined from 68.5 in 2012 to 57.3 last year. Tulsa's declined from 74.2 to 66.5 while SMU last year reversed a downward trend and recovered to 67.1 compared with 67.3 in 2012.

If Kansas were to move to a G5 conference and their W-L records in football improved significantly (let's say they average 7 wins a season and occasionally finish 10-2) would you say they have closed the gap with the P5? And if so, what would you attribute that to? Better coaching? Better exposure leading to better recruiting? The more obvious answer would be that they are playing weaker opponents. So when a couple of G5 schools have outstanding seasons in 2023, isn't it likely that playing weak schedules had more than a little to do with that?

(05-21-2022 09:28 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 08:41 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 09:08 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  [quote='Milwaukee' pid='18241543' dateline='1652965350']
[quote='quo vadis' pid='18241502' dateline='1652963809']
Let's look at the MC conference rankings for P5 and G5 for 2021 and 2016. Averages are approximate, used round numbers.

2016

P5 ..... average 46 .......... range 40-52

G5 .... average 83 ........... range 68 - 94


2021

P5 ..... average 50 ......... range 40-68
G5 .... average 80 ........ range 68-92


So what do we see? Yes, there has been some tightening up. The P5-G5 spread was 37 MC points in 2016, it was 30 MC points in 2021.

Still, I'm not sure this is that much of a change. We're still talking 30 points here.

Now what accounts for that? The ranges tell an interesting story. The best P5 and best G5 conferences are basically unchanged. The top P5 was a 40 in 2016, and in 2021. The best G5 was a 68 in 2016 and a 68 in 2021. Also, the G5 bottom hasn't moved much, improved slightly from 94 in 2016 to 92 in 2021.

The big difference is that the P5 bottom has fallen. Last year, the P5 had two conferences, at 58 and 68, well below the bottom of their 2016 range.

Also, the G5 middle has improved. In 2016, the second-place G5 conference was 10 points below the leader, at 78. In 2021, the second-place G5 conference was only a point behind, at 69.

The main thing though seems to be the dropping of the P5 bottom.

2016: 83-46=37 point gap

2021: 80-50=30 point gap

difference: 7 point reduction in the size of the gap

A 7 point drop=7/37 = 18.9% reduction

That's nearly a 20% shrinkage of the gap.

Whether one considers a 20% shrinkage in the gap over a 5 year period a large or small amount of shrinkage depends on one's perspective, but if the gap were to continue shrinking at that same 18.9% pace every five years going forward, the gap between the P5 and the G5 would be completely eliminated in 25 years.

Whether one considers a 20% shrinkage in the gap large or small isn't really the question. A better question is whether there is a 20% (or 18.9%) shrinkage at all since you are only looking at two data points - snapshots of a questionably relevant measure - between two dates arbitrarily chosen. By a more statistically relevant measure - MSR - using more than 600 data points, it would appear that the gap has increased by 50% over the past 10 years.

Other examples have been cited here as "evidence" of a shrinking gap - specifically recent performance by three G5 schools: ECU, Tulsa and SMU. Using MSR data since 2008, ECU's five year trailing MSR (a methodology designed to detect and clarify trends) declined from 68.5 in 2012 to 57.3 last year. Tulsa's declined from 74.2 to 66.5 while SMU last year reversed a downward trend and recovered to 67.1 compared with 67.3 in 2012.

If Kansas were to move to a G5 conference and their W-L records in football improved significantly (let's say they average 7 wins a season and occasionally finish 10-2) would you say they have closed the gap with the P5? And if so, what would you attribute that to? Better coaching? Better exposure leading to better recruiting? The more obvious answer would be that they are playing weaker opponents. So when a couple of G5 schools have outstanding seasons in 2023, isn't it likely that playing weak schedules had more than a little to do with that?

The main problem with that type of argument is that it doesn't address the fact that there have been multiple lines of evidence suggesting that the gap has been shrinking, such as this:

...............Number of
..............G5 FB Teams
...............in the Final
...............AP Top 25

2013.............1
2014.............3
2015.............3
2016.............3
2017.............4
2018.............6
2019.............7
2020.............8
2021.............6

Average (2013-2017): 2.67 G5 teams in the final AP Top 25.

Average (2018-2021): 6.75 G5 teams in the final AP Top 25.

(05-19-2022 09:18 AM)ken d Wrote:  In 2011, the 5 year MSR (Mean Sagarin Rating) for the 69 schools that will be in the P5 when current realignment moves are completed was 76.8 That was virtually unchanged for 2021 (76.9).

The 57 schools that were in the G5 in 2011 had an MSR of 64.5, but by 2021 the G5 had four more schools and the average for those 61 was 57.4 -- a decline of 7 points (a touchdown per game), thus significantly widening the gap with the P5 to almost three touchdowns per game. As the G5 continues to call up more FCS programs that gap will only widen even further in the future.

That's interesting, and arguably a better measure than the very crude two-points-in-time MC averages I used, but ....

1) If we're talking about P5 vs G5 now vs then, then IMO the relevant time frame is 2014 - 2021, as that is when the P5 and G5 have existed. In 2011, it was AQ and non-AQ.

