Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Wahoowa84 · 09-06-2020 06:10 PM

(09-06-2020 03:47 PM)bullet Wrote:
(09-06-2020 03:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:
(09-06-2020 02:51 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:
(09-06-2020 01:15 PM)JRsec Wrote: By the time the courts get through with NIL and Pay for Play rulings I expect academics and athletics will be forever separated. I think we will see some fine academic conferences arise with the Big 10 likely being the leader. If so that will not mean that the Big 10 stays together as an athletic conference.

You might very well see a Big 10 academic conference that has Texas, Texas A&M, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Florida, Vanderbilt, Missouri, Kansas, and Iowa State in it.

But you might also see an SEC with a Northern division anchored by Ohio State.

When those who will agree to compensation in addition to the NIL rights are divided away from those who will give only cost of attendance scholarships, I expect to see at most a P4 emerge and very likely a P3.

I believe the SEC, ACC, Big 10 and PAC will all have some schools who step it down and others who will want to play on at the highest level. It is conceivable to me that the Big 12 might be the only conference that "might not" suffer any who step down, though it is certainly possible they may.

I suspect we are going to see a radical realignment at some point in the not too distant future, 5 to 15 years, and I believe a new upper tier of around 48 schools will be separated in form and competition from the rest.

Athletics and Academics probably should have been separated from one another within 40 years of their advent around the 1910's to the 20's as by that time people who couldn't qualify academically were already stepping in as ringers (and indeed had been even a few years after organized football and baseball began) and without the requisite education to meet entrance requirements. We have lived with the current hypocrisy for over a 100 years.

We owe it to the players to legitimize their gains and to the government to make them taxable. Character formation begins with a legitimate business association and character formation is supposed to be integral with college athletics.

So for the purposes of this thread the AAC and MWC may be the pinnacle of the G5, but whether they are the sixth P conference is moot. The P is about to stand for "Professional" not "Power" and it is about to be an entirely different classification than most schools will be able to afford.

What we are likely to wind up with is an A6 where A stands for "Amateur" and a P3 where "P" stands for Professional and each governed and scheduled separately.

Separating athletics from academics would split conferences in odd ways. In the BIG: 1) there are schools that could thrive with professionalism...OSU, PSU, MSU, Iowa and UNL; 2) there are schools that would struggle even more than they currently do and could choose to step back...MN, NW, UMCP and Rutgers; 3) there are schools that could succeed by going professional, but will have philosophical concerns...MI and WI; and 4) there are schools that will be forced to decide about their commitment to athletics...IL, IN and Purdue. Many PAC and ACC schools would have similar or even more complex choices.

Precisely, and we agree on the different groupings. I think Michigan and Wisconsin particularly would be challenged on philosophical grounds. It would be interesting.

But you raised another facet I've already considered but did not mention because I wanted people to gradually see the direction before I bombarded them with the possibilities. But clearly there are schools which because of finances might opt not to pursue pay for play for football, but definitely would for basketball.

I think in these cases football would simply be dropped and that these schools might affiliate as non football members with those who do pursue pay for play for football, or they might form their own conferences around their mutual interest and seek inclusion in the Basketball play of the pay for play football schools.

So in reality you would have schools opting strictly for the "Amateur" model and then those option for the "Professional" model for revenue sports in general, and those who might opt for the "Professional" model for basketball and all other revenue sports, and in some cases those who might opt just for a "Professional" model for baseball, particularly on the West Coast.

But with athletics wholly separated from the academic associations all schools would be free to seek their own level of participation in either and to profit by those associations in all cases. It's truly a much more practical model than what we are trying to sustain now.

So Michigan and Wisconsin might choose along with California and U.C.L.A. to pursue a purely amateur model and Oregon, Washington, U.S.C. and Stanford might choose to go the "Professional" model all the way. Indiana, Purdue and Maryland might opt for hoops only as might other Big 10 schools like Illinois.

In such a world Penn State to the ACC with Notre Dame as full members is not so unlikely as some may assume, though the ACC may be without B.C. and Wake in such a world. Ohio State makes a great deal of sense in the SEC at that juncture as would Iowa and Nebraska in the Big 12.

This is why I see no more than maybe 48 schools opting all in for football on the "Professional" model, but could see those 48 and possibly that many more opting in for the "Professional" model in hoops. Baseball & Hockey would be interesting test cases.

Should pay for play come about, I would think the schools would all choose to be amateur in most sports. So there would be a split between football, basketball and maybe women's basketball from all other sports. Very few, if any, schools make money on baseball, hockey, gymnastics and volleyball. Not enough to have a pay for play division. And there are alternatives for the athletes who want to be professionals. Nobody makes money in any of the other sports. And things like track, golf and tennis have long had alternatives for those wishing to be professional. So I think they just say no on professionalism except for football and basketball.

Football and basketball are the only sports that create monetizable equity. There is no reason for a school like Ohio State or Penn State to not continue what they have spent decades to build. Loyal fan bases, ties to the university and community, outstanding facilities and a history competing at high levels. Other sports can remain amateur...but closer to the Ivy League, it will be harder to justify too many athletic scholarships in amateur sports. For this vision to work, you would need to find a sweet spot in terms of number of teams...at least 40 big time programs per sport; no more than 60 for football, no more than 80 for basketball.

**cuseroc** · 09-06-2020 06:17 PM

(09-06-2020 05:37 PM)pjm.2021 Wrote:
(09-06-2020 02:06 PM)jedclampett Wrote:
(09-06-2020 12:30 PM)cuseroc Wrote: Schools like Syracuse, Pitt, Miami, ND, FSU and Penn St (who is not on your list)...

Thanks for noting that FSU and Penn State (also BC) should be added to the lists.

Here are the updated lists:

Schools that have lost their power conference status through the years:

Cincy (Big East)

USF (Big East)

UConn (Big East)

Temple (Big East; re-admitted in 2012)

University of Chicago (Western Conference/Big Ten)

University of Michigan (Western Conference/Big Ten) (re-admitted in 1917)

Tulane (SEC)

Rice (SWC - former Power Conference)

Houston (SWC - former Power Conference)

SMU (SWC - former Power Conference)

Phillips (SWC - former Power Conference)

Southwestern (SWC - former Power Conference)

Sewanee (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

VMI (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

Washington & Lee (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

George Washington (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

Richmond (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

William & Mary (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

The Citadel (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

Davidson (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

Furman (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

Virginia (Southern Conference (1921-1937); admitted to ACC in 1953)

Georgia Tech (SEC 1933-1964; admitted to ACC in 1979)

Idaho (Pacific Coast Conference - original name of PAC)

Montana (Pacific Coast Conference - original name of PAC)

Washington State (PAC-8; re-admitted to PAC in 1962)

Oregon (PAC-8; re-admitted to PAC in 1964)

Oregon State (PAC-8; re-admitted to PAC in 1964)

Drake (Big 6 / Big-8)

Grinnell (Big 6 / Big-8)

Oklahoma State (1928 - Big 6; re-admitted to Big 8 in 1956)

Rice (SWC - former Power Conference)

Yale (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Harvard (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Princeton (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Penn (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Dartmouth (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Brown (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Columbia (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Cornell (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

.

