(09-29-2020 03:23 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Major conferences were traditionally defined by two characteristics.

A) National TV deal.
B) Multiple bowl and tournament bids.

Go back to the early 90's and the major conferences were BE, ACC, SEC, B1G, B8, SWC, PAC, WAC. Big West and MAC were not part of the CFA TV arrangement and considered full of programs that didn't meet the 1-A qualifications.

The power conference is a relatively new concept as the P5 made a quantum financial leap with its new TV deals to now put the ACC, SEC, XII, B1G, PAC in a different category than any non-P5 conference, regardless of the high visibility TV deal or multiple bids. BE, AAC, MWC filled with legacy major members were left behind.

It doesn't change the fact BE, AAC, MWC and others like the SBC and MAC which over time developed into multiple bowl leagues are categorically major conferences.

Some questions for you (or the board at large).

Is there some recognized entity that defines conferences as "major conferences?" Does the NCAA? If so, what were the published criteria to be considered a "major conference" in the early 1990s and what are they now?

How much of the increased visibility on TV of the schools currently in the AAC, MWC, SBC, C-USA and MAC is attributable to the increase since the early 1990s in outlets broadcasting college football and the resulting increased need for broadcast inventory?

How much of the increase in bowl and tournament bids for the current G5 schools from the early 1990s to today is attributable to the increase of the number of bowls and the expansion of the NCAA basketball tournament?

How does the increase in national TV deals and bowl and tournament bids for the current G5 schools compare to the increase in TV deals and bowl and tournament bids for the current P5 schools over the same period of time?

I recognize this is an internet message board, and we are all free to express our own opinion, but your post is written as if you are stating facts, not opinions. So, in all seriousness, if they are facts, I am curious to know if the above factors were considered and, if so how they played a part in the analysis. I will readily admit, I have not researched it, and there is nothing compelling you to do so simply to satisfy my curiosity. Just thought it would be interesting.

(09-29-2020 04:43 AM)Buckminster Fuller Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 03:23 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Major conferences were traditionally defined by two characteristics.

A) National TV deal.
B) Multiple bowl and tournament bids.

Go back to the early 90's and the major conferences were BE, ACC, SEC, B1G, B8, SWC, PAC, WAC. Big West and MAC were not part of the CFA TV arrangement and considered full of programs that didn't meet the 1-A qualifications.

The power conference is a relatively new concept as the P5 made a quantum financial leap with its new TV deals to now put the ACC, SEC, XII, B1G, PAC in a different category than any non-P5 conference, regardless of the high visibility TV deal or multiple bids. BE, AAC, MWC filled with legacy major members were left behind.

It doesn't change the fact BE, AAC, MWC and others like the SBC and MAC which over time developed into multiple bowl leagues are categorically major conferences.

Some questions for you (or the board at large).

Is there some recognized entity that defines conferences as "major conferences?" Does the NCAA? If so, what were the published criteria to be considered a "major conference" in the early 1990s and what are they now?

How much of the increased visibility on TV of the schools currently in the AAC, MWC, SBC, C-USA and MAC is attributable to the increase since the early 1990s in outlets broadcasting college football and the resulting increased need for broadcast inventory?

How much of the increase in bowl and tournament bids for the current G5 schools from the early 1990s to today is attributable to the increase of the number of bowls and the expansion of the NCAA basketball tournament?

How does the increase in national TV deals and bowl and tournament bids for the current G5 schools compare to the increase in TV deals and bowl and tournament bids for the current P5 schools over the same period of time?

I recognize this is an internet message board, and we are all free to express our own opinion, but your post is written as if you are stating facts, not opinions. So, in all seriousness, if they are facts, I am curious to know if the above factors were considered and, if so how they played a part in the analysis. I will readily admit, I have not researched it, and there is nothing compelling you to do so simply to satisfy my curiosity. Just thought it would be interesting.

BB and Fb are Different animals. If you go back to 90's in FB the G4 likely get only champ in a bowl game. AAC might get 2 or 3 bowls. TV deals for G5 would be small still and mostly be fillers. In BB the G4 most years would get only its champ in NCAA (much like now) the AAC likely would get 2 or 3 bids most years.