Also, IMO this calculation should be made using present membership, not what will happen in 2023. The issue is has the P5/G5 gap narrowed over the past several years. So UCF, Cincy etc are G5 teams, not P5.

Heck, we don't even know if the 2023 and beyond B12 will be "P" anymore or not.

3) Sagarin is a great rating system, but I prefer composites to any one computer.

4) I'm not sure what this "TDs per game" measure is? If it is average points scored or something, well, that's different from wins and losses, which IMO is what we should measuring.

Anyway, my two cents.

(05-19-2022 11:16 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 09:16 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  I think the gap is shrinking between the better G5's and the power programs. But, the middle and lower G5's don't seem to be making up ground.

Disagree. Consider these examples:

Tulsa was a "lower G5 in 2017-2019, but they're making up ground:

2017: 2-10
2018: 3-9
2019: 4-8
2020: 6-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 7-6 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

SMU was a "lower G5 in 2014-16, but they've been making up ground:

2014: 1-11
2015: 2-10
2016: 5-7
2017: 7-6
2018: 5-7
2019: 10-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2020: 7-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 8-4 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

ECU was a "lower G5 in 2020, but they're making up ground:

2020: 3-6
2021: 8-4 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

UTSA was a "lower G5 in 2019, but they've been making up ground:

2019: 4-8
2020: 7-5 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 12-2 (top 25 team, December, 2021) BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

.

You gave me a bad sample... 3 AAC programs & 1 unprecedented season from UTSA isn't what I'd call evidence.

Individual teams rise and fall every year, but overall, I think right now those that are scheduling to give them a recruiting advantage seem to be rising.

As the portal, NIL, and other monetary considerations become more influential in college football, resources will become even more important. I think looking at each G5 program's scheduling philosophy is a good indication of their ability to finance and support their program at a level that will allow them to acquire the athletes and retain the coaches needed to rise. It's a bad time to be a broke school. It's no big secret that most of the middle to bottom of the G5 are poor (that's why they sign body bag games). I think it will be almost impossible for the majority of those programs to string together years of success and climb out of obscurity.

(05-21-2022 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 09:18 AM)ken d Wrote:  In 2011, the 5 year MSR (Mean Sagarin Rating) for the 69 schools that will be in the P5 when current realignment moves are completed was 76.8 That was virtually unchanged for 2021 (76.9).

The 57 schools that were in the G5 in 2011 had an MSR of 64.5, but by 2021 the G5 had four more schools and the average for those 61 was 57.4 -- a decline of 7 points (a touchdown per game), thus significantly widening the gap with the P5 to almost three touchdowns per game. As the G5 continues to call up more FCS programs that gap will only widen even further in the future.

That's interesting, and arguably a better measure than the very crude two-points-in-time MC averages I used, but ....

1) If we're talking about P5 vs G5 now vs then, then IMO the relevant time frame is 2014 - 2021, as that is when the P5 and G5 have existed. In 2011, it was AQ and non-AQ.

That's a distinction without a difference. We're really talking about the same schools either way.


Also, IMO this calculation should be made using present membership, not what will happen in 2023. The issue is has the P5/G5 gap narrowed over the past several years. So UCF, Cincy etc are G5 teams, not P5.

Heck, we don't even know if the 2023 and beyond B12 will be "P" anymore or not.

Without going to the trouble of crunching the numbers all over again, I guarantee that any change if we were to consider the four schools moving to the Big 12 as G5's would be insignificant. You would hardly notice, and it wouldn't change the conclusion you would draw. [b]EDIT: I crunched the numbers and the difference if we count the four new Big 12 teams as P5 was 7.1 points and if we count them as G5 it was 6.9 points.
[/b]

3) Sagarin is a great rating system, but I prefer composites to any one computer.

The problem with using composites is that they change from year to year (and sometimes even from week to week) and that many if not most of the contributors are subjective rankings, not ratings. So they can't be used for meaningful year to year comparisons.

4) I'm not sure what this "TDs per game" measure is? If it is average points scored or something, well, that's different from wins and losses, which IMO is what we should measuring.

I could have said 7 points instead of TDs. What Sagarin is measuring is how many points (adjusted for where the games are played) one would predict one team would beat another if they played each other a lot of times (which, of course, they can't). So, if one team has a rating of 75 and the other 65 and the game is being played on the home field of the lower rated team you would expect the higher rated team to win by 7 points more often than not. Interestingly, for an entire season I compared Sagarin's predicted differential of all FBS games against the opening Las Vegas betting line and found an extremely high correlation between the two.

If we just use wins and losses we are suggesting that a win over Kansas counts as much as a win against Alabama. If all we need is Ws and Ls to compare teams we wouldn't need any rankings, computer based or human.



Anyway, my two cents.

I think it should be noted that college football fans in general are losing interest in just two or three teams that Disney Chooses to win a championship
So not so much as a growing gap but a shift in fan interest away from A5 and it’s rigged system that uses a selection committee to protect their investment at the expense of college football itself
Just an example of shifting fan intrest is myself , I use to watch all the teams but I for many years now only watch the G5
That’s my two cents…