Talk:Power Five conferences

message: http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819597
The BCS itself notes that "non-BCS" is a misnomer, though "non-AQ" and "non-BCS" are common in describing the 5 conferences and member teams whose champion do not get an automatic bid without an additional ranking requirement.
Note that the so-called "non-AQ" teams do in fact have access to a automatic bid--the teams from the 5 conferences share access to just 1. The team must be a conference champion and must be ranked highly enough (rule 3). Of the so-called non-AQ teams that have gone to a BCS bowl, all have gone via AQ bid except for BSU in the 2010 Fiesta Reamon (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article states "The BCS system is broken up into two separate types of conferences..." under the "Official Usage" heading. The BCS does not define types of conferences. It simply defines the rules under which teams earn automatic berths and become at-large eligible. It is the media and fans in popular usage that make the distinction of conference types. Reamon (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are Automatic Qualifying rules; not automatic qualifying conferences 

message: The article implies that bowls select participants from the BCS "pool" due to historic ties. The reality is that current contracts tie the conference champions to particular bowls. The SEC champ is going to the Sugar, unless that champ is ranked 1 or 2. Then, by contract, the Sugar will release that team and select another--but it can't select the "host" of one of the other bowls--e.g. the Sugar cannot take the ACC champ as that team is the "host" for the Orange. The BCS is primarily "governed" by contracts. http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819597 "Team selection procedures" Reamon (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conference and bowl ties are not just historic 

message: Since the article is about "popular usage" of the terms I can understand the description about "BCS" being used outside the context of the college football post-season. But I wonder if the article should also note that such usage is utterly inaccurate. The BCS has nothing whatsoever to do with any other sport. It is solely about 5 bowl games. Reamon (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BCS really only applies to CFB 

message: The map showing all the Power 5 Schools is outdated. Both Maryland and Rutgers should be changed to be listed under the Big 10. 108.48.23.27 (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait nevermind, didn't notice the different section headers. 108.48.23.27 (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Map 

message: I added a "dubious" tag here. The Group of Five schools are ranked in the CFP. They are eligible for the playoff. If the champions aren't eligible, then why would non-champions be eligible? I think this change was a joke or a protest. Holy (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group of Five conference champions not eligible for CFP (dubious) 

message: With the current changes I am wondering what others thing we should do with this article.
The way I see it, we can 1) make this article a historic article/history and detail the history of the Power 5. or 2) we can update the article to focus only on the upcoming Power 4.
DesertVulture (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive, Make Historic, or Create New Topic 

message: Is it really necessary to add that V-Tech and K-State have never won a National Championship? I get this enough from KU fans not Wikipedia too. |1Falco3| (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final paragraph necessity