Schools that have been been elevated to power conference status through the years:

SMU (1918-1996 - SWC)

Texas Tech (1956-1996 - SWC)

Houston (1972-1996 - SWC)

Virginia (Independent (1937-1953); admitted to ACC in 1953)

Georgia Tech (Independent (1964-1979); admitted to ACC in 1979)

Florida State (1991 - ACC)

Florida (1922 - Southern Conference)

LSU (1922 - Southern Conference)

Ole Miss (1922 - Southern Conference)

Tulane (1922 - Southern Conference)

Vanderbilt (1922 - Southern Conference)

South Carolina (1922 - Southern Conference)

Duke (1928 - Southern Conference)

Drake (1908 - Big 6 / Big-8)

Iowa State (1908 - Big 6 / Big-8)

Kansas State (1913 - Big 6 / Big-8)

Grinnell (1918 - Big 6 / Big-8)

Oklahoma (1919 - Big 6 / Big-8 / Big-12)

Oklahoma State (1925 (until 1928) - Big 6, and in 1956 - Big 8)

Colorado (1947 - Big 8 / Big-12)

TCU (2012 - Big 12)

Wake Forest (1936 - Southern Conference)

Ohio State (1912 - Big Ten Conference)

Michigan (1896 (until 1907) - Western Conference; and in 1917 - Big Ten)

MSU (1950 - Big Ten Conference)

Penn State (1993 - Big Ten Conference)

Syracuse (1979 (BB); 1991 (FB) - Big East)

Pittsburgh (1982 (BB); 1991 (FB) - Big East)

Boston College (1979 (BB); 1991 (FB) - Big East)

Miami (1991 - Big East)

West Virginia (1991 - Big East)

Rutgers (1991 - Big East)

Virginia Tech (1991 - Big East)

Temple (1991 & 2012 - Big East)

Notre Dame (1995 - Big East)

Connecticut (1979 (BB); 2004 (FB) - Big East)

Stanford (1918 - PCC (original name of PAC conference)

USC (1922 - PCC/PAC)

Idaho (1922 -PCC/PAC)

Montana (1922 -PCC/PAC)

UCLA (1928 - PAC 12)

Washington State (1917-1959; admitted to AAWU/PAC-8 in 1962)

Oregon (PCC 1915-1959; admitted to AAWU/PAC-8 in 1964)

Oregon State (PCC 1915-1959; admitted to AAWU/PAC-8 in 1964)

Arizona (1978 - PAC 10)

Arizona State (1978 - PAC 10)

Utah (2011 - PAC 12)

==========================================

(09-06-2020 12:30 PM)cuseroc Wrote: Schools like Syracuse, Pitt, Miami, ND, FSU and Penn St... have always enjoyed "power status" before there was a "power status" and won national championships as Eastern Indies. That was before it became a thing to join a conference.

This statement turns out to be inaccurate, or at least imprecise, because for most of the existence of their FB programs, those schools were not considered to have anything approaching perennial power status.

Take Miami, for example. Yes, they averaged 10+ wins in the decade before they were invited to join the Big East, but - - in 45 previous seasons (1936-1982) - - Miami had never played a 10+ win season, although they won 9 games twice (in 1945 and 1950).

Similarly, Penn State played as an independent for 78 years (1889-1967) before they had their first 10+ game season, although they did win 9 games in 1947, 1959, and 1962.

Syracuse differs from Miami and Penn State, in that their FB program not only took six decades (1899-1951) to achieve national recognition (becoming nationally ranked in the 1950s and 1960s), but then plunged back into relative obscurity and struggled for another two decades before joining the Big East, failing to win more than 7 games between 1968 and 1986. They played for six decades (1899-1951) before playing in their first bowl game and didn't win more than 9 games in a single season until 1959.

Notre Dame is the only school on your list that comes close to having "always enjoyed 'power status' before there was a 'power status' and won national championships as Eastern Indies." True, ND had four 10-win seasons before 1950, has had nationally-ranked teams all but 20 seasons since 1936, and has won 8 national championships, even they played for three decades (1899-1935) before attaining national recognition and only played in one bowl game between 1899 and 1967. In Notre Dame's case, if by "always" you meant "since 1936," then there is one school on your list that has "always enjoyed power status."

(09-06-2020 12:30 PM)cuseroc Wrote: Then the likes of Virginia Tech, WV, Temple, Rutgers, etc.. were also independents. Just because they joined a conference didnt elevate them to power status as they have always played for national championships and played in major bowls.

These four programs, like many of the other FB independents that had occasional bouts of glory, didn't "always" field teams that played for national championships before joining power conferences. In fact, they only played in a few bowl games and were only occasionally listed among the nation's ranked teams.

For example:

Virginia Tech: Although their team won 9 games in 1905 and 1983 and played in 6 bowl games (including a VT team with a 3-4-3 record that played in the 1936 Sun Bowl) between 1902 and 1990, VT finished in the AP Top 20 only twice (1954 & 1986), and did not have a single 10+ win season until after they joined the Big East

While I think it is great to use data to make a point, I think using 10+ win seasons when looking at historical data does not really work. For example, you said it took Penn State 78 years to have their first 10 win season. But unless my count is wrong, they only had 5 seasons before 1967 that even had more than 10 games (in 1912 they were undefeated but only played 8 games). I'm not saying your point is wrong, I just think the data used to make your analysis is missing some key information.

That is a great point. Hard to have a 10 game season when the teams were only playing 7-9 games most seasons. The same applies to bowl games, as there were only a handful of bowls for many years. Even teams who were bowl eligible didnt get to play in bowls because there were only a few bowls. Exactly opposite of the glutton of bowls that we have today.

CrazyPaco · 09-06-2020 10:08 PM

(09-06-2020 06:17 PM)cuseroc Wrote:
(09-06-2020 05:37 PM)pjm.2021 Wrote:
(09-06-2020 02:06 PM)jedclampett Wrote:
(09-06-2020 12:30 PM)cuseroc Wrote: Schools like Syracuse, Pitt, Miami, ND, FSU and Penn St (who is not on your list)...

Thanks for noting that FSU and Penn State (also BC) should be added to the lists.

Here are the updated lists:

Schools that have lost their power conference status through the years:

Cincy (Big East)

USF (Big East)

UConn (Big East)

Temple (Big East; re-admitted in 2012)

University of Chicago (Western Conference/Big Ten)

University of Michigan (Western Conference/Big Ten) (re-admitted in 1917)

Tulane (SEC)

Rice (SWC - former Power Conference)

Houston (SWC - former Power Conference)

SMU (SWC - former Power Conference)

Phillips (SWC - former Power Conference)

Southwestern (SWC - former Power Conference)

Sewanee (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

VMI (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

Washington & Lee (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

George Washington (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

Richmond (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

William & Mary (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

The Citadel (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

Davidson (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

Furman (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

Virginia (Southern Conference (1921-1937); admitted to ACC in 1953)

Georgia Tech (SEC 1933-1964; admitted to ACC in 1979)

Idaho (Pacific Coast Conference - original name of PAC)

Montana (Pacific Coast Conference - original name of PAC)

Washington State (PAC-8; re-admitted to PAC in 1962)

Oregon (PAC-8; re-admitted to PAC in 1964)

Oregon State (PAC-8; re-admitted to PAC in 1964)

Drake (Big 6 / Big-8)

Grinnell (Big 6 / Big-8)

Oklahoma State (1928 - Big 6; re-admitted to Big 8 in 1956)

Rice (SWC - former Power Conference)

Yale (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Harvard (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Princeton (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Penn (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Dartmouth (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Brown (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Columbia (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Cornell (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

.

