P5-G5 divide

[NT93]

We’re not helping ourselves to appear as equals when we use playing a middling P5 school as a marketing tool.

[untphd]

Well, I asked my neighbor if he was interested in going to the Cal game. He said yes faster than a speeding bullet.

[NorthTexasWeLove]

Very, very dumb marketing. That is all. 

[NT93]

6 minutes ago, untphd said:

Well, I asked my neighbor if he was interested in going to the Cal game. He said yes faster than a speeding bullet.

But did you mention that Cal was a P5 school and we haven’t hosted one since 2011?🤣🤣

[untphd]

Just now, NT93 said:

But did you mention that Cal was a P5 school and we haven’t hosted one since 2011?🤣🤣

He wanted to see CAL play.

[DentonLurker]

Honestly, I think the fight against the P5-G5 distinction is a losing battle. If you break the P5-G5 naming convention, someone will come up with something new to distinguish the two groups.

[greenminer]

8 hours ago, DentonLurker said:

Honestly, I think the fight against the P5-G5 distinction is a losing battle. If you break the P5-G5 naming convention, someone will come up with something new to distinguish the two groups.

The inspiration for the original distinction was contractual: P5-G5 were terms that came form the old BCS format that divided teams up between who had BCS bowl tie-ins, vs. who didn't.

If the day ever comes (it won't) where  that distinction is gone, the new distinction will also come from some contracts.  If someone just makes it up, without said contracts, I imagine it won't linger.

Edited May 26 by greenminer

[NT80]

8 hours ago, greenminer said:

The inspiration for the original distinction was contractual: P5-G5 were terms that came form the old BCS format that divided teams up between who had BCS bowl tie-ins, vs. who didn't.

If the day ever comes (it won't) where  that distinction is gone, the new distinction will also come from some contracts.  If someone just makes it up, without said contracts, I imagine it won't linger.

The expansion of the College Football Playoffs will help wash the G5 sticker off temporarily.  Big10 and SEC expansion plus NIL however may be the device that finally splits off the upper 60 programs from the rest.  They will still need to play the less-financial programs, but with the NCAA not enforcing anything now they will be free to set their own rules too.

[wardly]

Just an old man's opinion, but I think the G5's would be best served by having a playoff system similar to 1AA's but tied into the second tier bowls that we now play in. Also, we beat Indiana at home in 2011. My son and I went to the rematch in Bloomington in 2014  on a very cold day. How cold was it? Well we had sideline passes and at half time noticed some men retreating through a doorway beneath the stadium. It was the stadium's electricians who always worked the game in case of an electrical problem. It was warm,UNT was getting pounded, they were watching Old Miss vs Miss St.[ Its been 9 years so I may be wrong about the game on tv], so we stayed there for the 2nd half. Nice guys.

[greenminer]

3 hours ago, NT80 said:

but with the NCAA not enforcing anything now they will be free to set their own rules too.

When that day finally comes, I imagine that's when Congress steps in.

[greenjoe]

I sure do miss the terms “1-A” and “1-AA”.

[Mean Green 93-98]

17 hours ago, greenjoe said:

I sure do miss the terms “1-A” and “1-AA”.

You do know that had nothing to do with what is presently "P5" and "G5," right?

[greenminer]

20 hours ago, greenjoe said:

I sure do miss the terms “1-A” and “1-AA”.

Still there.  hasn't changed.  Completely different than P5-G5 stuff.

[greenjoe]

Yes, thank you.  I responded to Wardly’s post.  

[rcade]

On 5/25/2023 at 2:43 PM, NT93 said:

We’re not helping ourselves to appear as equals when we use playing a middling P5 school as a marketing tool.

I see your point, but I don't think we should ignore the marketing value of a P5 coming to Denton just because we wish it was common for P5s to come to Denton.

As Don Rumsfeld said, "You sell season tickets with the schedule you have, not the schedule you might want or wish to have at a later time"

[NT93]

1 hour ago, rcade said:

I see your point, but I don't think we should ignore the marketing value of a P5 coming to Denton just because we wish it was common for P5s to come to Denton.

As Don Rumsfeld said, "You sell season tickets with the schedule you have, not the schedule you might want or wish to have at a later time"

I agree that we should market the Cal game hard.  I just think you could leave off “the first Power Five opponent to visit Denton since 2011.”

Something like:

UNT will host the Cal Golden Bears of the PAC 12 to open the season

This identifies them as a school from a known conference without implying that they and their ilk are superior to us.

[DentonLurker]

12 hours ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

You do know that had nothing to do with what is presently "P5" and "G5," right?

But the idea behind it was the same. The “big time programs” were trying to keep the ship moving in their favor. They were tired of having “smaller programs” trying to get a piece of the pie. That’s the same idea behind the P5-G5 divide. You can change what it’s called, but something new will take its place. The SEC and Big 10 are already making moves for some kind of change. I’m not sure we exactly know what it’s going to look like when all is said and done, but it’s in the works.

