Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell.

[upstater]

I don't think it's fair to judge a conference's power solely based on what the best team or top team(s) do in the postseason.

The SEC had a really good team (Florida) and a decent team that was talented and made a run in the tournament (Kentucky) but it was flat out a lousy conference this year. Now as I say that, although from top to bottom, the AAC stunk too, the top half of the league was better than the top half of the SEC. That probably won't be the case this year, though, with Louisville gone and presumably UConn taking a half step back.

SMU will be top 10. UConn will likely finish with a better record than it had last year. Don't expect too much of a fall back. It really all depends on Cincy and Memphis and perhaps Temple.

 

[itgoeslike]

I don't think it's fair to judge a conference's power solely based on what the best team or top team(s) do in the postseason

Well, if you want to call yourself a "power" conference you should be able to muster at least one representative of your conference to be in the top handful of schools vying for major championships. We're not even talking national championships here—just be among the finalists. The exercise illustrates why the P5 are working harder at creating the "illusion" through "exclusion" than piling up NC's. I think the Boise State President had it right in naming the group the "Resource Five". It's simply more accurate.

 

[kyleslamb]

SMU will be top 10. UConn will likely finish with a better record than it had last year. Don't expect too much of a fall back. It really all depends on Cincy and Memphis and perhaps Temple.

I'll be honest, I am not buying SMU as a top-10 team. They should be a tournament team, but top-10 might be pushing it. The incoming class could turn out very nice for them, but we'll see how it translates this year. At the end of the day, I just don't see that group being top-10. Perhaps Mudiay is the real deal and I'm wrong, but I'll believe that level of success for them when I see it. They were homecourt heroes this past year so I'm leery of that kind of jump.

As far as UConn, I don't expect a huge fall by any means. But unless Brimah takes the next step in his development and becomes a consistent star, I don't see them surpassing the 26-8 pre-tournament record without Shabazz and Daniels.

I don't know what Temple's incoming players look like, but unless they have some real studs arriving, they are in trouble. As if they weren't bad enough, they lost Pepper to graduation and Lee to transfer.

 

[kyleslamb]

Well, if you want to call yourself a "power" conference you should be able to muster at least one representative of your conference to be in the top handful of schools vying for major championships. We're not even talking national championships here—just be among the finalists. The exercise illustrates why the P5 are working harder at creating the "illusion" through "exclusion" than piling up NC's. I think the Boise State President had it right in naming the group the "Resource Five". It's simply more accurate.

As far as the term "resource five," well resources create power, so I don't think it's unfair to call them "power" conferences. As the old Rothschild quote goes, "permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws." Power usually comes down to having resources.

 

[clmssun]

This is awesome (and hilarious). For the school year 2013-14, it worked out almost perfectly that "success" was inversely proportional to "resources".

 

[Husky92]

As far as the term "resource five," well resources create power, so I don't think it's unfair to call them "power" conferences. As the old Rothschild quote goes, "permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws." Power usually comes down to having resources.

My argument with the term 'power five' is that it implies powerful (ie high-winning) football programs, and when it comes to WF, Duke, Iowa St, Northwestern, Utah, Vandy, Kansas, etc., I'm not buying it! That's just what it means to me and why it ruffles my feathers.

Yes, these conferences have more money and prestige, and therefore more power, than other conferences, but they have many members (50%?) that are NOT power programs. THAT'S my beef.

 

[Kevin Caliendo]

there are only about 12 football teams that actually matter to TV year in and year out. the rest are filler and occasional contenders. 12 might be generous. B1G = Michigan and OSU. SEC = Alabama, Florida, LSU B12 = Texas, OU Pac12 = USC, Oregon ACC = FSU, ND

contenders: MSU, Wisconsin, So Car, Auburn, Georgia, TA&M, Arkansas, Tennessee, OkSt, Stanford, UCLA, Clemson, Penn St...Miami?

I may be missing someone but generally speaking the first group are elite programs and the contenders tend to matter every year. Other teams can rise up and have a big year on occasion, but its rare and random. Basically any team in any P5 conference could do that as well. None actually move the needle in terms of eyeballs nationally unless they have a special one-time player (flutie, RG3, etc). So basically there are 25-26 schools that have some form of national interest in football, the other 40 are filler

 

[itgoeslike]

As far as the term "resource five," well resources create power, so I don't think it's unfair to call them "power" conferences. As the old Rothschild quote goes, "permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws." Power usually comes down to having resources.

