(05-21-2022 01:28 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  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…

Me too. It’s so weird but Iowa games don’t get me going like they used to. I’ll skip Iowa vs anyone not named Iowa St/Michigan/Ohio St/Penn St. But I’ll scout out most of the G5 games and all of ECU’s. I always thought a 4 team playoff would be fun but I’m not even into it. I miss college football from around 1990.

(05-21-2022 04:44 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 01:28 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  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…

Me too. It’s so weird but Iowa games don’t get me going like they used to. I’ll skip Iowa vs anyone not named Iowa St/Michigan/Ohio St/Penn St. But I’ll scout out most of the G5 games and all of ECU’s. I always thought a 4 team playoff would be fun but I’m not even into it. I miss college football from around 1990.

I also preferred a time when there was no playoff in football, but at least I take some comfort in knowing that since we went to a four team playoff there has been an overwhelming consensus that the truly "best" team has never been left out. If we eventually go to 8 or more teams that will be even more true. I also take some comfort in knowing that no media company has any control over the selection process.

(05-21-2022 07:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 04:44 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 01:28 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  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…

Me too. It’s so weird but Iowa games don’t get me going like they used to. I’ll skip Iowa vs anyone not named Iowa St/Michigan/Ohio St/Penn St. But I’ll scout out most of the G5 games and all of ECU’s. I always thought a 4 team playoff would be fun but I’m not even into it. I miss college football from around 1990.

I also preferred a time when there was no playoff in football, but at least I take some comfort in knowing that since we went to a four team playoff there has been an overwhelming consensus that the truly "best" team has never been left out. If we eventually go to 8 or more teams that will be even more true. I also take some comfort in knowing that no media company has any control over the selection process.

Not true. Now a clear majority of people agree, but there's no "overwhelming consensus."
A number think TCU was the best team in 2014.

(05-21-2022 07:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 07:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 04:44 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 01:28 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  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…

Me too. It’s so weird but Iowa games don’t get me going like they used to. I’ll skip Iowa vs anyone not named Iowa St/Michigan/Ohio St/Penn St. But I’ll scout out most of the G5 games and all of ECU’s. I always thought a 4 team playoff would be fun but I’m not even into it. I miss college football from around 1990.

I also preferred a time when there was no playoff in football, but at least I take some comfort in knowing that since we went to a four team playoff there has been an overwhelming consensus that the truly "best" team has never been left out. If we eventually go to 8 or more teams that will be even more true. I also take some comfort in knowing that no media company has any control over the selection process.

Not true. Now a clear majority of people agree, but there's no "overwhelming consensus."
A number think TCU was the best team in 2014.

I'm sure some did, but I doubt the number was more than 20%. There were 123 voters in the AP and Coaches polls and TCU didn't get a single first place vote. Of the 126 rankings in the Massey Composite only 1 ranked TCU #1. That's pretty overwhelming to me.

(05-21-2022 06:49 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(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:  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.

That's not a very compelling argument.

What you're trying to argue is that the various types of data showing a narrowing of the gap between G5 and P5 football has been nothing but a "blip," or a "flash in a pan," and that it will dissipate (vanish) as soon as UC, UCF, UH, and BYU join the Big 12.

That's what you're referring to with the term "regression to the mean."

However, there are many problems with that argument.

For one thing, your citation of "regression to the mean" is not an explanation - - it's just an alternative hypothesis.

The truth is that there are at least two possibilities: (1) The apparent narrowing of the gap is real, and (2) It's just a "blip" that will vanish due to regression to the mean.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Here is a counter-argument to your "regression to the mean" or epicyclic hypothesis (the idea that there are fluctuations or cycles, with the G5 schools occasionally having up and down periods, and being currently in the "upward" part of a cycle that will be followed by another "downward" cycle:

• A "cyclic" or "regression to the mean" hypothesis isn't as likely to apply to an "open system" (the FBS, with approximately ten new FBS schools per decade making the transition from FCS) as it would if the FBS were a "closed system" (if the number of FBS schools was fixed and unchanging).
  .
• Cyclic or regression to the mean hypotheses are particularly unlikely to apply to an open system in which a sizable percentage of the incoming/new FBS schools have had high levels of success.
  .
• Many former FCS programs have had considerable success, an ongoing trend that is likely to continue to bolster and replenish the ranks of the G5 at the rate of approximately 3 per decade since 1996. Examples:
  