Schools that have been been elevated to power conference status through the years:

SMU (1918-1996 - SWC)

Texas Tech (1956-1996 - SWC)

Houston (1972-1996 - SWC)

Virginia (Independent (1937-1953); admitted to ACC in 1953)

Georgia Tech (Independent (1964-1979); admitted to ACC in 1979)

Florida State (1991 - ACC)

Florida (1922 - Southern Conference)

LSU (1922 - Southern Conference)

Ole Miss (1922 - Southern Conference)

Tulane (1922 - Southern Conference)

Vanderbilt (1922 - Southern Conference)

South Carolina (1922 - Southern Conference)

Duke (1928 - Southern Conference)

Drake (1908 - Big 6 / Big-8)

Iowa State (1908 - Big 6 / Big-8)

Kansas State (1913 - Big 6 / Big-8)

Grinnell (1918 - Big 6 / Big-8)

Oklahoma (1919 - Big 6 / Big-8 / Big-12)

Oklahoma State (1925 (until 1928) - Big 6, and in 1956 - Big 8)

Colorado (1947 - Big 8 / Big-12)

TCU (2012 - Big 12)

Wake Forest (1936 - Southern Conference)

Ohio State (1912 - Big Ten Conference)

Michigan (1896 (until 1907) - Western Conference; and in 1917 - Big Ten)

MSU (1950 - Big Ten Conference)

Penn State (1993 - Big Ten Conference)

Syracuse (1979 (BB); 1991 (FB) - Big East)

Pittsburgh (1982 (BB); 1991 (FB) - Big East)

Boston College (1979 (BB); 1991 (FB) - Big East)

Miami (1991 - Big East)

West Virginia (1991 - Big East)

Rutgers (1991 - Big East)

Virginia Tech (1991 - Big East)

Temple (1991 & 2012 - Big East)

Notre Dame (1995 - Big East)

Connecticut (1979 (BB); 2004 (FB) - Big East)

Stanford (1918 - PCC (original name of PAC conference)

USC (1922 - PCC/PAC)

Idaho (1922 -PCC/PAC)

Montana (1922 -PCC/PAC)

UCLA (1928 - PAC 12)

Washington State (1917-1959; admitted to AAWU/PAC-8 in 1962)

Oregon (PCC 1915-1959; admitted to AAWU/PAC-8 in 1964)

Oregon State (PCC 1915-1959; admitted to AAWU/PAC-8 in 1964)

Arizona (1978 - PAC 10)

Arizona State (1978 - PAC 10)

Utah (2011 - PAC 12)

==========================================

(09-06-2020 12:30 PM)cuseroc Wrote: Schools like Syracuse, Pitt, Miami, ND, FSU and Penn St... have always enjoyed "power status" before there was a "power status" and won national championships as Eastern Indies. That was before it became a thing to join a conference.

This statement turns out to be inaccurate, or at least imprecise, because for most of the existence of their FB programs, those schools were not considered to have anything approaching perennial power status.

Take Miami, for example. Yes, they averaged 10+ wins in the decade before they were invited to join the Big East, but - - in 45 previous seasons (1936-1982) - - Miami had never played a 10+ win season, although they won 9 games twice (in 1945 and 1950).

Similarly, Penn State played as an independent for 78 years (1889-1967) before they had their first 10+ game season, although they did win 9 games in 1947, 1959, and 1962.

Syracuse differs from Miami and Penn State, in that their FB program not only took six decades (1899-1951) to achieve national recognition (becoming nationally ranked in the 1950s and 1960s), but then plunged back into relative obscurity and struggled for another two decades before joining the Big East, failing to win more than 7 games between 1968 and 1986. They played for six decades (1899-1951) before playing in their first bowl game and didn't win more than 9 games in a single season until 1959.

Notre Dame is the only school on your list that comes close to having "always enjoyed 'power status' before there was a 'power status' and won national championships as Eastern Indies." True, ND had four 10-win seasons before 1950, has had nationally-ranked teams all but 20 seasons since 1936, and has won 8 national championships, even they played for three decades (1899-1935) before attaining national recognition and only played in one bowl game between 1899 and 1967. In Notre Dame's case, if by "always" you meant "since 1936," then there is one school on your list that has "always enjoyed power status."

(09-06-2020 12:30 PM)cuseroc Wrote: Then the likes of Virginia Tech, WV, Temple, Rutgers, etc.. were also independents. Just because they joined a conference didnt elevate them to power status as they have always played for national championships and played in major bowls.

These four programs, like many of the other FB independents that had occasional bouts of glory, didn't "always" field teams that played for national championships before joining power conferences. In fact, they only played in a few bowl games and were only occasionally listed among the nation's ranked teams.

For example:

Virginia Tech: Although their team won 9 games in 1905 and 1983 and played in 6 bowl games (including a VT team with a 3-4-3 record that played in the 1936 Sun Bowl) between 1902 and 1990, VT finished in the AP Top 20 only twice (1954 & 1986), and did not have a single 10+ win season until after they joined the Big East

While I think it is great to use data to make a point, I think using 10+ win seasons when looking at historical data does not really work. For example, you said it took Penn State 78 years to have their first 10 win season. But unless my count is wrong, they only had 5 seasons before 1967 that even had more than 10 games (in 1912 they were undefeated but only played 8 games). I'm not saying your point is wrong, I just think the data used to make your analysis is missing some key information.

That is a great point. Hard to have a 10 game season when the teams were only playing 7-9 games most seasons. The same applies to bowl games, as there were only a handful of bowls for many years. Even teams who were bowl eligible didnt get to play in bowls because there were only a few bowls. Exactly opposite of the glutton of bowls that we have today.

Historically, the eastern independents were original major power programs. Many programs voluntarily stepped down around, like the Ivies, Fordham, and Carnegie Tech, at or just after WWII, while others like Syracuse, Pitt, and PSU carried on, continuously through their history, as major national programs, despite inevitable peaks and valleys most programs face. To suggest otherwise is to be utterly unfamiliar with the history of college football.

BearcatJerry · 09-06-2020 10:48 PM

Jesus...

GTS really needs to put a maximum character limit on posts.

quo vadis · 09-07-2020 07:34 AM

(09-06-2020 12:30 PM)cuseroc Wrote:
(09-06-2020 11:35 AM)jedclampett Wrote:
(09-06-2020 07:33 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:
(09-04-2020 12:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:
This makes sense in theory, but let's think about it . If we look back the last 15 years or so, how many schools that were not power in say 2004 became power?

USF**
Cincy**
Louisville
TCU
Utah

Maybe I'm forgetting someone but oh well.

First, that's a short list, so it doesn't happen often. Second, two of those schools, Cincy and USF, lost "P" status, are no longer power.

But most importantly, four of the five schools did not become power via just building themselves up to attractiveness for the P5. Rather, they were chosen in desperation after a Power conference was raided by somebody else. So that seems to be the most likely path from G to P.

