Question: What defines the P-5 vs. the G-5? Is it the
- Thread starter Knight_Classes_begin_7pm
- Start date
Yes and automatic bids to the best bowls.
to me other than the obvious and money for the Program it's the Bowl tie ins.
If you are not undefeated or at worst 1 loss in the AAC you end up in some really crappy bowls.
If you are not undefeated or at worst 1 loss in the AAC you end up in some really crappy bowls.
P5 conferences have bluebloods in them, with the possible exception of the ACC. Its basically just a made up concept over the last 30 years because of the increase in D1 schools as an attempt to delineate conferences that have historically successful members vs conferences that are made up of teams that have brief periods of success or no success.
Take USC and Washington out of the Pac12 and it wouldn't be viewed in the same light. The Big12 minus Texas and Oklahoma is just the MWC.
I think it's also the huge monetary tv revenue.....say our $14M contract with espn vs like $40M that say an SEC or BIG10 school gets. ? That's why I was looking for a formal definition 
It could also be defined by the CFP payout. Each of the P5 get a 54 million base payout whether they have a team in the playoffs or not. A lot of questions would be raised if UCF got invited to the "playoffs" and only got the 6 million for making it, while the PAC 12 get 54 million with no one in. This is why UCF doesnt get higher than 5th, no matter the chaos
Tv contracts are a result, not a cause of being a P5 conference. Would ESPN/ABC/Fox give a crap about the Big12 if Texas and Oklahoma weren't involved? The fanbase creates the demand and the networks provide the service. Its not like ESPN can generate demand for Temple by broadcasting their games in primetime every week.I think it's also the huge monetary tv revenue.....say our $14M contract with espn vs like $40M that say an SEC or BIG10 school gets. ? That's why I was looking for a formal definition
RIP UCF ever playing in Sugar, Orange or Rose
You guys are funny about this.
Conference alignment was originally based on geography. Its just so happened that a handful of teams emerged as powers and that gave validity to entire conferences. It wasn't bias, it was performance. Things have changed dramatically over the last 2 decades in regards to media dollars but the elite programs were elite before that, thanks to their fanbases spending a lot of cash in support of their team. I'm not old, but Im old enough to remember a time where there was only 4 or 5 games on TV per week and the rest of them you wouldnt know the outcome until Monday when the paper came out. Fans of their respective teams made sure the stadium was full because it was the only way to see them play, and that led to 70,000+ capacity stadiums. The teams that had a product that people wanted to buy filled their stadiums every week, and that led to TV exposure, which has led to media contracts. It doesn't work in the reverse, but it seems like there are some people here that think it should (present company excluded).
So the question at hand, is whether or not UCF would fill their stadium week in and week out if the games werent televised? If so, then the program has created a product that is in demand and the money will begin to flow in. If not, then theres no point in complaining about the media contracts that teams with 70,000+ attendance figures get.
Conference alignment was originally based on geography. Its just so happened that a handful of teams emerged as powers and that gave validity to entire conferences. It wasn't bias, it was performance. Things have changed dramatically over the last 2 decades in regards to media dollars but the elite programs were elite before that, thanks to their fanbases spending a lot of cash in support of their team. I'm not old, but Im old enough to remember a time where there was only 4 or 5 games on TV per week and the rest of them you wouldnt know the outcome until Monday when the paper came out. Fans of their respective teams made sure the stadium was full because it was the only way to see them play, and that led to 70,000+ capacity stadiums. The teams that had a product that people wanted to buy filled their stadiums every week, and that led to TV exposure, which has led to media contracts. It doesn't work in the reverse, but it seems like there are some people here that think it should (present company excluded).
So the question at hand, is whether or not UCF would fill their stadium week in and week out if the games werent televised? If so, then the program has created a product that is in demand and the money will begin to flow in. If not, then theres no point in complaining about the media contracts that teams with 70,000+ attendance figures get.
But when was Wake Forrest, Vanderbilt, Maryland, Indiana ever POWERS in football? I get what you're saying.
I am more amazed by the little most P5 schools do with that much money vs how much UCF does with so little.
G-5's are like 3rd parties in politics. They get screwed over by the monopoly.