  ---UAB (1996) (4 bowl teams since 2017)
  ---Boise St. (1996) (numerous top 25 teams)
  ---UCF (1996) (five top 25 teams since 2010)
  ---Marshall (1997) (17 bowl teams, 3 that have finished in top 25)
  ---WKU (2008) (8 bowl teams; 1 that finished in the top 25)
  ---Appalachian State (2014) (7 bowls (6-1); final 2019 top 25)
  ---Coastal Carolina (2016) (11 wins in 2020 & '21; #14 in 2020)
  ---Liberty (2018) (3 bowls; top 25 (#17) in 2020)
  .
• There has been a direct correspondence between the addition of these FBS programs and the increasing number of top 25 G5 football programs over the past decade.
  .
• This is clear evidence of a "secular trend" that, by definition, can't be explained away as a temporary blip.
  
  ---"A secular trend is a variable that evidences a consistent pattern within a given period of time. It is a statistical tendency that can be easily identified and it is not subject to seasonal or cyclical effects."
  
  https://www.myaccountingcourse.com/accou...ular-trend
  

.

(05-21-2022 07:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 07:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 07:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 04:44 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 01:28 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  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…

Me too. It’s so weird but Iowa games don’t get me going like they used to. I’ll skip Iowa vs anyone not named Iowa St/Michigan/Ohio St/Penn St. But I’ll scout out most of the G5 games and all of ECU’s. I always thought a 4 team playoff would be fun but I’m not even into it. I miss college football from around 1990.

I also preferred a time when there was no playoff in football, but at least I take some comfort in knowing that since we went to a four team playoff there has been an overwhelming consensus that the truly "best" team has never been left out. If we eventually go to 8 or more teams that will be even more true. I also take some comfort in knowing that no media company has any control over the selection process.

Not true. Now a clear majority of people agree, but there's no "overwhelming consensus."
A number think TCU was the best team in 2014.

I'm sure some did, but I doubt the number was more than 20%. There were 123 voters in the AP and Coaches polls and TCU didn't get a single first place vote. Of the 126 rankings in the Massey Composite only 1 ranked TCU #1. That's pretty overwhelming to me.

Yes, Ohio State was the overwhelming choice as national champ in 2014 by any standard. Under the old poll-and-bowl system, it would have been a rock-solid complete sweep.

Ditto for Alabama in 2017. The CFP has done a great job of creating unambiguous, consensus national champs. No "split champions" like we had under all other systems, including even the BCS in 2003.

The gap between the top P5 programs and the middle tier P5 has grown giving the illusion the G5 has closed the overall gap.

It’s like the growing middle class while the top 5% continue to grow wealth faster.

(05-21-2022 09:28 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 06:49 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(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:  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.

That's not a very compelling argument.

What you're trying to argue is that the various types of data showing a narrowing of the gap between G5 and P5 football has been nothing but a "blip," or a "flash in a pan," and that it will dissipate (vanish) as soon as UC, UCF, UH, and BYU join the Big 12.

That's what you're referring to with the term "regression to the mean."

However, there are many problems with that argument.

For one thing, your citation of "regression to the mean" is not an explanation - - it's just an alternative hypothesis.

The truth is that there are at least two possibilities: (1) The apparent narrowing of the gap is real, and (2) It's just a "blip" that will vanish due to regression to the mean.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Here is a counter-argument to your "regression to the mean" or epicyclic hypothesis (the idea that there are fluctuations or cycles, with the G5 schools occasionally having up and down periods, and being currently in the "upward" part of a cycle that will be followed by another "downward" cycle:

• A "cyclic" or "regression to the mean" hypothesis isn't as likely to apply to an "open system" (the FBS, with approximately ten new FBS schools per decade making the transition from FCS) as it would if the FBS were a "closed system" (if the number of FBS schools was fixed and unchanging).
  .
• Cyclic or regression to the mean hypotheses are particularly unlikely to apply to an open system in which a sizable percentage of the incoming/new FBS schools have had high levels of success.
  .
• Many former FCS programs have had considerable success, an ongoing trend that is likely to continue to bolster and replenish the ranks of the G5 at the rate of approximately 3 per decade since 1996. Examples:
  