(09-29-2020 06:44 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 04:43 AM)Buckminster Fuller Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 03:23 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Major conferences were traditionally defined by two characteristics.

A) National TV deal.
B) Multiple bowl and tournament bids.

Go back to the early 90's and the major conferences were BE, ACC, SEC, B1G, B8, SWC, PAC, WAC. Big West and MAC were not part of the CFA TV arrangement and considered full of programs that didn't meet the 1-A qualifications.

The power conference is a relatively new concept as the P5 made a quantum financial leap with its new TV deals to now put the ACC, SEC, XII, B1G, PAC in a different category than any non-P5 conference, regardless of the high visibility TV deal or multiple bids. BE, AAC, MWC filled with legacy major members were left behind.

It doesn't change the fact BE, AAC, MWC and others like the SBC and MAC which over time developed into multiple bowl leagues are categorically major conferences.

Some questions for you (or the board at large).

Is there some recognized entity that defines conferences as "major conferences?" Does the NCAA? If so, what were the published criteria to be considered a "major conference" in the early 1990s and what are they now?

How much of the increased visibility on TV of the schools currently in the AAC, MWC, SBC, C-USA and MAC is attributable to the increase since the early 1990s in outlets broadcasting college football and the resulting increased need for broadcast inventory?

How much of the increase in bowl and tournament bids for the current G5 schools from the early 1990s to today is attributable to the increase of the number of bowls and the expansion of the NCAA basketball tournament?

How does the increase in national TV deals and bowl and tournament bids for the current G5 schools compare to the increase in TV deals and bowl and tournament bids for the current P5 schools over the same period of time?

I recognize this is an internet message board, and we are all free to express our own opinion, but your post is written as if you are stating facts, not opinions. So, in all seriousness, if they are facts, I am curious to know if the above factors were considered and, if so how they played a part in the analysis. I will readily admit, I have not researched it, and there is nothing compelling you to do so simply to satisfy my curiosity. Just thought it would be interesting.

BB and Fb are Different animals. If you go back to 90's in FB the G4 likely get only champ in a bowl game. AAC might get 2 or 3 bowls. TV deals for G5 would be small still and mostly be fillers. In BB the G4 most years would get only its champ in NCAA (much like now) the AAC likely would get 2 or 3 bids most years.

G4 is a Mike Aresco and AAC fanboy term to be used on the AAC board. "Group of Five" is a term used in the CFP contract, and the AAC is part of that.

I've said at least 20 times on this board that the AAC is far and away the beat G5 conference. I'd let my school join in two seconds flat. By every measure, the AAC is best by a considerable margin. But it's still a G5 league.

(09-29-2020 07:27 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  "Group of Five" is a term used in the CFP contract, and the AAC is part of that.

Is it? I thought it was just media shorthand.

(09-29-2020 04:43 AM)Buckminster Fuller Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 03:23 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Major conferences were traditionally defined by two characteristics.

A) National TV deal.
B) Multiple bowl and tournament bids.

Go back to the early 90's and the major conferences were BE, ACC, SEC, B1G, B8, SWC, PAC, WAC. Big West and MAC were not part of the CFA TV arrangement and considered full of programs that didn't meet the 1-A qualifications.

The power conference is a relatively new concept as the P5 made a quantum financial leap with its new TV deals to now put the ACC, SEC, XII, B1G, PAC in a different category than any non-P5 conference, regardless of the high visibility TV deal or multiple bids. BE, AAC, MWC filled with legacy major members were left behind.

It doesn't change the fact BE, AAC, MWC and others like the SBC and MAC which over time developed into multiple bowl leagues are categorically major conferences.

Some questions for you (or the board at large).

Is there some recognized entity that defines conferences as "major conferences?" Does the NCAA? If so, what were the published criteria to be considered a "major conference" in the early 1990s and what are they now?

There is no formal definition of "major conference" by the NCAA or CFP. When people like Kit-Kat and Jed Clampett forcefully claim that the G5 are major conferences, or when others like me deny it, we are all just expressing our opinion.

