In 2011, the 5 year MSR (Mean Sagarin Rating) for the 69 schools that will be in the P5 when current realignment moves are completed was 76.8 That was virtually unchanged for 2021 (76.9).

The 57 schools that were in the G5 in 2011 had an MSR of 64.5, but by 2021 the G5 had four more schools and the average for those 61 was 57.4 -- a decline of 7 points (a touchdown per game), thus significantly widening the gap with the P5 to almost three touchdowns per game. As the G5 continues to call up more FCS programs that gap will only widen even further in the future.

(05-19-2022 12:20 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(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.

Poll rankings have to do with the balance of power in the P5. The bottom teams are getting better meaning the middle teams are 7-5 instead of 8-4 or 9-3. Thus the polls rank an 11-1 G5. And these rankings aren't much different from what you would see pre-BCS and early BCS era.

I agree with the other poster that technology is a factor in improved quality of play. Coaching knowledge is more widely disseminated. Recruiting information is more widely available, so players who can contribute who don't get P5 offers are less likely to get overlooked.

As for the actual gap, I'm not sure that's any narrower. Certain teams are good, but that has always been the case.

The top say... 10-20% of the G5 are roughly as good as the middle pack to upper P5. The 80% is what makes the G5 so awful. There are just a lot more awful programs in the G5 and they're not funded worth a crap. I don't really think the gap is shrinking at all to be honest.

(05-19-2022 09:18 AM)ken d Wrote:  In 2011, the 5 year MSR (Mean Sagarin Rating) for the 69 schools that will be in the P5 when current realignment moves are completed was 76.8 That was virtually unchanged for 2021 (76.9).

The 57 schools that were in the G5 in 2011 had an MSR of 64.5, but by 2021 the G5 had four more schools and the average for those 61 was 57.4 -- a decline of 7 points (a touchdown per game), thus significantly widening the gap with the P5 to almost three touchdowns per game. As the G5 continues to call up more FCS programs that gap will only widen even further in the future.

Regarding circa 2011, my impression - haven't looked at the data - is that there was a smaller gap between the AQ and non-AQ conferences the last few years of the BCS than there is now between the P5 and G5. Conferences like the MW and WAC were often not that far off from the lowest-ranked AQ.

Respectfully, the overwhelming majority of those that truly believe "the gap between the G5 and the P5 football has been shrinking in recent years" are fans of high-level G5 programs. It is not the majority held belief or proven fact. Factually, while the G5 has respectfully seen a bump in TV content pay over the past decade, it has been peanuts in comparison to the rate of rise of the P5's television contracts. Financially, the gap has never been as large as it is in 2022, and it will continue to only grow over time (as many on here have predicted and stated over the years). On-the-field, select teams annually have been able to compete (ranked) with the middle-to-top of the P5; this simply cannot be applied widespread to the entire G5 grouping as the advanced metrics simply do not support such a claim. While the Big 12 did extend invitations to (then) G5 programs in Cincinnati, Houston and UCF, these invitations simply do not come if Texas and Oklahoma depart for the SEC; the reality that power conference invitations are only extended when there is inter-P5 movement continues to speak volumes. These programs, by themselves, simply do not move the needle in the eye of networks (and resulting determined value); they are added when these leagues are forced to in order to survive.

The G5's greatest asset moving forward is its collective ability to offer television networks (namely ESPN) cheap and affordable content for exposure purposes. For the limited few that actually have a realistic shot at ever getting a power conference invitation, they need to continue to artificially spend at a proportional rate of the P5; this involves creates substantial subsidies that fund power conference football programs without power conference revenues. While it is a short-term fix to a long-term problem, it is really the only move on the board to make. Whether that is healthy or financially responsible to universities is left up to BOTs, Presidents and alumni.

While they were invited into the P5, programs like Cincinnati, Houston and TCU were once part of the exclusive major college football club; in reality, only a limited handful have ever been "promoted" (i.e. Utah, UCF). Other programs have been left behind (SMU, USF) from the structure and are clawing to get back in. Simply put, there are just not a whole lot of direct access points into the power conference structure. It takes financial backing, on-field success, academic/brand associations and a little bit of luck. However, anyone truly believing that the gap is as close as its ever been between the haves and the have nots is drinking some mighty strong kool-aid, IMO.

(05-19-2022 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

Unfortunately, I agree. In the ACC, it’s amazing to think that FSU and Georgia Tech (two football-first schools with strong traditions) are having simultaneous historic downturns. In addition, Miami and Virginia Tech (another pair of football-first programs) have been mediocre. The ACC is partly redeemed by Clemson and the fact that the PAC has been even worse.

It’s hard to tell whether most of this results from the pandemic, but I’m hopeful that there will be bounce-back by both conferences.

(05-19-2022 01:01 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

Unfortunately, I agree. In the ACC, it’s amazing to think that FSU and Georgia Tech (two football-first schools with strong traditions) are having simultaneous historic downturns. In addition, Miami and Virginia Tech (another pair of football-first programs) have been mediocre. The ACC is partly redeemed by Clemson and the fact that the PAC has been even worse.