  ---UAB (1996) (4 bowl teams since 2017)
  ---Boise St. (1996) (numerous top 25 teams)
  ---UCF (1996) (five top 25 teams since 2010)
  ---Marshall (1997) (17 bowl teams, 3 that have finished in top 25)
  ---WKU (2008) (8 bowl teams; 1 that finished in the top 25)
  ---Appalachian State (2014) (7 bowls (6-1); final 2019 top 25)
  ---Coastal Carolina (2016) (11 wins in 2020 & '21; #14 in 2020)
  ---Liberty (2018) (3 bowls; top 25 (#17) in 2020)
  .
• There has been a direct correspondence between the addition of these FBS programs and the increasing number of top 25 G5 football programs over the past decade.
  .
• This is clear evidence of a "secular trend" that, by definition, can't be explained away as a temporary blip.
  
  ---"A secular trend is a variable that evidences a consistent pattern within a given period of time. It is a statistical tendency that can be easily identified and it is not subject to seasonal or cyclical effects."
  
  https://www.myaccountingcourse.com/accou...ular-trend
  

I'm not trying to argue that the "data" (and I use that term loosely) you cite as evidence that the gap between the P5 and the G5 is just a "blip". I am arguing just that. And whether UCF, Cinci, Houston and BYU move or not has close to zero bearing on that.

Data varies. If it doesn't vary it isn't data. To determine the amount of variation that occurs in any system you have to examine a lot of data. You can't cherry pick a few individual pieces of data (like ECU, Tulsa and SMU) and then select two years that demonstrate the conclusion that you reached as your premise. You can't use marginally relevant statistics like # of teams in the top 25 of a beauty contest to the exclusion of other, more relevant statistics.

But you didn't examine data to reach a conclusion. You decided what you want the conclusion to be and then sought snippets of information that support that premise. And you have every right to do that. Clearly, nothing I say will sway you from concluding what you want to conclude. At the end of the day, the market will decide if you are right or not. And so far, the market doesn't appear to be buying what you are selling. It's putting more and more resources into the P5 conferences in terms of revenue, attendance, TV exposure, etc.

By positing that the gap is narrowing you are suggesting that there is a trend at work that will continue into the future. None of us can predict the future. But if I were a betting man, I wouldn't put money on your hypothesis.

(05-22-2022 08:49 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 09:28 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 06:49 AM)ken d Wrote:  

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

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

That's not a very compelling argument.

What you're trying to argue is that the various types of data showing a narrowing of the gap between G5 and P5 football has been nothing but a "blip," or a "flash in a pan," and that it will dissipate (vanish) as soon as UC, UCF, UH, and BYU join the Big 12.

That's what you're referring to with the term "regression to the mean."

However, there are many problems with that argument.

For one thing, your citation of "regression to the mean" is not an explanation - - it's just an alternative hypothesis.

The truth is that there are at least two possibilities: (1) The apparent narrowing of the gap is real, and (2) It's just a "blip" that will vanish due to regression to the mean.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Here is a counter-argument to your "regression to the mean" or epicyclic hypothesis (the idea that there are fluctuations or cycles, with the G5 schools occasionally having up and down periods, and being currently in the "upward" part of a cycle that will be followed by another "downward" cycle:

• A "cyclic" or "regression to the mean" hypothesis isn't as likely to apply to an "open system" (the FBS, with approximately ten new FBS schools per decade making the transition from FCS) as it would if the FBS were a "closed system" (if the number of FBS schools was fixed and unchanging).
  .
• Cyclic or regression to the mean hypotheses are particularly unlikely to apply to an open system in which a sizable percentage of the incoming/new FBS schools have had high levels of success.
  .
• Many former FCS programs have had considerable success, an ongoing trend that is likely to continue to bolster and replenish the ranks of the G5 at the rate of approximately 3 per decade since 1996. Examples:
  
  ---UAB (1996) (4 bowl teams since 2017)
  ---Boise St. (1996) (numerous top 25 teams)
  ---UCF (1996) (five top 25 teams since 2010)
  ---Marshall (1997) (17 bowl teams, 3 that have finished in top 25)
  ---WKU (2008) (8 bowl teams; 1 that finished in the top 25)
  ---Appalachian State (2014) (7 bowls (6-1); final 2019 top 25)
  ---Coastal Carolina (2016) (11 wins in 2020 & '21; #14 in 2020)
  ---Liberty (2018) (3 bowls; top 25 (#17) in 2020)
  .
• There has been a direct correspondence between the addition of these FBS programs and the increasing number of top 25 G5 football programs over the past decade.
  .
• This is clear evidence of a "secular trend" that, by definition, can't be explained away as a temporary blip.
  