The only valid evidence on this would be a nationwide poll of sports fans asking which conferences they regard as "major" or not. For my part, I think it pretty clear that most would regard the P5 as the major conferences. But I could be wrong.

(09-29-2020 04:43 AM)Buckminster Fuller Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 03:23 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Major conferences were traditionally defined by two characteristics.

A) National TV deal.
B) Multiple bowl and tournament bids.

Go back to the early 90's and the major conferences were BE, ACC, SEC, B1G, B8, SWC, PAC, WAC. Big West and MAC were not part of the CFA TV arrangement and considered full of programs that didn't meet the 1-A qualifications.

The power conference is a relatively new concept as the P5 made a quantum financial leap with its new TV deals to now put the ACC, SEC, XII, B1G, PAC in a different category than any non-P5 conference, regardless of the high visibility TV deal or multiple bids. BE, AAC, MWC filled with legacy major members were left behind.

It doesn't change the fact BE, AAC, MWC and others like the SBC and MAC which over time developed into multiple bowl leagues are categorically major conferences.

Some questions for you (or the board at large).

Is there some recognized entity that defines conferences as "major conferences?" Does the NCAA? If so, what were the published criteria to be considered a "major conference" in the early 1990s and what are they now?

How much of the increased visibility on TV of the schools currently in the AAC, MWC, SBC, C-USA and MAC is attributable to the increase since the early 1990s in outlets broadcasting college football and the resulting increased need for broadcast inventory?

How much of the increase in bowl and tournament bids for the current G5 schools from the early 1990s to today is attributable to the increase of the number of bowls and the expansion of the NCAA basketball tournament?

How does the increase in national TV deals and bowl and tournament bids for the current G5 schools compare to the increase in TV deals and bowl and tournament bids for the current P5 schools over the same period of time?

I recognize this is an internet message board, and we are all free to express our own opinion, but your post is written as if you are stating facts, not opinions. So, in all seriousness, if they are facts, I am curious to know if the above factors were considered and, if so how they played a part in the analysis. I will readily admit, I have not researched it, and there is nothing compelling you to do so simply to satisfy my curiosity. Just thought it would be interesting.

There was not a guideline by the NCAA but the B1G, PAC and those under the CFA TV contract (SEC, ACC, B8, SWC, WAC, Ind) were part of the major club. This includes BE football programs that were still independent and southern independents like Louisville and Memphis.

That status was also correlated in basketball. The WAC was a multibid conference in those days and wherever Louisville was playing was always considered a major.

The WAC and its successor the MWC always had a good TV presence from the CFA on so it hasn't been a work in progress. Some new faces involved like Boise State who was a FCS Big Sky program in the early 90's but the status relative to the system has mostly remained constant.

Louisville and the southern independents formed CUSA in the mid 90s, considered to be a major conference at the time of founding and was placing 4 teams into the NCAAs. TCU was there for a little while before moving to the MWC and then onto the XII. Louisville of course built a new FB stadium and joined the P5 club in time.

Those who are in the AAC now consist of former CFA programs with the exception of the Florida schools who are new so their status hasn't fundamentally changed but they had different conference origins before heading to the AAC.

The increased visibility factor you speak of really only applies to the current schools of the MAC, SBC and CUSA who didn't have it in the early 90's. The question you asked is does their exposure the result only of increased media outlets. I would argue that has helped but not the exclusive reason.

ESPN has a way of quietly demoting conferences as they fade off the national TV radar. The WAC is an example of this. They still have a TV deal with ESPN but it doesn't have near the quality of exposure as what it did as an FBS conference. The games are on lower level platforms.

MAC and SBC have signed higher profile ESPN deals as part of this rotation. MAC of course has found a way to offer a niche product to the marketplace in Midweek football. SBC tightened up its lineup to become a decent southern FB conference.

CUSA has taken a beating but as an FBS conference was still able to get some agreements in place. Some of the members in here yet were former CFA so without the broadcast expansion its possible they would be on TV also in 2020.

