(12-26-2020 01:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote: The problem with a G5 association is that nobody would care about it. In fact, it likely would stigmatize the G5 as formally inferior to the P5.
And the reason for *this* is that fundamentally, the G5 just is not on the same level as the P5. It's market value is far less.
Which means it can (a) take the table scraps the P5 throws, or (b) starve on the streets by itself.
All three statements are flawed and unsupported by the facts. Further, there's an error of logic in these three sentences. Sentence #2 doesn't follow logically from Sentence #1, and Sentence #3 doesn't follow logically from Sentence #2. They are both
non sequiturs.
#1a: The problem with a G5 association is that nobody would care about it.
Incorrect, and it would be more powerful if it were a "non-P5" association, rather than simply a "G5" association.
All of the schools affiliated with such an association would certainly care about it, and there are more non-P5 schools than P5 schools. Moreover, the total enrollment of the non-P5 FBS schools is very comparable with that of the P5 schools, as are the numbers of Senators and Congressmen representing P5 and non-P5 colleges and universities.
In addition, the P5 would be foolish to ignore the potential power of an association of non-P5 FBS schools. They would have a good reason to be concerned if such an association were to develop.
.
#1b: it likely would stigmatize the G5 as formally inferior to the P5.
That statement may have characterized the attitude of King George III toward the 13 American colonies in 1776 when they first formed a loose association under the Articles of Confederation. However, to refer to them as becoming more "stigmatized" is less accurate than to state that, when
they chose to empower themselves, they simply incurred the wrath of the King.
They angered the King, but they did not stigmatize themselves. Quite the opposite.
One thing is clear:
The American colonies did not become more stigmatized in the eyes of most of the American colonists and not in the eyes of the French (and Spanish and Dutch) governments, nor in the eyes of the many British intellectuals of the day who were sympathetic to the cause of the colonists.
Associations that have come into existence to oppose oppression and unequal treatment, such as the NAACP, have resulted in lower, not higher levels of stigmatization.
Thus, it was no accident that forming an association (confederation) was the first major step toward American independence.
.
#2: And the reason for *this* is that fundamentally, the G5 just is not on the same level as the P5. It's market value is far less.
Incorrect, because there is no logical basis and no precedent for arguing that an oppressed group (such as the American colonies or the NAACP) would become more stigmatized throughout the nation simply because they form an association.
If anything, when oppressed people, groups, or institutions band together, they tend to become more empowered and more, rather than less respected.
Even the act of merely taking a stand against oppression has often helped to de-stigmatize people on an individual or group level.
For example, there used to be many ways that people were stigmatized as a result of having certain medical conditions. However, after former First Lady Betty Ford publicly admitted having breast cancer, the stigma of having that disease rapidly faded, as millions more women began to feel free to do the same.
Research has indicated that talking about a disadvantageous condition in a straightforward way and banding together with others with the same condition tends in most cases to have a destigmatizing effect.
For example, the gay rights and LBGTQ movements have overcome a great deal of stigmatization by banding together in associations and speaking openly about their orientation.
When more and more gay people decided to "come out" and reveal their orientation, the stigmatization dissipated so rapidly that it no longer exists in large swaths of the nation.
Moreover, it isn't logical to argue that the cause of becoming more stigmatized
after forming an association would be the same thing that caused the non-P5 schools to have lower-ranked FB programs in the first place.
Associating to oppose stigmatization may trigger an angry reaction from the oppressor, but it doesn't cause stigmatization, which was already there in the first place.
.
#3: Which means it can (a) take the table scraps the P5 throws, or (b) starve on the streets by itself.
Non sequitur.
It would only follow from Sentence #2 if Sentence #2 were valid, and if antagonizing the oppressor (the P5) could somehow result in getting even fewer of the measly "table scraps" than the non-P5 schools are already getting.
The P5s - - not the non-P5s - - are the ones who will have to tread carefully, because unfair behavior toward non-P5 schools does not sit well with the NCAA, which represents well over 1,000 institutions of higher learning, and it is not in their long-term interest to cut their ties with the NCAA.
They also have to tread carefully because there are laws against uncompetitive and monopolistic behavior, and the P5 schools are not immune to potential civil litigation if they take any punitive actions which would be viewed as an outright violation of anti-trust law.
As far as table scraps are concerned, that's all that the non-P5 schools are really getting from the P5 conferences right now. The situation can't get much worse without running the risk of either a class-action suit or an enforcement action by the Department of Justice.
As far as "starving on the streets" is concerned, the non-P5 schools have no interest in cutting their ties with the P5 schools and conferences completely. Their goal is not to antagonize the P5s, but to work together to achieve a more egalitarian state of affairs.
/
are G5 conferences really independent?