  ---"A secular trend is a variable that evidences a consistent pattern within a given period of time. It is a statistical tendency that can be easily identified and it is not subject to seasonal or cyclical effects."
  
  https://www.myaccountingcourse.com/accou...ular-trend
  

I'm not trying to argue that the "data" (and I use that term loosely) you cite as evidence that the gap between the P5 and the G5 is just a "blip". I am arguing just that. And whether UCF, Cinci, Houston and BYU move or not has close to zero bearing on that.

Data varies. If it doesn't vary it isn't data. To determine the amount of variation that occurs in any system you have to examine a lot of data. You can't cherry pick a few individual pieces of data (like ECU, Tulsa and SMU) and then select two years that demonstrate the conclusion that you reached as your premise. You can't use marginally relevant statistics like # of teams in the top 25 of a beauty contest to the exclusion of other, more relevant statistics.

But you didn't examine data to reach a conclusion. You decided what you want the conclusion to be and then sought snippets of information that support that premise. And you have every right to do that. Clearly, nothing I say will sway you from concluding what you want to conclude. At the end of the day, the market will decide if you are right or not. And so far, the market doesn't appear to be buying what you are selling. It's putting more and more resources into the P5 conferences in terms of revenue, attendance, TV exposure, etc.

By positing that the gap is narrowing you are suggesting that there is a trend at work that will continue into the future. None of us can predict the future. But if I were a betting man, I wouldn't put money on your hypothesis.

I would bet on the gap continuing to narrow into the future, and I believe that this is precisely what ESPN is doing by investing hundreds of $$$ millions into the G5 conferences.

One of the reasons is something I haven't referred to yet, and it's this:

It seems to me that the G5 schools have a much more interesting story to tell than the P5 schools have to tell.

Think of it this way: Many people would agree that their favorite part of the NCAA tournament is the first weekend, when there are dozens and dozens of teams, including many obscure programs that rarely appear in the tournament. Once those schools are knocked off and it boils down to a battle of the blue bloods, it gets a lot less interesting to a lot of people (including me).

For a lot of us, by the time it got to the NCAA finals in 2022, a lot of people were thinking "Who cares which one of the blue bloods wins this tournament?"

It's just like how fewer and fewer CFB fans care any more about whether Alabama or Ohio State wins the CFP championship.

The G5 teams are more fun to watch, in a lot of ways, than a lot of the P5 teams are, because they're newer and they're scrappy, and they're underdogs, and heck - they're just different.

"Variety is the spice of life," and the networks know that, and I believe that's why they've made a multi-billion dollar bet on the G5 conferences.

Whether the G5s ever fully catch up with the P5s or not will depend on how frequently the P5 conferences swoop up the top 3 or 4 G5 schools.

.

(05-22-2022 09:24 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(05-22-2022 08:49 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 09:28 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 06:49 AM)ken d Wrote:  

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

That's not a very compelling argument.

What you're trying to argue is that the various types of data showing a narrowing of the gap between G5 and P5 football has been nothing but a "blip," or a "flash in a pan," and that it will dissipate (vanish) as soon as UC, UCF, UH, and BYU join the Big 12.

That's what you're referring to with the term "regression to the mean."

However, there are many problems with that argument.

For one thing, your citation of "regression to the mean" is not an explanation - - it's just an alternative hypothesis.

The truth is that there are at least two possibilities: (1) The apparent narrowing of the gap is real, and (2) It's just a "blip" that will vanish due to regression to the mean.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Here is a counter-argument to your "regression to the mean" or epicyclic hypothesis (the idea that there are fluctuations or cycles, with the G5 schools occasionally having up and down periods, and being currently in the "upward" part of a cycle that will be followed by another "downward" cycle:

• A "cyclic" or "regression to the mean" hypothesis isn't as likely to apply to an "open system" (the FBS, with approximately ten new FBS schools per decade making the transition from FCS) as it would if the FBS were a "closed system" (if the number of FBS schools was fixed and unchanging).
  .
• Cyclic or regression to the mean hypotheses are particularly unlikely to apply to an open system in which a sizable percentage of the incoming/new FBS schools have had high levels of success.
  .
• Many former FCS programs have had considerable success, an ongoing trend that is likely to continue to bolster and replenish the ranks of the G5 at the rate of approximately 3 per decade since 1996. Examples:
  