Bowl expansion for the MAC/SBC/CUSA came largely after the inventory expansion. Was it the Chicken or the Egg? ESPN and ESPN2 which is the chicken came first and put these schools in an obligatory bowl game. Then as the ratings proved substantial they became comfortable with adding more of them. The MAC added a second bowl in 2000, 3rd in 2006 and moved to 5 bowls in 2014. This year is the first year of 6 bowls for the MAC, two of which are with the MWC.

I think its more of a combination of marketplace value and ESPN nudging the TV deals around to reflect that value. Inventory saturation has made it possible to give FCS conferences a mid major ESPN+ only type deal where before they had to guarantee them cable slots.

(09-28-2020 08:22 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(09-28-2020 04:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-28-2020 02:46 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(09-26-2020 10:00 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Don't know how much Penn has either, but Philadelphia residents want to keep their residential areas residential, a nice way of saying that they are NIMBY's (Not In My Backyard), so Penn would have a heck of a time adding any property without protest. $$'s would be no object, but the NIMBY's would!!!

It's one thing to move INTO a neighborhood near a major stadium... When I moved into Morgantown, WV, I knew that where I would be living was less than a mile from Mountaineer Field and I knew what to expect.

It is completely a different matter to have a stadium built down the street from you.

I get the NIMBY folks in Philadelphia, New Orleans, and other places that don't appreciate the idea of the headaches that come with a major stadium in your backyard. When the Radner folks decided that Villanova could not expand their on-campus stadium beyond it's current 11k capacity, they were saying: "We would not have moved here or paid the $$$ we did for our property if we knew a stadium was down the street...".

Having a major stadium in your area changes everything.

I've been to the new Tulane stadium and I can't see how anyone in the neighborhood would object. It fits right in like a glove. It has a small profile, we're not talking the Superdome here.

If I lived in that area I'd be happy to have it there.

Part of the reason why Yulman Field has the "low profile" it has is because the neighborhood demanded it. I agree that it "fits in" with the neighborhood, but as a fan of the AAC (who watched how Tulane had to maneuver to get their stadium built), it was excruciating at points watching Tulane trying to get Yulman built.

I live in south Louisiana so am very familiar with the Yulman process. To me, the process went about as fast as anyone could expect it to. Tulane announced their intention to build a stadium in late 2011, a year before accepting Big East membership. The first game was played in that stadium in September 2014, about 1,000 days later. You really can't do something like that faster. As that was also their first home game as a member of the AAC, the amount of time they had to wait as an AAC member to open the stadium was ... no time at all.

Yes, in 2012 there was about six months of give-and-take between concerned community groups and the university, but six months is nothing, and again, almost all of that wrangling went on when Tulane still had not been invited to the Big East. And basically this exchange was productive, as Yulman's profile really is perfect.

I didn't answer the NCAA tournament aspect to this but the tournament went to 64 back in 1985 and prior to that allowed multiple teams from the same conference to make it for quite some time.

Back when NCAA spots were less plentiful there were less members per conference with an average around 8. Today the average is around 11.5 per conference. There were ready made basketball conferences geared around one dominant school.

The tournament hasn't really opened it up for the MAC/SBC/CUSA because you still have to perform once you get there to develop a program. My point is the AAC has always been a multiple bid factor in the NCAA tournament as further proof to its major status.

I have a question for the "The G5 is nothing but JV athletics" types on this board. If schools in the G5 went Independent in FB would that make them move out of the JV? Is UConn football now on a higher level that UCF, Cincinnati, Houston and Memphis because they left the AAC? Is Liberty, New Mexico State, UMass all on a higher plane than those schools as well? Is there anything those "City" and "Directional" schools can do to curry an ounce of respect from you?

(09-29-2020 08:36 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 04:43 AM)Buckminster Fuller Wrote:  I recognize this is an internet message board, and we are all free to express our own opinion, but your post is written as if you are stating facts, not opinions. So, in all seriousness, if they are facts, I am curious to know if the above factors were considered and, if so how they played a part in the analysis. I will readily admit, I have not researched it, and there is nothing compelling you to do so simply to satisfy my curiosity. Just thought it would be interesting.