Sure, money often begets power and influence, so "technically", yes. But, that's not how the term is being put to work, especially when talking to average Joe fan. Instead, it's meant to imply a higher level of performance, which in many cases is just silly. Oh, and for the record, I look forward to UConn being a member of the resource-five.

 

[Drew]

there are only about 12 football teams that actually matter to TV year in and year out. the rest are filler and occasional contenders. 12 might be generous. B1G = Michigan and OSU. SEC = Alabama, Florida, LSU B12 = Texas, OU Pac12 = USC, Oregon ACC = FSU, ND

contenders: MSU, Wisconsin, So Car, Auburn, Georgia, TA&M, Arkansas, Tennessee, OkSt, Stanford, UCLA, Clemson, Penn St...Miami?

I may be missing someone but generally speaking the first group are elite programs and the contenders tend to matter every year. Other teams can rise up and have a big year on occasion, but its rare and random. Basically any team in any P5 conference could do that as well. None actually move the needle in terms of eyeballs nationally unless they have a special one-time player (flutie, RG3, etc). So basically there are 25-26 schools that have some form of national interest in football, the other 40 are filler

Just off the top of my head I'd say UCLA, Nebraska, and Georgia would beg to differ with this list. Oregon has been relevant the last decade but lacks the true national following (although they're fun to watch, I must say)

 

[NickyNewark]

there are only about 12 football teams that actually matter to TV year in and year out. the rest are filler and occasional contenders. 12 might be generous. B1G = Michigan and OSU. SEC = Alabama, Florida, LSU B12 = Texas, OU Pac12 = USC, Oregon ACC = FSU, ND

contenders: MSU, Wisconsin, So Car, Auburn, Georgia, TA&M, Arkansas, Tennessee, OkSt, Stanford, UCLA, Clemson, Penn St...Miami?

I may be missing someone but generally speaking the first group are elite programs and the contenders tend to matter every year. Other teams can rise up and have a big year on occasion, but its rare and random. Basically any team in any P5 conference could do that as well. None actually move the needle in terms of eyeballs nationally unless they have a special one-time player (flutie, RG3, etc). So basically there are 25-26 schools that have some form of national interest in football, the other 40 are filler

How fast CFB would fade if we had nothing but those listed schools to watch? How interested would fans or anyone be if we had to watch OSU/Mich or Ala/Aub every week? Outside of Pennsy I find PSU FB boring doesn't everyone without a "tie" to them!?!!The "U"? They play in front of 60G empty seats disguised as people for yrs!?! I think their living on their Catholic-Convicts rep since leaving the BE...again..who cares at least hereabouts where they seem to have a small but cultlike following! Clemson or USCe..outside of the Carolina's and the occasional local 5 star recruit/personlity they do nada for me!And after listening to ESPin's constant barrage of nonsense about the greatness of ACC FB I was happy to see WVU lay it on them(Clemson) a couple yrs ago shutting their mostly overrated mouthes..oopp's I think WVU just scored again lol. No I think for CFB to remain interesting we need every area/region covered or represented not just a few bloated personalities/teams or brands! I 'm already seeing Lacrosse infringe into HSFB here in the NYC metro and its spreading...for those of us that love the sport of FB I'm concerned. If were not careful it will be coming to a station near you!!

 

[UConn Dan]

Not sure where else to put this and how serious June was, but no.

@McMurphyESPN: SMU's June Jones tells @620wdae "I think have-nots (non-Power 5) should go ahead & move to spring just like USFL did"

 

[pj]

Have-nots should certainly consider getting autonomy for themselves, increasing stipends above what the "haves" pay, and making a competitive "second season" in the spring, with extra practice time compared to the P5, and a full-scale G5 8 team playoff to end the spring season in April, after March Madness was over. This could generate a lot of media attention. Also, extend the summer practice season, and let football training count as academic credit. With extra practice time and extra pay for players making it practically a full-time pro league, the G5 champion might always win its BCS bowl game. It would make a mockery of the P5 claiming to have the best football and excluding G5 from the playoff.

 

[freescooter]

Just off the top of my head I'd say UCLA, Nebraska, and Georgia would beg to differ with this list. Oregon has been relevant the last decade but lacks the true national following (although they're fun to watch, I must say)

I think you could argue about the list at the margins, I don't think anyone east of Idaho really cares about Oregon, for example and Nebraska was relevant in the B-12. In the Big 10 it is just another out of place middle of the road program. They were most relevant as the foil for Oklahoma and Texas I think. They lack the same passion in the Big 10 and it shows. UCLA, really? Maybe back when Gary Beban was under center... But the principle Kevin listed is correct. There are a handful of schools that matter to tv and the odd "story" that pops up each year (Vandy recently, Boise State, Kansas a few years ago). The rest are just filler.