And raids are still possible, particularly in say 2024 - 2025 when the PAC and Big 12 TV deals are up for renewal, and the CFP is being renegotiated. If raids occur, then a P5 conference might be forced by sheer numbers to backfill with some G5, even if this means diluting the value of TV. The Big 12, for example, really can't afford to drop below its current 10 members.

So I think a two-step process of P5 raids followed by backfill could be an avenue for a couple G5 to be skimmed.

I guess we shall see.

The other two I would note as having and later losung losing power status are Temple (who had power status through 2003, didn't 2004-2011, regained it in the return to the Big East in 2012, and lost it again in 2014) and UConn (who lacked power status in football until 2004, then lost it in 2014).

Your point remains that there is very little change in who is a member of the Power club in college football.

.

There has actually been a great deal more change than you have suggested in who is a member of the "power club" in college football:

Schools that have lost their power conference status through the years:

Cincy (Big East)

USF (Big East)

UConn (Big East)

Temple (Big East)

University of Chicago (Big Ten)

Tulane (SEC)

Rice (SWC - former Power Conference)

Houston (SWC - former Power Conference)

SMU (SWC - former Power Conference)

Phillips (SWC - former Power Conference)

Southwestern (SWC - former Power Conference)

Sewanee (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

VMI (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

Washington & Lee (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

George Washington (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

Richmond (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

William & Mary (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

The Citadel (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

Davidson (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

Furman (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

Idaho (Pacific Coast Conference - original name of PAC)

Montana (Pacific Coast Conference - original name of PAC)

Washington State (PAC-8; re-admitted to PAC in 1962)

Oregon (PAC-8; re-admitted to PAC in 1964)

Oregon State (PAC-8; re-admitted to PAC in 1964)

Drake (Big 6 / Big-8)

Grinnell (Big 6 / Big-8)

Oklahoma State (1928 - Big 6; re-admitted to Big 8 in 1956)

Rice (SWC - former Power Conference)

Yale (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Harvard (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Princeton (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Penn (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Dartmouth (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Brown (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Columbia (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Cornell (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

.

Schools that have been elevated to power status through the years:

TCU (1923 - SWC and 2012 - Big 12)

SMU (1918 - SWC)

Texas Tech (1956 - SWC)

Houston (1972 - SWC)

Florida (1922 - Southern Conference)

LSU (1922 - Southern Conference)

Ole Miss (1922 - Southern Conference)

Tulane (1922 - Southern Conference)

Vanderbilt (1922 - Southern Conference)

South Carolina (1922 - Southern Conference)

Duke (1928 - Southern Conference)

Drake (1908 - Big 6 / Big-8)

Iowa State (1908 - Big 6 / Big-8)

Kansas State (1913 - Big 6 / Big-8)

Grinnell (1918 - Big 6 / Big-8)

Oklahoma (1919 - Big 6 / Big-8 / Big-12)

Oklahoma State (1925 (until 1928) - Big 6, and in 1956 - Big 8)

Colorado (1947 - Big 8 / Big-12)

TCU (2012 - Big 12)

Wake Forest (1936 - Southern Conference)

Ohio State (1912 - Big Ten Conference)

MSU (1950 - Big Ten Conference)

Syracuse (1979 (BB); 1991 (FB) - Big East)

Pittsburgh (1982 (BB); 1991 (FB) - Big East)

Miami (1991 - Big East)

West Virginia (1991 - Big East)

Rutgers (1991 - Big East)

Virginia Tech (1991 - Big East)

Temple (1991 & 2012 - Big East)

Notre Dame (1995 - Big East)

Connecticut (1979 (BB); 2004 (FB) - Big East)

Stanford (1918 - PCC (original name of PAC conference)

USC (1922 - PCC/PAC)

Idaho (1922 -PCC/PAC)

Montana (1922 -PCC/PAC)

UCLA (1928 - PAC 12)

Washington State (1917-1959; admitted to AAWU/PAC-8 in 1962)

Oregon (PCC 1915-1959; admitted to AAWU/PAC-8 in 1964)

Oregon State (PCC 1915-1959; admitted to AAWU/PAC-8 in 1964)

Arizona (1978 - PAC 10)

Arizona State (1978 - PAC 10)

Utah (2011 - PAC 12)

Schools like Syracuse, Pitt, Miami, ND, FSU and Penn St (who is not on your list) have always enjoyed "power status" before there was a "power status" and won national championships as Eastern Indies. That was before it became a thing to join a conference. Then the likes of Virginia Tech, WV, Temple, Rutgers, etc.. were also independents. Just because they joined a conference didnt elevate them to power status as they have always played for national championships and played in major bowls. Not sure how they were elevated when they joined a conference. Seems like they (SU, Pitt, Miami, FSU, Penn St) helped to elevate the conferences that they joined rather than the other way around.

When I started watching football in the 1970s, schools like Miami and FSU were definitely not "power" status. They are great examples of schools that built themselves up to power status in the 1980s by winning. VT, WV, Rutgers and Temple were also not power-level back then either.

So IMO, your description applies to ND, PS, Syracuse, schools that had a history of power-level status as independents that pre-dated the 1980s.

**cuseroc** · 09-07-2020 09:08 AM

(09-07-2020 07:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:
(09-06-2020 12:30 PM)cuseroc Wrote:
(09-06-2020 11:35 AM)jedclampett Wrote:
(09-06-2020 07:33 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:
(09-04-2020 12:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:
This makes sense in theory, but let's think about it . If we look back the last 15 years or so, how many schools that were not power in say 2004 became power?

USF**
Cincy**
Louisville
TCU
Utah

Maybe I'm forgetting someone but oh well.

First, that's a short list, so it doesn't happen often. Second, two of those schools, Cincy and USF, lost "P" status, are no longer power.

But most importantly, four of the five schools did not become power via just building themselves up to attractiveness for the P5. Rather, they were chosen in desperation after a Power conference was raided by somebody else. So that seems to be the most likely path from G to P.

And raids are still possible, particularly in say 2024 - 2025 when the PAC and Big 12 TV deals are up for renewal, and the CFP is being renegotiated. If raids occur, then a P5 conference might be forced by sheer numbers to backfill with some G5, even if this means diluting the value of TV. The Big 12, for example, really can't afford to drop below its current 10 members.

So I think a two-step process of P5 raids followed by backfill could be an avenue for a couple G5 to be skimmed.

I guess we shall see.

The other two I would note as having and later losung losing power status are Temple (who had power status through 2003, didn't 2004-2011, regained it in the return to the Big East in 2012, and lost it again in 2014) and UConn (who lacked power status in football until 2004, then lost it in 2014).

Your point remains that there is very little change in who is a member of the Power club in college football.

.

There has actually been a great deal more change than you have suggested in who is a member of the "power club" in college football:

Schools that have lost their power conference status through the years:

Cincy (Big East)

USF (Big East)

UConn (Big East)

Temple (Big East)

University of Chicago (Big Ten)

Tulane (SEC)

Rice (SWC - former Power Conference)

Houston (SWC - former Power Conference)

SMU (SWC - former Power Conference)

Phillips (SWC - former Power Conference)

Southwestern (SWC - former Power Conference)

Sewanee (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

VMI (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

Washington & Lee (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

George Washington (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

Richmond (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

William & Mary (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

The Citadel (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

Davidson (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

Furman (Southern Conference - former Power Conference)

Idaho (Pacific Coast Conference - original name of PAC)

Montana (Pacific Coast Conference - original name of PAC)

Washington State (PAC-8; re-admitted to PAC in 1962)

Oregon (PAC-8; re-admitted to PAC in 1964)

Oregon State (PAC-8; re-admitted to PAC in 1964)

Drake (Big 6 / Big-8)

Grinnell (Big 6 / Big-8)

Oklahoma State (1928 - Big 6; re-admitted to Big 8 in 1956)

Rice (SWC - former Power Conference)

Yale (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Harvard (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Princeton (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Penn (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Dartmouth (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Brown (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Columbia (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

Cornell (Ivy League - former Power Conference)

.