  ---UAB (1996) (4 bowl teams since 2017)
  ---Boise St. (1996) (numerous top 25 teams)
  ---UCF (1996) (five top 25 teams since 2010)
  ---Marshall (1997) (17 bowl teams, 3 that have finished in top 25)
  ---WKU (2008) (8 bowl teams; 1 that finished in the top 25)
  ---Appalachian State (2014) (7 bowls (6-1); final 2019 top 25)
  ---Coastal Carolina (2016) (11 wins in 2020 & '21; #14 in 2020)
  ---Liberty (2018) (3 bowls; top 25 (#17) in 2020)
  .
• There has been a direct correspondence between the addition of these FBS programs and the increasing number of top 25 G5 football programs over the past decade.
  .
• This is clear evidence of a "secular trend" that, by definition, can't be explained away as a temporary blip.
  
  ---"A secular trend is a variable that evidences a consistent pattern within a given period of time. It is a statistical tendency that can be easily identified and it is not subject to seasonal or cyclical effects."
  
  https://www.myaccountingcourse.com/accou...ular-trend
  

I'm not trying to argue that the "data" (and I use that term loosely) you cite as evidence that the gap between the P5 and the G5 is just a "blip". I am arguing just that. And whether UCF, Cinci, Houston and BYU move or not has close to zero bearing on that.

Data varies. If it doesn't vary it isn't data. To determine the amount of variation that occurs in any system you have to examine a lot of data. You can't cherry pick a few individual pieces of data (like ECU, Tulsa and SMU) and then select two years that demonstrate the conclusion that you reached as your premise. You can't use marginally relevant statistics like # of teams in the top 25 of a beauty contest to the exclusion of other, more relevant statistics.

But you didn't examine data to reach a conclusion. You decided what you want the conclusion to be and then sought snippets of information that support that premise. And you have every right to do that. Clearly, nothing I say will sway you from concluding what you want to conclude. At the end of the day, the market will decide if you are right or not. And so far, the market doesn't appear to be buying what you are selling. It's putting more and more resources into the P5 conferences in terms of revenue, attendance, TV exposure, etc.

By positing that the gap is narrowing you are suggesting that there is a trend at work that will continue into the future. None of us can predict the future. But if I were a betting man, I wouldn't put money on your hypothesis.

I would bet on the gap continuing to narrow into the future, and I believe that this is precisely what ESPN is doing by investing hundreds of $$$ millions into the G5 conferences.

(snip)

IMO, money in a competitive situation is relative. That is, if you and I are competitors, and someone invests $100 dollars in me, I am $100 richer than before. But if someone invests $200 in you at the same time, I'm relatively worse off than I was before any investments were made.

The data I've seen shows that over the last 10 years, the TV money gap between the P5 and G5 is much larger than it was in 2012.

In 2012, CUSA's payout was about $500,000 while the SEC's payout was about $20m. No, not all of that was TV for either, but the numbers are basically sound.

Last year, CUSA's payout was about $1m while the SEC's was about $54m.

That's $500k more for the MAC, $34m more for the SEC. That's the extreme, but still, the same principle applies.

For example, in 2012 the ACC's payout was about $18m on average. That has risen to $36m this past year, despite the ACC having a "terrible" contract.

The mighty P6 AAC has gone from $2m to $7m, peanuts by comparison.

One example of the gap having closed slightly is the rise of media. In the 1970s, for example, most current members of a G5 league were rarely (if ever) on television. And, of course, there was no internet.

Nowadays, the "average" college football fan knows a bit more about Memphis football (I'll use one of the G5-affiliated programs for which I cheer as an example) than the "average" college football fan of the 1970s. I've learned this by conversations with college sports fans 50 and older.

Still, the closing of the gap has been very modest overall.

(05-22-2022 09:24 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(05-22-2022 08:49 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 09:28 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 06:49 AM)ken d Wrote:  

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

I would bet on the gap continuing to narrow into the future, and I believe that this is precisely what ESPN is doing by investing hundreds of $$$ millions into the G5 conferences.