 

[Drew]

I think you could argue about the list at the margins, I don't think anyone east of Idaho really cares about Oregon, for example and Nebraska was relevant in the B-12. In the Big 10 it is just another out of place middle of the road program. They were most relevant as the foil for Oklahoma and Texas I think. They lack the same passion in the Big 10 and it shows. UCLA, really? Maybe back when Gary Beban was under center... But the principle Kevin listed is correct. There are a handful of schools that matter to tv and the odd "story" that pops up each year (Vandy recently, Boise State, Kansas a few years ago). The rest are just filler.

i agree with the principle but disagree on Nebraska and Georgia. Nebraska still has one of the largest national fanbases and their fans still travel very well, and they're still a "name" program. Their week two game against McNeese state is on ESPNU, that doesn't happen unless they know a ton of people will watch Nebraska.

As for saying UCLA isn't good they're a preseason top 10 team in one of the biggest markets in the country: http://athlonsports.com/college-football/top-25/

But I agree the list margins can be argued, I'd just argue that its more of 20-25 programs that matter to TV while everyone else is filler. MSU isn't a national program, while they're a good football team they're not a national program. Same with Wisconsin. There's a difference.

 

[whaler11]

I think you could argue about the list at the margins, I don't think anyone east of Idaho really cares about Oregon, for example and Nebraska was relevant in the B-12. In the Big 10 it is just another out of place middle of the road program. They were most relevant as the foil for Oklahoma and Texas I think. They lack the same passion in the Big 10 and it shows. UCLA, really? Maybe back when Gary Beban was under center... But the principle Kevin listed is correct. There are a handful of schools that matter to tv and the odd "story" that pops up each year (Vandy recently, Boise State, Kansas a few years ago). The rest are just filler.

Yet UCLA played Nebraska last year... it was the biggest game of the week and was extremely entertaining.

It only went to the entire country on ABC. So little interest nationally...

 

[billybud]

Sometimes a guy gets into a fraternity, who otherwise might not be invited, as a "legacy".

Some programs were lucky enough to be a legacy in a P5 conference....

1939 ...Duke, known as the "Iron Dukes" went unscored upon the 1938 season and played So Cal in the Rose Bowl 50 years before UConn began playing as a FBS football program.

1942, number two ranked and undefeated, Duke was again was playing as a Rose Bowl participant.

Duke, at the formation of the ACC in 1953, was still a decent football program.

Teams change over a lifetime....Army no longer is the power it was when they won their two NCs...and GT is not the team that it was when they won their NC.

 

[CL82]

I think that's kind of the point Billy. The Akkadians, Sumerians, Assyrians, Greeks and Romans all had their day. That's no reason to cede power to them now based on their history. So when some one blows the dust off a half century old athletic accomplishment, it doesn't make want to tune in to watch them struggle on any given Saturday.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

Sometimes a guy gets into a fraternity, who otherwise might not be invited, as a "legacy".

Some programs were lucky enough to be a legacy in a P5 conference....

1939 ...Duke, known as the "Iron Dukes" went unscored upon the 1938 season and played So Cal in the Rose Bowl 50 years before UConn began playing as a FBS football program.

1942, number two ranked and undefeated, Duke was again was playing as a Rose Bowl participant.

Duke, at the formation of the ACC in 1953, was still a decent football program.

Teams change over a lifetime....Army no longer is the power it was when they won their two NCs...and GT is not the team that it was when they won their NC.

Billy in 1939 there was no FSB
The New York Times said the 1923 UConn team was one of the best in the country.
Big deal. College football supremacy was mythical. Writers frequently with local bias voted in the polls
Bowl games until fairly recently were nothing more than commercial exhibitions

Yale in their heyday,and the great Army teams thought they were ,and never participated. Personally I believe they are still pretty corrupt and a stupid way to determine the NC.

No true sportsman would or should endorse a system that sets a status quo.
That is foreign to everything sports stands for. Basically they want the ability to cheat on the basic principal of college sports and get away with it.
You can explain it any way you want but that what it is.
What the P5 is trying to do ,if successful ,will destroy the game.
It's a game I love.
I been a college football fan a long as I can remember. Well over sixty years.
I grew up in an area of Connecticut that was football oriented ,my area produced many great players,even some NFL caliber.But the importance of the game to us was it gave many the possibility to go to college and the opportunity to accomplish great things. That's the true importance of sport.