[NT80]

3 hours ago, NT93 said:

I agree that we should market the Cal game hard.  I just think you could leave off “the first Power Five opponent to visit Denton since 2011.”

Something like:

UNT will host the Cal Golden Bears of the PAC 12 to open the season

This identifies them as a school from a known conference without implying that they and their ilk are superior to us.

Exactly.  It sounded just like a Vito-ism....always sliding in a zinger on the program.

[greenminer]

53 minutes ago, DentonLurker said:

But the idea behind it was the same. The “big time programs” were trying to keep the ship moving in their favor.

No, the idea behind it is not the same.

[Mean Green 93-98]

7 hours ago, DentonLurker said:

But the idea behind it was the same. The “big time programs” were trying to keep the ship moving in their favor. They were tired of having “smaller programs” trying to get a piece of the pie. That’s the same idea behind the P5-G5 divide. You can change what it’s called, but something new will take its place. The SEC and Big 10 are already making moves for some kind of change. I’m not sure we exactly know what it’s going to look like when all is said and done, but it’s in the works.

1A and 1AA (now FBS and FCS) are completely different subdivisions within college football, each with its own championship.  They are official NCAA subdivisions.  Any 1AA/FCS school wishing to be classified as a 1A/FBS school can do so, provided it meets certain clear criteria.

"P5" and "G5" are arbitrary designations conjured by some media man/major conference lapboy.  It says who has a seat a the big boys' table, implying those who do deserve a seat a the big boys' table--even though they have to meet no other criteria than be in one of the 5 conference where the biggest of the big boys are--while those left in G5 evidently deserve no opportunity even to compete for a championship.  With the most recent realignments "P5" and "G5" is not an accurate picture of anything.  There are tremors in the ACC right now.  What we will have shortly is the "Power 2," "Group of 5," and the "Middle 3," with some flux as to who is "Group of" and who is "Middle."

[untphd]

This link covers a lot of UNT personnel. Feel free to address your concerns with them.

 

https://meangreensports.com/staff-directory

[GrayEagle]

4 hours ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

1A and 1AA (now FBS and FCS) are completely different subdivisions within college football, each with its own championship.  They are official NCAA subdivisions.  Any 1AA/FCS school wishing to be classified as a 1A/FBS school can do so, provided it meets certain clear criteria.

"P5" and "G5" are arbitrary designations conjured by some media man/major conference lapboy.  It says who has a seat a the big boys' table, implying those who do deserve a seat a the big boys' table--even though they have to meet no other criteria than be in one of the 5 conference where the biggest of the big boys are--while those left in G5 evidently deserve no opportunity even to compete for a championship.  With the most recent realignments "P5" and "G5" is not an accurate picture of anything.  There are tremors in the ACC right now.  What we will have shortly is the "Power 2," "Group of 5," and the "Middle 3," with some flux as to who is "Group of" and who is "Middle."

If that's the case, then there is a chance that the AAC will become a part of the middle group.  We are in large markets (except Greenville NC).  We will improve our schedule and play mostly those in the Big XII, ACC and an occasional Pac 12.  AAC  attendance will increase due to the opponent and that non-major market member (East Carolina) will continue to draw 50,000 for their home games.

Edited May 28 by GrayEagle

[wardly]

On 5/27/2023 at 4:52 PM, greenjoe said:

Yes, thank you.  I responded to Wardly’s post.  

Well I think life in college football would be easier if we had Division 1,1A, and 1AA. The D1 programs would be the existing P5's, 1A would be existing G5's, and we would  still have the existing  1AA Division. This would allow the 1AA programs [aka G5's] to have their own football playoff system similar to the one used by 1AA except we could tie ours in with our existing bowls. Would this permit lower ranked football programs the ability to move up or down? In my memory[ hey, I am 80 so cut me a little slack] only Idaho has dropped back to 1AA while a stream of other programs have moved up from 1AA to G5 [Division 1A] status. Also only BYU,Houston,UCF, and Cincinnati have moved up to P5 [Division 1] status. Basically we would be slotting football programs by conferences while high schools do it by student enrollment. In my perfect world college football would be assigned a Division based upon its athletic budget. For some reason it just doesn't seem logical to me  for ULM with a budget in the teens to be in the same Division as UT whose budget is $100 million dollars or more greater. However, logic doesn't seem a consideration in college athletics.

 

'

[El Paso Eagle]

4 hours ago, wardly said:

 However, logic doesn't seem a consideration in college athletics.

 

'

The same for many "fans." Many here have commented on players who would rather be a part of P5 programs than start at a G5. It seems there are many fans who it is more important that they can say their school's program is part of the "biggest" division rather than admitting that having the leagues split up within financial abilities would allow for more competitive programs. 

[keith]

The divide only deepens when "G5" schools do the marketing for "P5" schools.  We're self-regulating ourselves to a "lower" division.