One of the reasons is something I haven't referred to yet, and it's this:

It seems to me that the G5 schools have a much more interesting story to tell than the P5 schools have to tell.

Think of it this way: Many people would agree that their favorite part of the NCAA tournament is the first weekend, when there are dozens and dozens of teams, including many obscure programs that rarely appear in the tournament. Once those schools are knocked off and it boils down to a battle of the blue bloods, it gets a lot less interesting to a lot of people (including me).

For a lot of us, by the time it got to the NCAA finals in 2022, a lot of people were thinking "Who cares which one of the blue bloods wins this tournament?"

It's just like how fewer and fewer CFB fans care any more about whether Alabama or Ohio State wins the CFP championship.

The G5 teams are more fun to watch, in a lot of ways, than a lot of the P5 teams are, because they're newer and they're scrappy, and they're underdogs, and heck - they're just different.

"Variety is the spice of life," and the networks know that, and I believe that's why they've made a multi-billion dollar bet on the G5 conferences.

Whether the G5s ever fully catch up with the P5s or not will depend on how frequently the P5 conferences swoop up the top 3 or 4 G5 schools.

Most of the extra $$ to G5 has gone to MWC and AAC. the increases for the rest are small enough that they really don't matter. The Mac over the course of 5 to 10 years doubled their TV $, but that is really an inflation adjustment. Cusa has lost ground, and Belt is much like the Mac, with smaller $$#s.

Viewership, $$ still is overwhelming bigger for P5 esp the P2. AAC is in its own lane as is the MWC. The closing the gap in wins has been done by 5 to at most 10 G5 programs and 3 are moving up. The gap short term will grow, it is yet to be determined for how long. The guaranteed spot in access bowls has helped the G5, mostly AAC a lot.

.

The poll results make it clear that a lot of readers agree that the gap between the G5 and the P5 has been narrowing - - and not just to a trivial degree.

.

(05-22-2022 10:04 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  One example of the gap having closed slightly is the rise of media. In the 1970s, for example, most current members of a G5 league were rarely (if ever) on television. And, of course, there was no internet.

Nowadays, the "average" college football fan knows a bit more about Memphis football (I'll use one of the G5-affiliated programs for which I cheer as an example) than the "average" college football fan of the 1970s. I've learned this by conversations with college sports fans 50 and older.

Still, the closing of the gap has been very modest overall.

I agree with this. For example, regarding my USF: if it was say 1990 and USF was in its 25th year of football, having started in 1965, there is an excellent chance that we would never have appeared on national TV in all of that time.

But having started in 1997, at the dawn of the BCS era and the dawn of expanded cable coverage, we have been on national TV many, many times, even during our years in G5 conferences. This means that CFB fans nationally have heard of USF, they are aware of our existence. Probably in most cases only vaguely aware, and not thinking much of us, but aware nonetheless. Whereas before 2000 they would have been unaware of us entirely.

Yes, P5 schools get more coverage than ever, and far more than G5, but there is something qualitatively different about going from *never* on national TV to sometimes, as the G5 have, even if it is on third-tier outlets like ESPN plus.

Heck, we've seen this improvement even in the past 10 years. The other day, I looked up the televising of Sun Belt football games in 2011. That year, in week 13, there were four SBC games. Two were not televised at all, one was on ESPN3, at a time when very few people were streaming, and one was on something called the "Sun Belt Conference Network", a hodge-podge of obscure local channels in the southeast.

This past season, 2021, in week 13 there were five SBC games. One was on ESPNU, the other four on ESPN+.

So whereas in 2011, two games were not televised at all, one was televised regionally, and only one nationally, and that on a streaming channel few had access to, in 2021 all five games were available nationally, one on an actual national ESPN cable channel, and four on a streaming service with much more visibility and accessibility than what existed in 2011.

That's a lot more exposure for the G5.

(05-22-2022 10:42 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  .

The poll results make it clear that a lot of readers agree that the gap between the G5 and the P5 has been narrowing - - and not just to a trivial degree.

.

Actually, we can't conclude that without more information. If we had a poll that asked "is the strength gap between the 61 teams in the G5 and the 65 teams in the P5 getting smaller" with only those two choices we could get a better picture. But instead we have a poll that gives a lot of options and allows individual voters to choose as many of them as they want. We know how many votes there were (not many) but we don't know how many voters there were (even fewer). And we no information at all about trivial or consequential any potential narrowing may be in the minds of voters.