 

[Dooley]

Personally, I don't value championships before Civil Rights whatsoever. I know to the tradition people out there they do. But those people need to be careful. Paying too much attention to what happened 70-100 years ago won't allow you to gain proper perspective on the present and future.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

Personally, I don't value championships before Civil Rights whatsoever. I know to the tradition people out there they do. But those people need to be careful. Paying too much attention to what happened 70-100 years ago won't allow you to gain proper perspective on the present and future.

The problem you have is setting a date for Civil Rights .
There were significant integrated teams in the north well before 1964
An African American starred at Yale in the 40's
You also have the problem of the sociological component that go into making up sport,added to the sports that predominant within a culture,at any era.
Baseball was the dominant sport in the US ,particularly in rural ares,That's why Jackie Robinson was such a big deal. He had previously starred in football at UCLA without much fanfare. Baseball was the sport that everyone cared about and played.
Football was extremely complex
It was created by an elite class, Universities were mostly unobtainable to most until the GI bill. In essence the vast majority regardless of race or religion were denied access.
It was adopted by high schools, and club institutions as there is significantly more expense tied to football. My dad played for a Derby club Team made up of Italian immigrants kids. Sponsored by a club. Remember even high school was not attainable as these kids stared working at 14 or younger.
Mine and Mill towns especially adopted this sport. Professional football played on Sundays to avoid competition with High School,and Club ball. One could argue the demise of industry has a direct correlation to the demise of football talent in the northeast and Midwest.
What we know as modern big city basketball was pioneered by the Jewish population of New York and Philly. The NCAA tourney plus the NIT were played in New York. As rural African Americans fled the south for the Northern Cities, mostly after WWII ,basketball was adopted by the kids even as their Dad's remained avid baseball fans.

 

[Dooley]

The problem you have is setting a date for Civil Rights .
There were significant integrated teams in the north well before 1964
An African American starred at Yale in the 40's
You also have the problem of the sociological component that go into making up sport,added to the sports that predominant within a culture,at any era.
Baseball was the dominant sport in the US ,particularly in rural ares,That's why Jackie Robinson was such a big deal. He had previously starred in football at UCLA without much fanfare. Baseball was the sport that everyone cared about and played.
Football was extremely complex
It was created by an elite class, Universities were mostly unobtainable to most until the GI bill. In essence the vast majority regardless of race or religion were denied access.
It was adopted by high schools, and club institutions as there is significantly more expense tied to football. My dad played for a Derby club Team made up of Italian immigrants kids. Sponsored by a club. Remember even high school was not attainable as these kids stared working at 14 or younger.
Mine and Mill towns especially adopted this sport. Professional football played on Sundays to avoid competition with High School,and Club ball. One could argue the demise of industry has a direct correlation to the demise of football talent in the northeast and Midwest.
What we know as modern big city basketball was pioneered by the Jewish population of New York and Philly. The NCAA tourney plus the NIT were played in New York. As rural African Americans fled the south for the Northern Cities, mostly after WWII ,basketball was adopted by the kids even as their Dad's remained avid baseball fans.

I get your point. Let me amend my original statement: I don't value championships from pre-50s whatsoever. And I really don't value an athletic department that hasn't won squat in over 30-40 years. It's my opinion that dinosaur programs are given FAR too much weight/credit in CR. I respect programs that have won a championship in my lifetime. Anything championship won prior to when I was born (1976): your program is "on the clock" to win again. For cryin' out loud, our MBB program had to prove itself all over again (thanks to APR and post-Calhoun) even after winning in friggin' 2011. I would just like to see the same difficult standards applied across the board.

 

[Dooley]

Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN 15m
Maryland to provide lifetime guaranteed scholarships for all student-athletes in all sports starting in 2015

 

[FDNY99]

Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN 15m
Maryland to provide lifetime guaranteed scholarships for all student-athletes in all sports starting in 2015

Pretty good move with recent developments regarding full cost of attendance and O'Bannon case.

 

[upstater]

Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN 15m
Maryland to provide lifetime guaranteed scholarships for all student-athletes in all sports starting in 2015

The costs just went up from $5k extra per year per student to $40k per year for the 40% of students who don't graduate who elect to return. Let's say 50% of those elect to return after a certain number of years. That's 1 out of 5 who is costing you an extra $40k per year.

 

[FDNY99]

The costs just went up from $5k extra per year per student to $40k per year for the 40% of students who don't graduate who elect to return. Let's say 50% of those elect to return after a certain number of years. That's 1 out of 5 who is costing you an extra $40k per year.

You have to wonder exactly what they consider a lifetime scholarship though. I can see tuition, maybe books...but room & board?