There was not a guideline by the NCAA but the B1G, PAC and those under the CFA TV contract (SEC, ACC, B8, SWC, WAC, Ind) were part of the major club. This includes BE football programs that were still independent and southern independents like Louisville and Memphis.

No, circa 1990, the major football conferences were the conferences that had a tie-in to the traditional major bowl games - the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Cotton Bowls.

So that was the SEC, B1G, PAC, SWC and Big 8. Those were the five major conferences. There were also a handful of independents that were recognized as major programs - Notre Dame, Penn State, FSU, WV, Miami, BC, Pitt and Syracuse being the obvious ones. Louisville and Memphis were not major. Some of those would soon form the Big East football conference, which was "major" at birth in 1991.

The ACC and Fiesta Bowl were special cases. The Fiesta Bowl, between 1986 - 1989 had basically become a "5th major" by throwing tons of money at top teams to play in its game. It was the maverick, the "independent major" among the bowls. The old boys club looked down its nose at it but they couldn't turn away its money, it bought its way in.

The ACC was clearly above the WAC and all the rest and also had the cachet of being the premier basketball conference, but wasn't quite at the same level. That's why they invited FSU, to take that next step.

So around 1990, you had five major conferences and four (five) major bowls, but with the ACC on the cusp of joining (or really, since the ACC had been a major football conference in the 1950s, re-joining, the club), and some of the major independents were on the verge of forming a major conference, the Big East or joining a conference, like FSU and Penn State.

I've posted about this before and will once again.

I began working at Athlon Sports in 1990 and was fortunate to interact with various sports journalists and fans across the nation. I remain in the media and with a publication that reports on Nashville-area college and pro sports. Our former sports editor is from Philly, attended SMU and now reports on the Titans for a high-profile national sports pub. I talk to lots of folks (as we all do on this board).

I also am a fan of football programs that are in the P5, the G5, FCS (Tennessee State University) and NCAA Division II (New Mexico Highlands University, which my father attended along with Memphis and Oklahoma).

The overwhelming percentage of people I talk to (and have talked to over the years) see it thusly:

1. The programs in all 10 Division I-A leagues are "major." They fund more than 80 scholarships and are "aligned" in the same NCAA category (FBS) with, in theory, access to the four-team playoff and all participating in the same bowl system. Thus, Memphis and Cincinnati are "major" programs. However, they are not "the same level of major" as are (to use three programs I support) Vanderbilt, North Carolina and Indiana. The latter three are "power" programs or "high-major."

2. FCS (TSU, for example) is "mid-major," ... again, as seen by the people I talk to and who know their stuff, are not biased, are not fanboys and are not trolls.

3. NCAA DII and DIII and NAIA DI and DII are hard to categorize. Some call them "small college football programs." You even sometimes hear the term "low-major," though that seems odd.

Admittedly, there are some people on this board who feel the P5 is "major," the G5 is "mid-major" and FCS is "low-major." I do not call them "wrong" to feel this way. I respect their right to hold their opinions and see it in this manner. I simply feel they are wrong. They likely feel I am wrong, too. So be it.

But for the simple, and straightforward, reasons I have noted above — I feel (and this is subjective) and just about everybody I talk to does too, that if you are NCAA D-I, you are, at least broadly speaking, "major."

I have never equated Memphis and Cincy as "major" on the same level as Alabama and Clemson. But all four are DI/FBS and, as such, loosely aligned in the "major" (and highest) tier of college football. Clemson is "high-major/power" and Cincy is "major." It's really not that hard to see it this way.

(09-29-2020 09:08 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I have a question for the "The G5 is nothing but JV athletics" types on this board. If schools in the G5 went Independent in FB would that make them move out of the JV? Is UConn football now on a higher level that UCF, Cincinnati, Houston and Memphis because they left the AAC? Is Liberty, New Mexico State, UMass all on a higher plane than those schools as well? Is there anything those "City" and "Directional" schools can do to curry an ounce of respect from you?