I get it. This is like Aresco's P6 campaign. If you can't change the reality, change the perception. But unlike the P6 campaign, this isn't aimed at media. It is preaching to the choir -- to fans who desperately want it to believe it's true.

I may not know any more about football than anybody else on this forum. But as a certified numbers nerd I do believe I am more knowledgeable than many about analyzing data. And part of that field is studying trends and identifying causality vs coincidence in data variation. You can't identify why something in a system has changed until you have determined through valid statistical analysis that it actually has changed. You haven't demonstrated that yet.

You have presented one piece of information -- the number of G5 teams in the AP top 25 -- for 9 seasons (one of which must be thrown out due to COVID creating an artificial change in the system). If that were a valid measure of the strength of one group of schools versus another group it would make sense to explore it further. But that datum doesn't measure strength of teams, it measures actions of voters. To the extent that there has been a statistically significant change in the data (and you only have three valid data points that are outside the norm) we have to consider what possible changes in the system could have produced that variation in the data.

One possible answer might be that the G5 as a whole has gotten stronger. Another is that the P5 as a whole has gotten weaker. Yet another is that the motives of the voters have changed. Keep in mind that what the AP Poll results measure is the actions of its voters. What external change has occurred recently that could alter the motives of poll voters (and therefore their actions/votes)? The big one is that the highest ranked G5 champion has recently been given a guaranteed bid to an NY6 bowl.

Now there is interest in seeing how G5 teams compare to one another (as opposed to the entire universe of FBS teams). Since there are no polls ranking just the G5 teams, AP voters may feel a need to include more of them on their ballots (usually in the 20-25 spots, since displacing stronger P5 teams who aren't in the running for an NY6 slot themselves) is an easy substitute. This doesn't signal a change in the absolute strength of those G5 teams, just their strength relative to other G5 teams.

Is that what's going on here? That would require further study. But given the fact that there is strong evidence that neither of the other two answers is true, it is premature to draw any conclusion about trends in G5 vs P5.

(05-22-2022 09:24 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  I would bet on the gap continuing to narrow into the future, and I believe that this is precisely what ESPN is doing by investing hundreds of $$$ millions into the G5 conferences.

"Variety is the spice of life," and the networks know that, and I believe that's why they've made a multi-billion dollar bet on the G5 conferences.

Are you suggesting that ESPN is now investing hundreds of millions of dollars more into G5 conferences than they were 5-10 years ago? Even in absolute terms I doubt that's true. More so if you mean relative to their investment in P5 conferences.

To the extent they may be spending more, it's more likely IMO that's it's because airing more G5 football is more profitable than airing more non-sports programming, not because it's more profitable than airing more P5 football (if there were more P5 football available to air).

I think with the right network with a big enough financial package for the g5 would be very successful on its own with these Characteristics
Conference champion in playoffs , with wildcards
No selection committee
With NIL there will be lots of blue chip recruits in the new league, a red pill league, the other a blue pill league as long as they keep the Disney controlled selection committee

(05-22-2022 10:42 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  .

The poll results make it clear that a lot of readers agree that the gap between the G5 and the P5 has been narrowing - - and not just to a trivial degree.

.

That is not a scientific poll. There is no factual evidence to support that conclusion. G5 schools are better off than they were in the past, with more television exposure and increased revenue. But they are not close to P5 schools in TV exposure or revenue, and they get crushed in recruiting, which is why the P5 schools easily send the most players to the NFL.

Tradition and history are a big part of college football. The G5 schools don't have the kind of tradition and history that the P5 schools have. They don't have the traditional rivalries that exist among power conferences schools, such as:
Michigan-Ohio State
Alabama-Auburn
USC-Notre Dame
Oklahoma-Texas
Florida-Georgia
UCLA-USC
Miami-Florida State
Florida-Florida State
Cal-Stanford
Mississippi State-Ole Miss
Alabama-LSU
Michigan State-Michigan

That is just a dozen. There are at least two dozen more I could add to the list among P5 schools. Among G5 schools, there is Army-Navy. The lack of historic rivalries among the G5 schools is just one more thing that holds back G5 schools.

(05-22-2022 02:50 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(05-22-2022 10:42 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  .

The poll results make it clear that a lot of readers agree that the gap between the G5 and the P5 has been narrowing - - and not just to a trivial degree.

.