It’s hard to tell whether most of this results from the pandemic, but I’m hopeful that there will be bounce-back by both conferences.

The big difference now between say the 1990s is the gap between 6-8 of the best programs and the rest of the P5. In the preceding decades you had the top 6-8 programs but you also had a good second tier of programs that was hanging with the usual suspects. That second class group is no longer anywhere near as good as that first group. I read a number recently that 20/34 5-star recruits went to four programs last year. The numbers look similar in the years before that.

(05-19-2022 01:13 AM)HerdFanGuest Wrote:  The TOP G5 teams are better than a lot of the BOTTOM P5 teams. They're making real strides to close the gap

This was always true.

We talking money gap? I'm not sure it's shrinking at all. In fact doing the opposite, no? That's the only gap that really matters. And it's only a matter of time before the P5 breaks away, right?

In the mean time, I think 3 things are happening to make on-the-field parity shrink:

1. G5'ers are getting smarter with how they schedule OOC
2. G5'ers are recruiting a little better (via transfer portal and in general)
3. Playoff has expanded to 4 teams.

P5 Top Tier
.
.
.
.
.
P5 Mid Tier / G5 Top Tier
P5 Bottom Tier / G5 Mid Tier
.
G5 bottom Tier

(05-19-2022 09:12 AM)shere khan Wrote:  there are more good high school football players than the p5 can absorb

Excellent point. The U.S. population hasn't stopped growing. In fact, it has doubled since the mid-1960's.

Thus, there are more quality players out there. This also helps to explain why - on average - there have been about 10 new FBS teams per decade.

Since 2012 (teams that have been ranked in the December top 25):

2012 TX St.
2012 UMass
2013 UTSA
2013 So. Ala.
2013 GA St.
2014 Appalachian State
2014 ODU
2014 GA. So.
2015 Charlotte
2017 Coastal Carolina
2018 Liberty
2023 JMU
2023 SHSU
2023 Jax State

.

(05-19-2022 01:51 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  P5 Top Tier
.
.
.
.
.
P5 Mid Tier / G5 Top Tier
P5 Bottom Tier / G5 Mid Tier
.
G5 bottom Tier

P5 and G5 Top Tier (Top 25 teams)

e.g., Louisiana, San Diego State, Notre Dame, Wisconsin

P5 and G5 Middle Tier (Teams ranked 26 to 75).



e.g., Air Force, Boise St., Appalachian State, Auburn, Tennessee, WKU, Army, Texas, SMU

P5 and G5 Lower Tier

e.g., (#88) Washington, (#94) Georgia Tech, (#96) Indiana, (#99) Stanford, (#108) Kansas, (#119) Vanderbilt

(05-18-2022 11:51 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  Why has the gap between G5 and P5 football been shrinking in recent years?

I think the gap is shrinking between the better G5's and the power programs. But, the middle and lower G5's don't seem to be making up ground.

I think the better G5's have been accomplishing this in large part by signing better OOC contracts with P5's, and enjoying more home and home series that improve their odds of winning, which helps elevate the perceptions of their programs to recruits.

I think this is why the better AAC teams have been able to monopolize the access bowl in most years. The middle to lower G5 programs (mostly those in C-USA, the MAC, & Sun Belt) just don't seem to be able to afford this strategy. They seem content to schedule body bag games on the road against P5's and pocket cash.

(05-19-2022 07:15 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  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.

I looked at technology as assisting from the bottom up.

Meaning that video services like HUDL, have allowed more schools see more talent in actual games and those players, 0-2*, have greater scholarship opportunities. Or the video services allow 24/7, MaxPreps, i9, rivals have benefitted in selling the talent.

(05-19-2022 09:16 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  I think the gap is shrinking between the better G5's and the power programs. But, the middle and lower G5's don't seem to be making up ground.

Disagree. Consider these examples:

Tulsa was a "lower G5 in 2017-2019, but they're making up ground:

2017: 2-10
2018: 3-9
2019: 4-8
2020: 6-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 7-6 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

SMU was a "lower G5 in 2014-16, but they've been making up ground:

2014: 1-11
2015: 2-10
2016: 5-7
2017: 7-6
2018: 5-7
2019: 10-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2020: 7-3 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 8-4 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

ECU was a "lower G5 in 2020, but they're making up ground:

2020: 3-6
2021: 8-4 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

UTSA was a "lower G5 in 2019, but they've been making up ground:

2019: 4-8
2020: 7-5 BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM
2021: 12-2 (top 25 team, December, 2021) BOWL-QUALIFIED TEAM

.

The NFL draft says the gap is not decreasing. 29 of 32 1st round picks were P5, and one of the other three was from Cincy, a school going to P5 and another from an FCS school. In fact the percentage of P5 to G5 is almost identical for the first three rounds (1st 91%, 2nd 85% P5 schools) as it has been for the last half dozen years (since I've been keeping track).