Not sure about a JV designation, but I view it that for the G5 elites - Boise State, Cincinnati, Houston, Memphis, San Diego State, UCF, USF - they are neither viewed P5 nor with the associated stigma of the dreaded G5 label. They are pretty much on their own level and grouping. Much like BYU did when it left the MWC and became an independent, when it was worried that a long-term association with the G5 label would bring negative value and association, UConn very much pursued a similar path. Both might not be a P5 program, but it no longer has the attached association as a G5 program.

While Navy and Air Force are very much part of the P5, due to their history and associations with each other and Army, they are in their own little grouping as well. Neither are true G5-associated programs.

New Mexico State has never had an association with the P5 programs, and has always been in a G5-considered conference. Thus, fairly or unfairly, they are still grouped with the G5. Programs like Liberty and UMass are still very much new to FBS, and, again, do not have the long-term associations with the P5 to be grouped higher than other G5 programs.

(09-29-2020 09:17 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I have never equated Memphis and Cincy as "major" on the same level as Alabama and Clemson. But all four are DI/FBS and, as such, loosely aligned in the "major" (and highest) tier of college football. Clemson is "high-major/power" and Cincy is "major." It's really not that hard to see it this way.

Just add a "mid-" in front of that descriptor of Cincy (and the rest of the G5) and we agree, LOL. And no, I have not edited this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-major

(09-29-2020 09:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 09:17 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I have never equated Memphis and Cincy as "major" on the same level as Alabama and Clemson. But all four are DI/FBS and, as such, loosely aligned in the "major" (and highest) tier of college football. Clemson is "high-major/power" and Cincy is "major." It's really not that hard to see it this way.

Just add a "mid-" in front of that descriptor of Cincy (and the rest of the G5) and we agree, LOL. And no, I have not edited this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-major

As I noted, Quo, many folks share your belief. Many people such as myself (professional sports journalists, fair-minded and knowlegable fans, etc.) hold the other view. It's rather subjective.

(09-29-2020 08:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 07:27 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  "Group of Five" is a term used in the CFP contract, and the AAC is part of that.

Is it? I thought it was just media shorthand.

I did a Google search on the contract and couldn't find a link. BUT, a few weeks ago, I did read a quote that a poster on csnbbs directly from the contract, with a link to the contract included. I promise I'm not making it up.

Additionally, Bill Hancock, the director, called them the Group of Five in 2015.

Quote:If Army or Navy is not in contention for the playoff nor to be the "group of five" representative, the committee would announce all the bowl pairings.

https://collegefootballplayoff.com/news/...th=general

(09-29-2020 09:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 09:17 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I have never equated Memphis and Cincy as "major" on the same level as Alabama and Clemson. But all four are DI/FBS and, as such, loosely aligned in the "major" (and highest) tier of college football. Clemson is "high-major/power" and Cincy is "major." It's really not that hard to see it this way.

Just add a "mid-" in front of that descriptor of Cincy (and the rest of the G5) and we agree, LOL. And no, I have not edited this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-major

I remember a few years ago there was a Power 7 Basketball page made (with the BE and A10) and a few passionate and unnamed posters here tried for days to have the page taken down and deleted. I suspect you have just created a similar chain reaction haha.

(09-29-2020 09:44 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 08:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 07:27 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  "Group of Five" is a term used in the CFP contract, and the AAC is part of that.

Is it? I thought it was just media shorthand.

I did a Google search on the contract and couldn't find a link. BUT, a few weeks ago, I did read a quote that a poster on csnbbs directly from the contract, with a link to the contract included. I promise I'm not making it up.

Additionally, Bill Hancock, the director, called them the Group of Five in 2015.

Quote:If Army or Navy is not in contention for the playoff nor to be the "group of five" representative, the committee would announce all the bowl pairings.

https://collegefootballplayoff.com/news/...th=general

Well, the Chair of the CFP using the term in an official CFP press release is something, I'll grant that.

