Why has the gap between G5 and P5 football been shrinking in recent years?

Which gap are you referring to? Is it quality of play? Poll rankings? Can you clarify the basis of your question?

There have been many signs indicating that the gap between G5 and P5 has been shrinking over the past 5-10 years:

1. More and more G5 teams have been making their way into the final AP Top 25 over the past 8 years.

2. The networks have been investing more and more money in the G5 conferences, because they've begun to realize the G5's football growth potential.

3. The gap between the average rankings of the P5 and G5 conferences has been shrinking gradually over time.

4. The Big 12 has recognized the improvement of the G5. That's why they've decided to add Cincy, UCF, Houston, and BYU.

5. No one expects Cincy, UCF, Houston, and BYU to have any less success in FB/BB than the average P5 school will have.

6. The previous schools that have moved up from G5 (e.g., Utah, TCU) have performed well when they joined P5 conferences.

.

One thing you forgot to mention is the positive impact technology has had on the G5.

Its allowed for better player development opportunities. Better coaching.

(05-19-2022 12:01 AM)RutgersMike Wrote:  Which gap are you referring to? Is it quality of play? Poll rankings? Can you clarify the basis of your question?

Quality of play and poll rankings.

I think there's something missing.

The TOP G5 teams are better than a lot of the BOTTOM P5 teams. They're making real strides to close the gap

The TOP P5 teams are still pretty far ahead. Minus an amazing team by a Cincy, they're still not worried about G5s

The BOTTOM G5 teams aren't getting closer to even the BOTTOM P5 teams. An FIU ain't beating Vandy or Kansas.

Middle of the road G5s can make for exciting games with top G5 or bottom P5s if they're having a very good year.

Now that I got all that out of the way:
Better coaches, more exposure on streaming sites or even weeknight TV, better TV deals all mean they're investing more and taking things more serious.
Pollsters taking the upper G5s more serious, as evidence in polls, bring in even more money and encourages facility upgrades which brings in more hometown crowds. And a solid home crowd can be a game changer in tight games

(05-19-2022 12:20 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  One thing you forgot to mention is the positive impact technology has had on the G5.

Its allowed for better player development opportunities. Better coaching.

Good point. I wish I could add that option to the poll.

If I could do it over again, I would also add another option - - the G5 conferences and their networks seem to be benefitting by providing a wider range of viewing options, such as:

*Matchups between ranked G5 teams (e.g., App. State vs. Coastal).

*Matchups between P5 teams and ranked G5 teams (e.g., SDSU vs. PAC-12 teams).

*"Boutique" matchups between regional rivals (e.g., Tulane vs. Louisiana).

.

I don't see much evidence that the strength gap between P5 and G5 conferences is shrinking at all. If anything, I think it may be larger.

If there are more G5 schools being ranked in human polls than in prior years, that may be a reflection of a greater wish on the part of those voters to recognize good seasons by G5 schools even if they don't believe they are actually stronger than the P5 schools they have replaced in the Top 25.

As stronger G5 teams have been "promoted" to P5 conferences (TCU, Louisville, Cincinnati, Houston, UCF, BYU) that has negatively impacted the strength of the G5, as has the addition to their ranks of more and more FCS schools.

The bottom of the G5 is awful, probably should be FCS. The top is very good.

In the P5 there are less than 10 programs that are heads and shoulders above the rest. There is a bottom that probably would be not even average in the G5.

I would opine that certain G5 programs have played at a P5 level recently, but most of those programs have been invited to the big boys club. Of the first schools in the Bowl Alliance/BCS only Temple is not a P5 school. From the Big East 2.0, only USF and UConn are not in or invited to a P5 conference. And out of the old SWC, only SMU and Rice are not in the P5.

But the gap between the P5 and G5 will widen in the near future. The P5 just added most of the G5 best programs. And if the P5 expands/consolidates even further, the best schools remaining in the G5 will be invited into the P5 for backfill.

Technology has really helped them. It used to be the only time they were on TV was the OOC games where they got hammered by top P5 teams. Now deals w/ ESPN, CBS, etc. have allowed fans of G5 teams to watch their team all season long even after they graduate & move away. This helps build & sustain interest.

The transfer portal will be a huge asset to the G5, IMO, if you look at outgoing players vs who the G5 is getting in return. The talent gap is shrinking because the P5 can't just horde players on the bench anymore. The question is whether or not the portal is doing as much good for them as it is for the G5, being able to instantly fill a need via the portal. I'm not sure it is.

Let's look at the MC conference rankings for P5 and G5 for 2021 and 2016. Averages are approximate, used round numbers.

2016

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

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


2021

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016

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

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


2021

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

2016: 83-46=37 point gap

2021: 80-50=30 point gap

difference: 7 point reduction in the size of the gap

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

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

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

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

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

2016

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

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


2021

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

2016: 83-46=37 point gap

2021: 80-50=30 point gap

difference: 7 point reduction in the size of the gap

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

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

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

We'll see what happens in the future.

What is funny to me is that the majority of posts in this thread that believe the gap is shrinking seem to point to improvements in the G5. When to me, the larger part of the shrinking gap is attributable to deterioration in the P5, specially the bottom of the P5, with regards to the PAC and ACC.

The gap between the bottom end of the P5 and top end of the G5 has shrunk, but that has been almost entirely due to the P5 bottom getting worse, not the G5 top getting better.

(05-19-2022 12:02 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  2. The networks have been investing more and more money in the G5 conferences, because they've begun to realize the G5's football growth potential.
.

Well that's just not true at all

(05-19-2022 08:46 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 12:02 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  2. The networks have been investing more and more money in the G5 conferences, because they've begun to realize the G5's football growth potential.
.

Well that's just not true at all

Yeah, that is a surprising claim, at least if we are comparing to investment in the P5. Compared to 10 years ago, the networks are giving a LOT more money to the P5 than they were then, but about the same to the G5 as they were then.

I think the AAC has gotten a $5m per school raise, and the MW maybe a $3m per school raise. Everyone else is basically the same. So collectively, the G5 have gotten maybe a $2m per school raise, if we average that over the five conferences.

The SEC alone is making a LOT more than that now than then.

In 2012-2013, SEC TV revenue was about $164m.

In 2020-2021, SEC TV revenue was about $588m.

That's a $30m increase per school right there. That $424m in growth is almost half the value of the AAC's 12-year, $1 Billion deal it signed in 2019. And that's just one year's difference for the SEC.

Compared to say 2013, far more TV money is pouring in to P5 coffers compared to G5 coffers now than then.

(05-19-2022 08:46 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 12:02 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  2. The networks have been investing more and more money in the G5 conferences, because they've begun to realize the G5's football growth potential.
.

Well that's just not true at all

There has been small increases here and there on G5 deals so the networks get what they want.

For example ESPN increasing the SBC deal to get SoMiss, Marshall, ODU and JMU into the fold.

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

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

2016

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

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


2021

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

2016: 83-46=37 point gap

2021: 80-50=30 point gap

difference: 7 point reduction in the size of the gap

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

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

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

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

The MWC has 1 more P5 to recruit against and the AAC has 3 more P5s.

there are more good high school football players than the p5 can absorb