Schools that have been elevated to power status through the years:

TCU (1923 - SWC and 2012 - Big 12)

SMU (1918 - SWC)

Texas Tech (1956 - SWC)

Houston (1972 - SWC)

Florida (1922 - Southern Conference)

LSU (1922 - Southern Conference)

Ole Miss (1922 - Southern Conference)

Tulane (1922 - Southern Conference)

Vanderbilt (1922 - Southern Conference)

South Carolina (1922 - Southern Conference)

Duke (1928 - Southern Conference)

Drake (1908 - Big 6 / Big-8)

Iowa State (1908 - Big 6 / Big-8)

Kansas State (1913 - Big 6 / Big-8)

Grinnell (1918 - Big 6 / Big-8)

Oklahoma (1919 - Big 6 / Big-8 / Big-12)

Oklahoma State (1925 (until 1928) - Big 6, and in 1956 - Big 8)

Colorado (1947 - Big 8 / Big-12)

TCU (2012 - Big 12)

Wake Forest (1936 - Southern Conference)

Ohio State (1912 - Big Ten Conference)

MSU (1950 - Big Ten Conference)

Syracuse (1979 (BB); 1991 (FB) - Big East)

Pittsburgh (1982 (BB); 1991 (FB) - Big East)

Miami (1991 - Big East)

West Virginia (1991 - Big East)

Rutgers (1991 - Big East)

Virginia Tech (1991 - Big East)

Temple (1991 & 2012 - Big East)

Notre Dame (1995 - Big East)

Connecticut (1979 (BB); 2004 (FB) - Big East)

Stanford (1918 - PCC (original name of PAC conference)

USC (1922 - PCC/PAC)

Idaho (1922 -PCC/PAC)

Montana (1922 -PCC/PAC)

UCLA (1928 - PAC 12)

Washington State (1917-1959; admitted to AAWU/PAC-8 in 1962)

Oregon (PCC 1915-1959; admitted to AAWU/PAC-8 in 1964)

Oregon State (PCC 1915-1959; admitted to AAWU/PAC-8 in 1964)

Arizona (1978 - PAC 10)

Arizona State (1978 - PAC 10)

Utah (2011 - PAC 12)

Schools like Syracuse, Pitt, Miami, ND, FSU and Penn St (who is not on your list) have always enjoyed "power status" before there was a "power status" and won national championships as Eastern Indies. That was before it became a thing to join a conference. Then the likes of Virginia Tech, WV, Temple, Rutgers, etc.. were also independents. Just because they joined a conference didnt elevate them to power status as they have always played for national championships and played in major bowls. Not sure how they were elevated when they joined a conference. Seems like they (SU, Pitt, Miami, FSU, Penn St) helped to elevate the conferences that they joined rather than the other way around.

When I started watching football in the 1970s, schools like Miami and FSU were definitely not "power" status. They are great examples of schools that built themselves up to power status in the 1980s by winning. VT, WV, Rutgers and Temple were also not power-level back then either.

So IMO, your description applies to ND, PS, Syracuse, schools that had a history of power-level status as independents that pre-dated the 1980s.

The whole point is that FSU and Miami, and SU and Pitt and Penn St. etc... were not elevated to power status when they joined their respective conferences. They were already at a "power status." You and I both were both alive and in our mid 20's when all this shuffling took place. There was no elevation for those schools. They simply joined a conference after spending their histories as independents and immediately made their conference of choice much better. And those conferences were ecstatic to have them.

quo vadis · 09-07-2020 09:14 AM

(09-07-2020 09:08 AM)cuseroc Wrote: The whole point is that FSU and Miami, and SU and Pitt and Penn St. etc... were not elevated to power status when they joined their respective conferences. They were already at a "power status." You and I both were both alive and in our mid 20's when all this shuffling took place. There was no elevation for those schools. They simply joined a conference after spending their histories as independents and immediately made their conference of choice much better. And those conferences were ecstatic to have them.

No question - heck Miami and FSU were critical to the "power" perceptions of the Big East and ACC at the time. Circa 1990, they brought much more "power cachet" to those conferences than the conferences did for them. They were invited to boost the football status of the conferences, not vice-versa.

Michael in Raleigh · 09-07-2020 09:18 AM

I think what people seem to be forgetting is that winning alone does not make a school a "power" school or not. At various points in their histories, Oregon State, Oregon, Washington State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, TCU, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Wake Forest, Duke, and several others had long stretches of losing seasons. Sometimes winless seasons. They were nonetheless part of the power group. The same applies to former independents like Syracuse and others: power-type schools whether they were winning or not.

quo vadis · 09-07-2020 09:37 AM

(09-07-2020 09:18 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote: I think what people seem to be forgetting is that winning alone does not make a school a "power" school or not. At various points in their histories, Oregon State, Oregon, Washington State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, TCU, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Wake Forest, Duke, and several others had long stretches of losing seasons. Sometimes winless seasons. They were nonetheless part of the power group. The same applies to former independents like Syracuse and others: power-type schools whether they were winning or not.

Times have changed. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, conference membership didn't cast a halo of power over member schools like it does now. IOW's, back then a school could be in a top-tier league but still not have a power-shine attached to them.

E.g., circa 1984, if a Notre Dame or Ohio State played a team like Wake Forest or Washington State, that was regarded as cream-puff scheduling. Nowadays, even if WF and WST are lousy, that is regarded as "big-boy P5 OOC scheduling". Since the early 1990s, with the inauguration of the various Bowl Coalition/BCS/CFP schemes, conferences are far more impactful in terms of determining the status of member schools. These days, if you are in a P5 conference, you are regarded as "power" by definition. That was not the case 30+ years ago. It's a result of the growing power of the major conferences as they gathered the reins of control over media money and the like, which flowed out of the 1984 SCOTUS decision that took it away from the NCAA.

**JRsec** · 09-07-2020 10:13 AM

(09-07-2020 09:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:
(09-07-2020 09:18 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote: I think what people seem to be forgetting is that winning alone does not make a school a "power" school or not. At various points in their histories, Oregon State, Oregon, Washington State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, TCU, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Wake Forest, Duke, and several others had long stretches of losing seasons. Sometimes winless seasons. They were nonetheless part of the power group. The same applies to former independents like Syracuse and others: power-type schools whether they were winning or not.

Times have changed. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, conference membership didn't cast a halo of power over member schools like it does now. IOW's, back then a school could be in a top-tier league but still not have a power-shine attached to them.