(09-29-2020 09:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 08:36 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 04:43 AM)Buckminster Fuller Wrote:  I recognize this is an internet message board, and we are all free to express our own opinion, but your post is written as if you are stating facts, not opinions. So, in all seriousness, if they are facts, I am curious to know if the above factors were considered and, if so how they played a part in the analysis. I will readily admit, I have not researched it, and there is nothing compelling you to do so simply to satisfy my curiosity. Just thought it would be interesting.

There was not a guideline by the NCAA but the B1G, PAC and those under the CFA TV contract (SEC, ACC, B8, SWC, WAC, Ind) were part of the major club. This includes BE football programs that were still independent and southern independents like Louisville and Memphis.

No, circa 1990, the major football conferences were the conferences that had a tie-in to the traditional major bowl games - the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Cotton Bowls.

So that was the SEC, B1G, PAC, SWC and Big 8. Those were the five major conferences. There were also a handful of independents that were recognized as major programs - Notre Dame, Penn State, FSU, WV, Miami, BC, Pitt and Syracuse being the obvious ones. Louisville and Memphis were not major. Some of those would soon form the Big East football conference, which was "major" at birth in 1991.

The ACC and Fiesta Bowl were special cases. The Fiesta Bowl, between 1986 - 1989 had basically become a "5th major" by throwing tons of money at top teams to play in its game. It was the maverick, the "independent major" among the bowls. The old boys club looked down its nose at it but they couldn't turn away its money, it bought its way in.

The ACC was clearly above the WAC and all the rest and also had the cachet of being the premier basketball conference, but wasn't quite at the same level. That's why they invited FSU, to take that next step.

So around 1990, you had five major conferences and four (five) major bowls, but with the ACC on the cusp of joining (or really, since the ACC had been a major football conference in the 1950s, re-joining, the club), and some of the major independents were on the verge of forming a major conference, the Big East or joining a conference, like FSU and Penn State.

CFA schools were all major regardless if they had a tie to big 4 bowl or not. By definition CFA was an association of major schools.

ACC was always major but wasn't the power conference it is today and you are right that it was always above the WAC.

Basketball publications considered the legacy membership of WAC/MWC and CUSA/AAC major to go along with CFA membership.

Big West/MAC were tweener FCS leagues, 1 bowl. MAC worked hard to shake that perception. It moved its basketball tournament to NBA Cleveland in 1999 and its football title game to NFL Detroit in 2005. Mid week package formally started in 2008. Put teams in the Orange (2012) and Cotton (2016). Joined the G5 in 2014.

(09-29-2020 10:00 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 09:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 09:17 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I have never equated Memphis and Cincy as "major" on the same level as Alabama and Clemson. But all four are DI/FBS and, as such, loosely aligned in the "major" (and highest) tier of college football. Clemson is "high-major/power" and Cincy is "major." It's really not that hard to see it this way.

Just add a "mid-" in front of that descriptor of Cincy (and the rest of the G5) and we agree, LOL. And no, I have not edited this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-major

I remember a few years ago there was a Power 7 Basketball page made (with the BE and A10) and a few passionate and unnamed posters here tried for days to have the page taken down and deleted. I suspect you have just created a similar chain reaction haha.

LOL ... I love posting this link for UCF fans that like to jabber on about "Collee Matrix" being an "official NCAA selector":

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...ip-history

(09-29-2020 10:00 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 09:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 09:17 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I have never equated Memphis and Cincy as "major" on the same level as Alabama and Clemson. But all four are DI/FBS and, as such, loosely aligned in the "major" (and highest) tier of college football. Clemson is "high-major/power" and Cincy is "major." It's really not that hard to see it this way.

Just add a "mid-" in front of that descriptor of Cincy (and the rest of the G5) and we agree, LOL. And no, I have not edited this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-major

I remember a few years ago there was a Power 7 Basketball page made (with the BE and A10) and a few passionate and unnamed posters here tried for days to have the page taken down and deleted. I suspect you have just created a similar chain reaction haha.

A10 averaged multiple NCAA tournaments appearances and had a paid TV deal with ESPN with significant number of TV appearances. It was and still is categorized as a major basketball conference.

Power definitely not. Coaches in the A10 make 650k to 1 million which is G5 type money.