... and to the subset of contract fans who value neutrality and precision of language...

...the official term employed by the College Football Playoff committee as demonstrated by the website is contract conferences and non-contract conferences.

The distinction conveys the precise difference between the conferences without implying that competitively one is necessarily better than the other. And since many non-con5 schools in a given year have and will finish their seasons clearly superior to many con5 schools, I would just like to HUMBLY encourage us not to buy-in to the quiet deception that is implied by using the term that the contract schools, along with the mainstream media such as ESPN, have fully embraced.

Words have meanings, whether explicit or implicit.

It is neutral and accurate to write or say "contract"... or "con5" for short... programs/schools/teams... and "non-contract"... or "noncon5" for short... programs/schools teams.

It is counterproductive to use terms that imply requisite competitive superiority (or inferiority).

Not commanding or dictating how anyone has to communicate. Just hopefully giving some pause/cause for, perhaps, new thought, so you can make your own decision congruent with your own values.

Unfortunately, ESPN seems to have gone all-in on "Power 5" and "non-Power" conferences.

Yep. Stating the obvious, we can choose individually whether to use ESPN's terms.

(02-05-2015 11:50 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Yep. Stating the obvious, we can choose individually whether to use ESPN's terms.

Or you can choose to use a terminology that nobody, except for a few obtuse people, like yourself, understands or cares about. The terminology has been chosen, used, and has since propagated down to the masses. It's too late to attempt to change it.

P5 and G5

If you want to think it stands for Purple and Green, go for it.

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.

"Group of 5", "non-power" or "mid majors" are enough terms for those conferences. We don't need any more.

That fans of high-resource programs feel threatened enough by the original post to interject their jabs, I think, speaks plenty to the validity of the original post... just my opinion, pretty determined/desperate to cling to the perception of power for even those programs within the contract conferences that aren't actually competitively power-ful.

(02-05-2015 02:23 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  That fans of high-resource programs feel threatened enough by the original post to interject their jabs, I think, speaks plenty to the validity of the original post... just my opinion, pretty determined/desperate to cling to the perception of power for even those programs within the contract conferences that aren't actually competitively power-ful.

I don't think it's a perception of power at all - that power is absolutely true and real with respect to those *conferences*. You see it in the TV contracts, bowl contracts, revenue from the CFP system, and NCAA autonomy rules. The fact that there are weaker members of those conferences doesn't mitigate that, as groups, such conferences are much more powerful. The bottom rung of NFL franchises are worth less than some teams in other sports like the Yankees, Red Sox and Lakers, but that doesn't change the fact that the NFL is much more powerful as a complete entity than MLB and the NBA. It's the same thing with college conferences - the fact that the least valuable schools in the SEC might be worth less than a few G5 schools doesn't change the fact that the SEC collectively is completely powerful.

I thought the CFP wanted to use the term "high-resource conferences" to describe what ESPN calls the P5. But ESPN and others have drubbed the term Power 5 into the lexicon. At this point I don't think it can be changed (although the NCAA did a great job with FBS/FCS replacing 1-A/1-AA about a decade ago), but more power to you for trying to get it done. Contract and non-contract also gives a more subtle, but still evident, distinction of hierarchy IMHO. I'm not sure how much perception of parity would really be gained by that terminology.

(02-05-2015 02:50 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  I thought the CFP wanted to use the term "high-resource conferences" to describe what ESPN calls the P5. But ESPN and others have drubbed the term Power 5 into the lexicon. At this point I don't think it can be changed (although the NCAA did a great job with FBS/FCS replacing 1-A/1-AA about a decade ago), but more power to you for trying to get it done. Contract and non-contract also gives a more subtle, but still evident, distinction of hierarchy IMHO. I'm not sure how much perception of parity would really be gained by that terminology.

I don't think it's really any different than "AQ" or "non-AQ" conferences from the BCS era. Whether you want to call it AQ/non-AQ, contract/non-contract, or high resource/low resource, the public understands that it's really all just power/non-power in practicality. This isn't some type of media-driven perception - when the power/contract/high resource conferences have 90% of the revenue, all of the best TV and bowl contracts, and have separate NCAA rules applying to them, the public knows full well that those are "power" conferences and it's completely accurate. I know that schools of fans in the top rung of the G5 want to be considered interchangeable with the bottom rung of the power conferences, but that's simply not how this world works.

(02-05-2015 02:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-05-2015 02:23 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  That fans of high-resource programs feel threatened enough by the original post to interject their jabs, I think, speaks plenty to the validity of the original post... just my opinion, pretty determined/desperate to cling to the perception of power for even those programs within the contract conferences that aren't actually competitively power-ful.

I don't think it's a perception of power at all - that power is absolutely true and real with respect to those *conferences*. You see it in the TV contracts, bowl contracts, revenue from the CFP system, and NCAA autonomy rules. The fact that there are weaker members of those conferences doesn't mitigate that, as groups, such conferences are much more powerful. The bottom rung of NFL franchises are worth less than some teams in other sports like the Yankees, Red Sox and Lakers, but that doesn't change the fact that the NFL is much more powerful as a complete entity than MLB and the NBA. It's the same thing with college conferences - the fact that the least valuable schools in the SEC might be worth less than a few G5 schools doesn't change the fact that the SEC collectively is completely powerful.

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.

I understand the original post, but I guess I'm okay with P5 and G5. It's better than the ridiculous term "mid-major".

(02-05-2015 03:07 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  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 want to use the term "Con5" because, of course, the P5 conferences and everyone associated with any of them are "cons" and "criminals"! Ha ha. So clever. Why stop there? Why not call them the "Psychotic 5"? Or maybe you can come up with some witty acronym that lets you refer to the P5 conferences as "ISIS" or "al Qaeda". That would be sooooooooo amusing.

(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.

In any words it is crap. It should be one D1A.

(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.

Personally I prefer Haves and Havenots. I'm ust saying that is probably a more acurate description too.

Why just stop at P5 and G5?

Keep the classifications coming!

P5C (Contenders)

P5P (Pretenders)

How about High-5


and Low-5?