E.g., circa 1984, if a Notre Dame or Ohio State played a team like Wake Forest or Washington State, that was regarded as cream-puff scheduling. Nowadays, even if WF and WST are lousy, that is regarded as "big-boy P5 OOC scheduling". Since the early 1990s, with the inauguration of the various Bowl Coalition/BCS/CFP schemes, conferences are far more impactful in terms of determining the status of member schools. These days, if you are in a P5 conference, you are regarded as "power" by definition. That was not the case 30+ years ago. It's a result of the growing power of the major conferences as they gathered the reins of control over media money and the like, which flowed out of the 1984 SCOTUS decision that took it away from the NCAA.

Revenue sharing is largely responsible for this. I don't think it changed the pecking order but it changed the investment level in athletics for the weaker programs in conferences and altered the perception based upon money.

In the 70's everyone's athletic department was cash poor on what we now call media money because the NCAA handled it all and Title IX wasn't that old and AD's were still adjusting and sports were being cut.

After OU/UGa vs the NCAA the media money for football started growing and TV companies wanted rights packages so revenue sharing became a means of maximizing revenue. Schools like Alabama and Florida and Michigan and Ohio State were among the first to see more revenue by sharing all rights equally than were Texas & USC.

I believe these kinds of actions are what elevated the Vanderbilts, Northwesterns, and Wake Forests of the world as it separated them from the Southern Miss, Houston, and Memphis programs by a degree leaving the academic profiles as the distinguishing marks of separation.

bill dazzle · 09-07-2020 10:38 AM

Some good points here. With Vanderbilt and Memphis as my two favorites college football/basketball combo programs, I have directly witnessed how the "power football" dynamic has played out over the past 50 years or so. I saw my first game in the Liberty Bowl in 1968. In the 1970s and 1980s, the then-independent Memphis Tiger football program could draw up to 35,000 for home games against, for example, Florida State, North Carolina, Louisville, Virginia Tech, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, etc. Memphis was every bit as "power" as was Vanderbilt during that era in terms of attendance, wins, sending players to the NFL, etc.

By the mid-1990s, the dynamic was changing and "power" in college football would soon start to be defined differently. Today, and as we know, "power" in football is about 95 percent defined by resources and league affiliation (and not results). Vanderbilt unfairly (and even somewhat undeservedly) benefits from this, while Memphis is "penalized" by it.

bullet · 09-07-2020 08:20 PM

Schools like Syracuse, Pitt, Miami, ND, FSU and Penn St (who is not on your list) have always enjoyed "power status" before there was a "power status" and won national championships as Eastern Indies. That was before it became a thing to join a conference. Then the likes of Virginia Tech, WV, Temple, Rutgers, etc.. were also independents. Just because they joined a conference didnt elevate them to power status as they have always played for national championships and played in major bowls. Not sure how they were elevated when they joined a conference. Seems like they (SU, Pitt, Miami, FSU, Penn St) helped to elevate the conferences that they joined rather than the other way around.
[/quote]

When I started watching football in the 1970s, schools like Miami and FSU were definitely not "power" status. They are great examples of schools that built themselves up to power status in the 1980s by winning. VT, WV, Rutgers and Temple were also not power-level back then either.

So IMO, your description applies to ND, PS, Syracuse, schools that had a history of power-level status as independents that pre-dated the 1980s.
[/quote]

Agreed. Miami and FSU were more like Louisville and Tulsa than the Big 10/SEC/SWC/Pac 10 schools. Miami seriously considered dropping football in the 70s.

jedclampett · 09-07-2020 09:36 PM

(09-07-2020 09:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:
(09-07-2020 09:18 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote: I think what people seem to be forgetting is that winning alone does not make a school a "power" school or not. At various points in their histories, Oregon State, Oregon, Washington State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, TCU, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Wake Forest, Duke, and several others had long stretches of losing seasons. Sometimes winless seasons. They were nonetheless part of the power group. The same applies to former independents like Syracuse and others: power-type schools whether they were winning or not.

Times have changed. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, conference membership didn't cast a halo of power over member schools like it does now. IOW's, back then a school could be in a top-tier league but still not have a power-shine attached to them.

E.g., circa 1984, if a Notre Dame or Ohio State played a team like Wake Forest or Washington State, that was regarded as cream-puff scheduling. Nowadays, even if WF and WST are lousy, that is regarded as "big-boy P5 OOC scheduling". Since the early 1990s, with the inauguration of the various Bowl Coalition/BCS/CFP schemes, conferences are far more impactful in terms of determining the status of member schools. These days, if you are in a P5 conference, you are regarded as "power" by definition. That was not the case 30+ years ago. It's a result of the growing power of the major conferences as they gathered the reins of control over media money and the like, which flowed out of the 1984 SCOTUS decision that took it away from the NCAA.

Good points, Michael and Quo.

Another way to phrase it is that the term "power" used to be applied to programs, rather than conferences, and a program's "power status" wasn't permanent, but variable, depending on the performances and average rankings of their teams.

Today, in contrast, the term "power" is applied to conferences, rather than programs, and a program's "power status" is not affected by the performances or average rankings of their teams.

Q: What does this tell us about the use of the term "power" in college sports?

A: It tells us that the term "power" has become conflated with conference membership to such an extent that it's no longer a descriptive way to refer to the recent performance or ranking of a NCAA program.

Rather than clarifying the relative position of a program in the national rankings, the term "power school" now obscures the program's ranking, and suggests - - incorrectly - - that a "power school" program tends to be highly ranked.

.

The time has probably come when the use of the term "power," as applied to NCAA teams and conferences is no longer descriptive of anything except conference membership.

Therefore, the term "power" when referring to college programs has outlasted its usefulness. To minimize confusion, it might be most apt to start using the term (P5), as in "P5 teams," rather than referring to them as "power schools" or "power teams."

TexanMark · 09-07-2020 10:03 PM

Syracuse didn't have the success of most Ivy's, West Point and Pitt back in the early 1900s but they weren't slouches.

They played in one of the best stadiums at the time. [Image: su-archbold-stadium-da963ff1461fe751.jpg]

[Image: su-archbold-stadium-da963ff1461fe751.jpg]

They had a Rose Bowl invite after the 1915 season but turned it down because they already went out west that season and played 3 games in late Nov/early Dec.

bill dazzle · 09-07-2020 10:11 PM

(09-07-2020 09:36 PM)jedclampett Wrote:
(09-07-2020 09:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:
(09-07-2020 09:18 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote: I think what people seem to be forgetting is that winning alone does not make a school a "power" school or not. At various points in their histories, Oregon State, Oregon, Washington State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, TCU, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Wake Forest, Duke, and several others had long stretches of losing seasons. Sometimes winless seasons. They were nonetheless part of the power group. The same applies to former independents like Syracuse and others: power-type schools whether they were winning or not.

Times have changed. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, conference membership didn't cast a halo of power over member schools like it does now. IOW's, back then a school could be in a top-tier league but still not have a power-shine attached to them.

E.g., circa 1984, if a Notre Dame or Ohio State played a team like Wake Forest or Washington State, that was regarded as cream-puff scheduling. Nowadays, even if WF and WST are lousy, that is regarded as "big-boy P5 OOC scheduling". Since the early 1990s, with the inauguration of the various Bowl Coalition/BCS/CFP schemes, conferences are far more impactful in terms of determining the status of member schools. These days, if you are in a P5 conference, you are regarded as "power" by definition. That was not the case 30+ years ago. It's a result of the growing power of the major conferences as they gathered the reins of control over media money and the like, which flowed out of the 1984 SCOTUS decision that took it away from the NCAA.