That is not a scientific poll. There is no factual evidence to support that conclusion. G5 schools are better off than they were in the past, with more television exposure and increased revenue. But they are not close to P5 schools in TV exposure or revenue, and they get crushed in recruiting, which is why the P5 schools easily send the most players to the NFL.

Tradition and history are a big part of college football. The G5 schools don't have the kind of tradition and history that the P5 schools have. They don't have the traditional rivalries that exist among power conferences schools, such as:
Michigan-Ohio State
Alabama-Auburn
USC-Notre Dame
Oklahoma-Texas
Florida-Georgia
UCLA-USC
Miami-Florida State
Florida-Florida State
Cal-Stanford
Mississippi State-Ole Miss
Alabama-LSU
Michigan State-Michigan

That is just a dozen. There are at least two dozen more I could add to the list among P5 schools. Among G5 schools, there is Army-Navy. The lack of historic rivalries among the G5 schools is just one more thing that holds back G5 schools.

Your one of those delightful fellows who sit with your arms folded and go “Eh, Cincinnati went undefeated but they’d be 1-7 if they played a PAC12 schedule.” Of course this would be ignoring the fact the PAC12 lost to two FCS teams last year, went 0-5 against BYU and had a losing record to the MWC.

You keep bringing up the draft picks. This is interesting, as you are a UCLA fan, the Bruins and Arizona State had 10 NFL draft picks between them and both got pummeled by a Utah team that had one selection. It is often an indicator of success but the number of draft selections is not the end all be all to determine whether a program is good or not.

As to tv ratings, there is definitely a separation at the top, but a lot of the difference in the gap between a middling or lower P5 school and a G5 school is platform and when the game is broadcasted. If your game is on ESPN2 it is going to always out perform a game on ESPN U. An ABC game is going to do better than a game on ESPN. There are a number of schools in the P5 who are just not a draw so most of their games relegated to the Tier 3 or streaming option unless they are playing the right game (Kansas v Texas, Clemson v Wake Forest, Rutgers v Ohio State, Vanderbilt v Alabama, etc).

(05-22-2022 11:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2022 10:04 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  One example of the gap having closed slightly is the rise of media. In the 1970s, for example, most current members of a G5 league were rarely (if ever) on television. And, of course, there was no internet.

Nowadays, the "average" college football fan knows a bit more about Memphis football (I'll use one of the G5-affiliated programs for which I cheer as an example) than the "average" college football fan of the 1970s. I've learned this by conversations with college sports fans 50 and older.

Still, the closing of the gap has been very modest overall.

I agree with this. For example, regarding my USF: if it was say 1990 and USF was in its 25th year of football, having started in 1965, there is an excellent chance that we would never have appeared on national TV in all of that time.

But having started in 1997, at the dawn of the BCS era and the dawn of expanded cable coverage, we have been on national TV many, many times, even during our years in G5 conferences. This means that CFB fans nationally have heard of USF, they are aware of our existence. Probably in most cases only vaguely aware, and not thinking much of us, but aware nonetheless. Whereas before 2000 they would have been unaware of us entirely.

Yes, P5 schools get more coverage than ever, and far more than G5, but there is something qualitatively different about going from *never* on national TV to sometimes, as the G5 have, even if it is on third-tier outlets like ESPN plus.

Heck, we've seen this improvement even in the past 10 years. The other day, I looked up the televising of Sun Belt football games in 2011. That year, in week 13, there were four SBC games. Two were not televised at all, one was on ESPN3, at a time when very few people were streaming, and one was on something called the "Sun Belt Conference Network", a hodge-podge of obscure local channels in the southeast.

This past season, 2021, in week 13 there were five SBC games. One was on ESPNU, the other four on ESPN+.

So whereas in 2011, two games were not televised at all, one was televised regionally, and only one nationally, and that on a streaming channel few had access to, in 2021 all five games were available nationally, one on an actual national ESPN cable channel, and four on a streaming service with much more visibility and accessibility than what existed in 2011.

That's a lot more exposure for the G5.

That added exposure has likely led to some G5 programs recruiting/ drawing fans/commanding respect a bit more effectively than would otherwise have been the case. And that can explain what you and I, QV, seem to agree has been a slight closing of the gap between the P5 and G5 in a general sense. Of course, I suppose one could argue a slight narrowing of the differential probably isn't saying much.