(02-05-2015 05:42 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  Personally I prefer Haves and Havenots. I'm ust saying that is probably a more acurate description too.

Yea that's probably the best description.

(02-05-2015 05:35 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(02-05-2015 01:19 PM)rosewater Wrote:  I find it funny that for all the Power(money) that p5 schools hold, quite a few finish behind g5 schools in recruiting power rankings. Why can't Colorado and Iowa State sell themselves a little better. Interesting.

Funny, I looked at the recruiting rankings and was amazed how clear the dividing line was between the P5 and G5 schools.

All 65 of the P5 schools finished in the top 74. there was only 9 G5 schools that finished ahead of the worst P5 school, Colorado at #74.

No G5 schools were in the top 45. The highest G5 school was Boise St at #46, next was Cincy at #54.

The Power 5 schools completely blew away the G5 schools in recruiting rankings.

I noticed that too. I think there are plenty of bottom P5 schools that blow away the G5 schools in recruiting rankings, but not recruiting. Boise probably will never get high recruiting rankings but it sure seems like their players are better than a lot of P5 schools.

NIU also does way better than what the recruiting rankings would imply. I'm guessing for the bottom 70 (or more) schools the recruiting rankings are complete bunk.

(02-05-2015 03:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-05-2015 03:07 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  I'll say this to that...

If we could somehow tease out the idea of "power" as a matter of competition on the field away from the idea of "power" as a matter of financial resources or political clout... no problem.

But we can't.

And, of course, more to your point, Frank, entire conferences do not take the field to play a game, otherwise there might be some latitude there. Individual schools (that comprise conferences) take the field to play a game.

So, why not use the terms that even the CFP has connoted? And just generally, why is accuracy a bad thing?

I have no illusions that this will resonate with most con5 fans or ESPN which has an implicit motive in playing up those conferences. But I do appreciate folks like CommuterBob... and yes, to some extent Frank, too... speaking objectively to the topic.

You seem to understand the core issue (even though you appear to want to deny this is the case): power isn't purely defined on-the-field. It's not even necessarily determined by merit... and that applies to areas of life outside of sports. The San Antonio Spurs are the most successful franchise in the NBA since the Bulls dynasty, yet they aren't a more *powerful* franchise than the New York Knicks that can't hit the right side of a bard with their jump shots right now. The Knicks are a *powerful* franchise in a way that the Spurs will never be no matter how many championships they might win.

Who is the more powerful person in Hollywood: Will Smith (whose movies generally make a lot of money) or Meryl Streep (who is the most decorated person in history by the Oscars)? How about Daniel Day-Lewis, who is by any measure the most accomplished actor of the past 25 years based on critical acclaim? Is he powerful compared to guys like Smith, Tom Cruise and Ben Affleck? Nope - power is entirely separate from merit.

It seems that you believe that the term "power conferences" is handed down by the media to the masses. I don't agree with that at all. Instead, it's the masses that agree with the term "power conferences" in the first place, which is why the media uses it. A power/non-power dichotomy is very easily understood (and the public knows that "power" is NOT same as merit), which is why it's used.

1. I agree... as you agree that I agree... but I'll agree again... hehe... that the term has more than one connotation.

I would only respond that the predominant connotation... or at minimum, surely you would have to agree that, among the most dominant connotations... is competitive superiority... e.g., when we get to the end of a season, non-contract schools routinely are not criticized on the basis of the lack of a top-half-of-FBS opponent, but on the lack of any opponent from a "power" conference--implicitly suggesting that any ol' "power" conference school will suffice because of their inherent competitive superiority.

2. It's not one, it's both. And who makes up the "masses," after all? We would agree, I'm sure, that the vast majority of FBS fans pledge allegiance to a contract conference school.

As I recently said to someone who is in the broadcast media (and in fact specifically is allied with a non-contract program) on this point:

Quote:I like the sound of it, Sturt, but will the average fan have the knowledge to know who we are referring to with "contract" or "non-contract" teams or leagues?

I know P5 and G5 are just stupid titles, but they are becoming like "Xerox" for all copiers or "Kleenex" for all tissues.

Thanks for the response.

I might choose a different way of saying it but the gist of my response is going to sound a lot like [the previous poster's]...

One, it's an exceptionally elementary concept that almost no one is going to have difficulty picking-up...

Two, journalistically-speaking (while I don't work in that sector these days, I'm a proud journalism school graduate nonetheless), accuracy and using the authorized terminology is expected to mean something...

And three, why would ANY journalism professional whose position requires them regular association with a non-contract athletic program choose to use terminology, accepted on the street though it might be, that implicitly suggests that program is competitively inferior?

So, to me, it's just a simple matter of want-to... who is willing to start putting into practice the terminology the CFP committee itself gave you to use, and set aside the street talk terminology.

Random Thoughts on the terms:

1. We did actually see somewhat a change in language with the BCS. Generally speaking, you used to here BCS conference or BCS school a lot and later it evolved more into AQ and non-AQ. The former was still there, but at least my in opinion, the latter became much more prevalent in the later years.

2. I expected contract and non-contract to replace AQ and non-AQ, but the term Group of 5 was used fairly early in the process and there probably was some preference for a term without "non" in it, which helped it win out.

3. "Power 5" wasn't really settled on by the conferences, but by message board fans/the media. With AQ/non-AQ gone, you needed a new term. Given the term Group of 5 was being used for one side, turning to the early existing basketball terminology was pretty easy with a power 5.

4. To the extent we use power 5/group of 5 or contract/non-contract, I think it's better that we should be clear in referring to conferences not schools. Example: Florida International plays in a Group of 5/non-contract conference. It is not a Group of 5/contract school.

5. Both p5/g5 and contract/non-contract have issues that might lessen their shelf life. If you ever get this 8 or 12 or 16 team playoff people seem to want (I do not), then the idea of calling them contract conferences seems silly as the bowls will be reduced to the point it's not a distinguishing characteristic, but the separation between the 2 parts will remain. On the flip side, realignment could add/reduce the number of conferences in either a power 5 or group of 5.

6. Overall, I guess I slightly prefer p5/g5 because I do not think the bowl affiliations are the actual key difference this time around. In the BCS era, the bowl affiliations were the big driver, but I think they've declined enough in importance that's not the case anymore (and I say this as a traditionalist who hates that fact).

Quote:"...not a distinguishing characteristic, but the separation between the 2 parts will remain..."

To my knowledge there is no single other (ie "distinguishing") characteristic that delineates one kind of program from the other, except that some programs belong to conferences that have contracts with bowls, and others do not... and accordingly, I'm not sure what is this "separation between the 2 parts" is, ie, there is no other line that divides Marshall from Maryland or Boise from Baylor or Wake Forest from Western Kentucky.

And it's no mystery why anyone whose allegiance is to a "power" conference prefers the term, nor is it any mystery why the converse is also true.

I'm mostly appealing to a sense of consistency, and at that, appealing not to the contract schools or their fan bases (of course), but mainly to the media who consider themselves professional journalists... and thus... who in any other context would intentionally employ words that are neutral and prescribed by the authoritative body pertaining to the sport (... in this case, that's the CFP committee, of course). As for the non-con schools and their fans, it seems only rational that they would naturally prefer to adopt a neutral term.