Good points, Michael and Quo.

Another way to phrase it is that the term "power" used to be applied to programs, rather than conferences, and a program's "power status" wasn't permanent, but variable, depending on the performances and average rankings of their teams.

Today, in contrast, the term "power" is applied to conferences, rather than programs, and a program's "power status" is not affected by the performances or average rankings of their teams.

Q: What does this tell us about the use of the term "power" in college sports?

A: It tells us that the term "power" has become conflated with conference membership to such an extent that it's no longer a descriptive way to refer to the recent performance or ranking of a NCAA program.

Rather than clarifying the relative position of a program in the national rankings, the term "power school" now obscures the program's ranking, and suggests - - incorrectly - - that a "power school" program tends to be highly ranked.

.

The time has probably come when the use of the term "power," as applied to NCAA teams and conferences is no longer descriptive of anything except conference membership.

Therefore, the term "power" when referring to college programs has outlasted its usefulness. To minimize confusion, it might be most apt to start using the term (P5), as in "P5 teams," rather than referring to them as "power schools" or "power teams."

I agree with your points overall, Jed. Well put.

Before the "power" label arose in football and (to an extent) in hoops, Memphis and Cincinnati (and your Temple Owls) in basketball were "power" — and league affiliation (or lack thereof in Temple's case) did not matter. Memphis reached the NIT finals in 1957 (the NIT was as big as the NCAA at that point) and Cincy won the NCAA championship in 1961 and 1962.

I still consider Cincy, Memphis and Temple "high-major programs" in basketball on the level of all other programs in the nation notwithstanding, of course, those at Duke, UNC, Indiana, UCLA, Kentucky, Kansas, Syracuse, Villanova and Louisville. But because of the American affiliation, UC, UM and TU get "penalized" by some folks.

As a DePaul fan also, I recall quite well the days the Blue Demon program was also unfairly labeled due to league affiliation (i.e., The Great Midwest and C-USA).

I have always "graded" programs (football and basketball) by their individual achievements, resources, fan bases, players sent to the pros, coaches, etc. — as opposed to their league affiliation. To be blunt, I seem to be in the minority.

jedclampett · 09-07-2020 11:07 PM

(09-07-2020 09:08 AM)cuseroc Wrote:
(09-07-2020 07:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote: When I started watching football in the 1970s, schools like Miami and FSU were definitely not "power" status. They are great examples of schools that built themselves up to power status in the 1980s by winning. VT, WV, Rutgers and Temple were also not power-level back then either.

The whole point is that FSU and Miami, and SU and Pitt and Penn St. etc... were not elevated to power status when they joined their respective conferences. They were already at a "power status."

That seems pretty accurate, if by achieving prior "power status" you mean finishing most of the seasons in the decade with 10+ wins, or in the AP top 25, before they joined a power conference.

Did all of those schools meet that definition? No.

Neither Syracuse nor Pitt were able to mount more than two 9+ win seasons or in the preceding decade, and they only finished in the top 25 in two (Syracuse) or four (Pitt) seasons before joining the Big East.

Syracuse (joined Big East (FB) in 1991) average wins per season: 6.6

1990 7-4-2 (not ranked)
1989 8-4 (not ranked in final AP top 25)
1988 10-2 (#13)
1987 11-0-1 (#4)
1986 5-6 (not ranked)
1985 7-5 (not ranked)
1984 6-5 (not ranked)
1983 6-5 (not ranked)
1982 2-9 (not ranked)
1981 4-6-1 (not ranked)

.
Pitt (joined Big East (FB) in 1991) average wins per season: 6.6

1990 3-7-1 (not ranked)
1989 8-3-1 (#17)
1988 6-5 (not ranked)
1987 8-4 (not ranked)
1986 5-5 (not ranked)
1985 5-5 (not ranked)
1984 3-7-1 (not ranked)
1983 8-3-1 (#18)
1982 9-3 (#10)
1981 11-1 (#4)

.

Let's compare those records with those of UCF and Boise State over the past decade:

UCF: average wins per season: 8.8

2019 10-3 (#24)
2018 12-1 (#11)
2017 13-0 (#6)
2016 6-7 (not ranked)
2015 0-12 (not ranked)
2014 9-4 (not ranked)
2013 12-1 (#10)
2012 10-4 (not ranked)
2011 5-7 (#25)
2010 11-3 (#21)

Boise State: average wins per season: 10.7

2019 12-2 (#23)
2018 10-3 (#23)
2017 11-3 (#22)
2016 10-3 (not ranked)
2015 9-4 (not ranked)
2014 12-2 (#16)
2013 8-5 (not ranked)
2012 11-2 (#18)
2011 12-1 (#8)
2010 12-1 (#9)

.

SUMMARY:

Neither Syracuse nor Pitt were able to win 10+ games or to finish in the final AP top 25 in half of the seasons in the decade before they joined P5 conferences.

In comparison, both UCF and Boise State have won 10+ games and finished in the final AP top 25 in more than half of the past ten seasons.

CONCLUSIONS:

It is doubtful whether Syracuse and Pitt - - having averaged only 6.6 wins and 3 AP Final Top 25 rankings per season - - can be accurately described as "power schools" throughout the decade before they were admitted to P5 conferences.

A much stronger case can be made that UCF and Boise State - - having averaged 9.75 wins and 6.5 AP Final Top 25 rankings per season - - have been "power schools" in the past decade.

Very few programs (ND, Penn State, FSU, & Miami) were ranked in the Final AP top 25 more than half of the seasons in the decade before they were admitted to P5 conferences. Most of the schools that were admitted to P5 conferences, such as Rutgers, Maryland, BC, Utah, Syracuse, VT, and Pitt didn't meet that criterion.

IWokeUpLikeThis · 09-07-2020 11:14 PM

(09-07-2020 10:03 PM)TexanMark Wrote: Syracuse didn't have the success of most Ivy's, West Point and Pitt back in the early 1900s but they weren't slouches.

They played in one of the best stadiums at the time.
They had a Rose Bowl invite after the 1915 season but turned it down because they already went out west that season and played 3 games in late Nov/early Dec.

Archbold’s architecture and scenery look majestic. Hidden treasure.

**cuseroc** · 09-07-2020 11:43 PM

(09-07-2020 11:07 PM)jedclampett Wrote:
(09-07-2020 09:08 AM)cuseroc Wrote:
(09-07-2020 07:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote: When I started watching football in the 1970s, schools like Miami and FSU were definitely not "power" status. They are great examples of schools that built themselves up to power status in the 1980s by winning. VT, WV, Rutgers and Temple were also not power-level back then either.

The whole point is that FSU and Miami, and SU and Pitt and Penn St. etc... were not elevated to power status when they joined their respective conferences. They were already at a "power status."

That seems pretty accurate, if by achieving prior "power status" you mean finishing most of the seasons in the decade with 10+ wins, or in the AP top 25, before they joined a power conference.

Did all of those schools meet that definition? No.

Neither Syracuse nor Pitt were able to mount more than two 9+ win seasons or in the preceding decade, and they only finished in the top 25 in two (Syracuse) or four (Pitt) seasons before joining the Big East.