I don't place much stock in a few schools pulling upsets. That happens. If there has been any narrowing, and the evidence doesn't really show that, it would be mostly the American benefiting from ESPN exposure. Realignment is likely to reduce that benefit. But UAB is as far from Alabama on talent as it ever was, FAU is as far from Miami on talent as it has ever been, and so on. Can a good coach in G5 (e.g., Fickell at Cincy, Tedford at Fresno) defeat a poor coach at a P5 school (e.g., Kelly at UCLA, Helton at USC)? Absolutely. But such incidents don't constitute a trend, just the normal pattern of events.

(05-20-2022 01:39 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The NFL draft says the gap is not decreasing. 29 of 32 1st round picks were P5, and one of the other three was from Cincy, a school going to P5 and another from an FCS school. In fact the percentage of P5 to G5 is almost identical for the first three rounds (1st 91%, 2nd 85% P5 schools) as it has been for the last half dozen years (since I've been keeping track).

I don't place much stock in a few schools pulling upsets. That happens. If there has been any narrowing, and the evidence doesn't really show that, it would be mostly the American benefiting from ESPN exposure. Realignment is likely to reduce that benefit. But UAB is as far from Alabama on talent as it ever was, FAU is as far from Miami on talent as it has ever been, and so on. Can a good coach in G5 (e.g., Fickell at Cincy, Tedford at Fresno) defeat a poor coach at a P5 school (e.g., Kelly at UCLA, Helton at USC)? Absolutely. But such incidents don't constitute a trend, just the normal pattern of events.

It’s kind of disingenuous to compare G5 schools to Alabama. You know who else does not stack up to Alabama- about 60 of the 65 schools in the P5. This includes the entire PAC12 and everyone in the ACC except for Clemson.

There was nothing “flukish” about the way Cincinnati beat UCLA- they went on the road, lined up and punched the Bruins in the mouth running the football in 2018. Then they did it again at home in 2019. UC did the same thing to Notre Dame in South Bend this past season. They beat Virginia Tech in 2018, beat BC like a red-headed step child in 2019, and took out Indiana in Bloomington last year. Least I say it’s all about UC, Houston, UCF has done likewise over the course of the past few years.

If you are going to throw out draft numbers most of the players are coming from the same small numbers of programs. In fact, the AAC draft number was comparable to the ACC, BXII and PAC12 and that is considering there are only 11 teams in the conference and one of them is Navy (who you have to discount given their mission).

(05-19-2022 01:47 PM)TTT Wrote:  We talking money gap? I'm not sure it's shrinking at all. In fact doing the opposite, no? That's the only gap that really matters. And it's only a matter of time before the P5 breaks away, right?

In the mean time, I think 3 things are happening to make on-the-field parity shrink:

1. G5'ers are getting smarter with how they schedule OOC
2. G5'ers are recruiting a little better (via transfer portal and in general)
3. Playoff has expanded to 4 teams.

To the extent that the overall gap has shrunk slightly, I think TV exposure has helped with this.

Some people (not you, btw) forget how much more CFB is on TV today compared to just 10 years ago.

As recently as 2013, LSU still was broadcasting a football game or two a year on "Tigervision", its in-house PPV service, because not all of them were available on ESPN channels through the SEC TV contract.

In 2011, about half of the SBC conference games were not available on TV of any kind. You simply could not see them unless you were sitting in the stands. Others were on local or regional TV only.

For example, in week 12 of that season, two of the four SBC games were untelevised, one was on ESPN3, and the other was on something called the Sun Belt Network, which IIRC was on obscure channels in the southeast.

Now, basically ever single FBS game can be seen nationally on some channel or streaming service or another. Sure, the P5 monopolize the best outlets, but IMO the G5 have benefitted proportionally more. When you go from nothing to national distribution, that raises visibility.

(05-19-2022 04:35 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  P5 and G5 Top Tier (Top 25 teams)

e.g., Louisiana, San Diego State, Notre Dame, Wisconsin

P5 and G5 Middle Tier (Teams ranked 26 to 75).



e.g., Air Force, Boise St., Appalachian State, Auburn, Tennessee, WKU, Army, Texas, SMU

P5 and G5 Lower Tier

e.g., (#88) Washington, (#94) Georgia Tech, (#96) Indiana, (#99) Stanford, (#108) Kansas, (#119) Vanderbilt

Those tiers are too broad. There's no way a team that can only consistently get into the #20-25 range is in the same tier as a team that consistently gets into the top 10.

When I compare Memphis football to Vanderbilt football (which I sometimes do as a long-time fan of both programs for about 50 years), I see some closing and widening of the gap between G5 and P5.

And that goes to what many of you have posted: Memphis ikely is in the top 20 percent of G5 football programs in terms of fans, history, talent level, etc., whilst Vanderbilt is certainly in the bottom 20 percent of P5 programs regarding those metrics.

Overall, and to the OP's question: I do feel there has been a modest closing of the gap.