They weren't, but that isnt why they are in a P5 conference. Maryland and Indiana are in a P5 conference because OSU, Mich, PSU, and Nebraska are in the Big10. Vandy is in a P5 conference because they are a private university which serves the purposes of Alabama, Lsu, and Auburn. Wake is in a P5 because of geography and how that determined conferences in the 40s and 50s.
Stadium attendance is declining across the board. Even Nick Saban was complaining about attendance at Alabama. The average conference game with no major implications is lightly attended. For example, last week Minnesota was playing Big 10 West champs Northwestern at home for bowl eligibility. Announced attendance was 32,134, stadium capacity 50,805. Fans had a chance to see their program beat their division champs, and get bowl eligible, but passed. Power 5 fans take their good fortune for granted. Put UCF in the Big 10 playing for a bowl, and it would be sold out.
Another part of this is that some schools are founding members of their conference and will likely never be removed regardless of competitiveness or financial benefit.
Thats a valid point. Heck, watch the video of the Kentucky player going off on the fans last saturday. At the same time, its something the fanbase has control over so I dont much weight into using anything as an excuse for poor attendance. More money isnt going to get you any better than undefeated so I'm not totally sure I understand why its made into such a big deal, but I get the point. I suppose with more money you could offer a better deal on home-home series with P5 schools, but thats about the extent of it. Yes, in some ways you guys are being screwed out of opportunities to advance into the next tier, but its also completely under your control to have a full stadium every week regardless of the opponent.
I remember there was a time when tv deals existed for academic competitions. Lots of money. For ngebraska? Not so much.
I disagree. I believe if ESPN only showed 1 team they would get an increase in fans of that team. You know how many people have liked the Mets, Braves and Cubs just because of WOR, TBS and WGN? A lot.
It's like watching a TV show when there's nothing else. It eventually grows on you.
Southern Miss playing on TBS in the 80s was a big reason their program became well known. Winning helps too.
I think power 5 fans think other power 5 fans dress like chairs at games thus the blind eye.
So you think that a media outlet cares more about expanding a fan base than ratings? Hmmm
More money allows UCF to keep coaches that otherwise might leave for higher pay. More money allows UCF to improve facilities and possibly attract better recruits. More money allows UCF to offer "buy games" vs teams to get the same homefield advantage "Power" 5 teams insist on.
More money lessens collecting revenue from students.
P5 is a term invented by TV talking heads to reinforce their bias and protect their multi million dollar investments.
It's a combination of several factors...
1. The NCAA has actually labeled five of the conferences as "autonomy conferences" and they are allowed to pass rules on certain things that only those conferences are required to follow...for example the cost of attendance stipend.
2. Automatic tie in to historic "New Years Day" Bowls...now known as NY6 Bowls.
3. The TV money is viewed as a major separator of the "Power" conferences from the rest.
It's a combination of several factors...
1. The NCAA has actually labeled five of the conferences as "autonomy conferences" and they are allowed to pass rules on certain things that only those conferences are required to follow...for example the cost of attendance stipend.
2. Automatic tie in to historic "New Years Day" Bowls...now known as NY6 Bowls.
3. The TV money is viewed as a major separator of the "Power" conferences from the rest.
If we got "Power" 5 level money...yes.
No I don’t think that. Just stating if they did and the teams won here and there the fans would come. Hence the ratings. If BYU were undefeated the BYU channel would be getting crazy ratings right now. But they aren’t. If NBC only showed UCF games, our fanbase would multiply fast. Mostly for those that are football fans and don’t want to pay for cable or the sports packages. They would watch out of necessity. Then over time become a fan. Won’t happen just saying that would be the result.
Agree, ratings are king to content providers, and UCF has some big numbers to bring to the negotiating table. UCF's last 3 games have had 5.4M viewers. Last years UCF/USF game had 4.6M viewers. The UCF/Memphis CCG had 3.4M viewers, and the Peach Bowl 8.4M viewers. The UCF/Cincinnati game had more Cincy viewers than the Ohio State/Maryland game, which is amazing. Everyone attending the UCF/USF game should turn on ESPN before they leave. Every viewer helps Danny negotiate the next contract.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2018/11/college-football-ratings-overnights-week-12/
https://www.blackandgoldbanneret.co...meday-and-abc-saturday-night-football-ratings