Syracuse (joined Big East (FB) in 1991) average wins per season: 6.6

1990 7-4-2 (not ranked)
1989 8-4 (not ranked in final AP top 25)
1988 10-2 (#13)
1987 11-0-1 (#4)
1986 5-6 (not ranked)
1985 7-5 (not ranked)
1984 6-5 (not ranked)
1983 6-5 (not ranked)
1982 2-9 (not ranked)
1981 4-6-1 (not ranked)

.
Pitt (joined Big East (FB) in 1991) average wins per season: 6.6

1990 3-7-1 (not ranked)
1989 8-3-1 (#17)
1988 6-5 (not ranked)
1987 8-4 (not ranked)
1986 5-5 (not ranked)
1985 5-5 (not ranked)
1984 3-7-1 (not ranked)
1983 8-3-1 (#18)
1982 9-3 (#10)
1981 11-1 (#4)

.

Let's compare those records with those of UCF and Boise State over the past decade:

UCF: average wins per season: 8.8

2019 10-3 (#24)
2018 12-1 (#11)
2017 13-0 (#6)
2016 6-7 (not ranked)
2015 0-12 (not ranked)
2014 9-4 (not ranked)
2013 12-1 (#10)
2012 10-4 (not ranked)
2011 5-7 (#25)
2010 11-3 (#21)

Boise State: average wins per season: 10.7

2019 12-2 (#23)
2018 10-3 (#23)
2017 11-3 (#22)
2016 10-3 (not ranked)
2015 9-4 (not ranked)
2014 12-2 (#16)
2013 8-5 (not ranked)
2012 11-2 (#18)
2011 12-1 (#8)
2010 12-1 (#9)

.

SUMMARY:

Neither Syracuse nor Pitt were able to win 10+ games or to finish in the final AP top 25 in half of the seasons in the decade before they joined P5 conferences.

In comparison, both UCF and Boise State have won 10+ games and finished in the final AP top 25 in more than half of the past ten seasons.

CONCLUSIONS:

It is doubtful whether Syracuse and Pitt - - having averaged only 6.6 wins and 3 AP Final Top 25 rankings per season - - can be accurately described as "power schools" throughout the decade before they were admitted to P5 conferences.

A much stronger case can be made that UCF and Boise State - - having averaged 9.75 wins and 6.5 AP Final Top 25 rankings per season - - have been "power schools" in the past decade.

Very few programs (ND, Penn State, FSU, & Miami) were ranked in the Final AP top 25 more than half of the seasons in the decade before they were admitted to P5 conferences. Most of the schools that were admitted to P5 conferences, such as Rutgers, Maryland, BC, Utah, Syracuse, VT, and Pitt didn't meet that criterion.

According to your "criterion", maybe not. I believe that the BE and the ACC "criterion," when they invited SU and Pitt, carries just a tad bit more weight." In the end, thats all that matters.

esayem · 09-08-2020 07:43 AM

Dating back to the early 60’s, West Virginia was part of agreements between Penn State, Pitt, and Syracuse.

The Big Four

They may not have been fielding teams like Penn State, but they were considered on a different level than Boston College, Rutgers, Temple, Villanova, etc.

bullet · 09-08-2020 08:42 AM

(09-07-2020 11:07 PM)jedclampett Wrote:
(09-07-2020 09:08 AM)cuseroc Wrote:
(09-07-2020 07:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote: When I started watching football in the 1970s, schools like Miami and FSU were definitely not "power" status. They are great examples of schools that built themselves up to power status in the 1980s by winning. VT, WV, Rutgers and Temple were also not power-level back then either.

The whole point is that FSU and Miami, and SU and Pitt and Penn St. etc... were not elevated to power status when they joined their respective conferences. They were already at a "power status."

That seems pretty accurate, if by achieving prior "power status" you mean finishing most of the seasons in the decade with 10+ wins, or in the AP top 25, before they joined a power conference.

Did all of those schools meet that definition? No.

Neither Syracuse nor Pitt were able to mount more than two 9+ win seasons or in the preceding decade, and they only finished in the top 25 in two (Syracuse) or four (Pitt) seasons before joining the Big East.

Syracuse (joined Big East (FB) in 1991) average wins per season: 6.6

1990 7-4-2 (not ranked)
1989 8-4 (not ranked in final AP top 25)
1988 10-2 (#13)
1987 11-0-1 (#4)
1986 5-6 (not ranked)
1985 7-5 (not ranked)
1984 6-5 (not ranked)
1983 6-5 (not ranked)
1982 2-9 (not ranked)
1981 4-6-1 (not ranked)

.
Pitt (joined Big East (FB) in 1991) average wins per season: 6.6

1990 3-7-1 (not ranked)
1989 8-3-1 (#17)
1988 6-5 (not ranked)
1987 8-4 (not ranked)
1986 5-5 (not ranked)
1985 5-5 (not ranked)
1984 3-7-1 (not ranked)
1983 8-3-1 (#18)
1982 9-3 (#10)
1981 11-1 (#4)

.

Let's compare those records with those of UCF and Boise State over the past decade:

UCF: average wins per season: 8.8

2019 10-3 (#24)
2018 12-1 (#11)
2017 13-0 (#6)
2016 6-7 (not ranked)
2015 0-12 (not ranked)
2014 9-4 (not ranked)
2013 12-1 (#10)
2012 10-4 (not ranked)
2011 5-7 (#25)
2010 11-3 (#21)

Boise State: average wins per season: 10.7

2019 12-2 (#23)
2018 10-3 (#23)
2017 11-3 (#22)
2016 10-3 (not ranked)
2015 9-4 (not ranked)
2014 12-2 (#16)
2013 8-5 (not ranked)
2012 11-2 (#18)
2011 12-1 (#8)
2010 12-1 (#9)

.

SUMMARY:

Neither Syracuse nor Pitt were able to win 10+ games or to finish in the final AP top 25 in half of the seasons in the decade before they joined P5 conferences.

In comparison, both UCF and Boise State have won 10+ games and finished in the final AP top 25 in more than half of the past ten seasons.

CONCLUSIONS:

It is doubtful whether Syracuse and Pitt - - having averaged only 6.6 wins and 3 AP Final Top 25 rankings per season - - can be accurately described as "power schools" throughout the decade before they were admitted to P5 conferences.

A much stronger case can be made that UCF and Boise State - - having averaged 9.75 wins and 6.5 AP Final Top 25 rankings per season - - have been "power schools" in the past decade.

Very few programs (ND, Penn State, FSU, & Miami) were ranked in the Final AP top 25 more than half of the seasons in the decade before they were admitted to P5 conferences. Most of the schools that were admitted to P5 conferences, such as Rutgers, Maryland, BC, Utah, Syracuse, VT, and Pitt didn't meet that criterion.

No. UCF is not a power school. Pitt was a regular contender for the MNC in the early 80s. Syracuse revived their program in the late 80s. They played major colleges. Boise and UCF are playing in the G5. UCF went winless one of those years. You are also comparing wins in 11 game schedules vs. wins in 12 games + ccg schedules.

Boise isn't a "power" school, but they are a very good program. Some of their wins came against the weak bottom of the WAC and MWC.

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode P6: Does anyone outside of those with AAC ties consider it a real thing?
Author	Message