In this thread, people are confusing the "power" appellation of P5 with prowess on the field, but in reality, it relates only to the networks' perceptions of the ability to draw eyeballs and generate revenue -- haves vs. have-nots. There are a number of G5 teams that consistently outperform P5 counterparts, but they've been relegated by virtue of name, history, academic status, market size and command, the size of their fan-bases, and geographic location. If the P5 and G5 distinctions were suddenly ignored, every team thrown in a hopper, and then reassigned to conferences based on actual performance on the field, the division of power and non-power would be noticeably different.

Excluding its four-year lapse during the Tuberville era, Cincinnati has been consistently good for a decade and a half or more. Is it exceeding expectations by continuing to be good? I don't think so. Do Texas Tech, Kansas, Vanderbilt, Illinois, Wake Forest, Rutgers, Kentucky, Oregon State, Iowa State, Mississippi State, UCLA, Miami (FL), et al consistently excel on the field because they're in P5 conferences? Don't make me laugh. They're affiliated only because they were in the right place at the right time.

Cincinnati and some other G5 schools put a competent and entertaining product on the field, and they consistently excel. That won't go unnoticed.