Power 4 bias is alive and well in college football this season.
By now, almost everyone has seen Danny Kanell’s social media post from last month saying everyone would win with a Group of 6-only playoff.
Unfortunately, too many in the world of college sports share Danny’s opinion. Unfortunately, some even have the power to force the issue and make it a reality.
As many know,
pundits and Power 4 coaches and staff keep circulating rehearsed propaganda talking points, but they are usually intentionally or unintentionally inaccurate.
Here are several things that they refuse to acknowledge about the Group of 6.
The Group of 6 is part of the FBS.
The Football Bowl Subdivision has 138 teams, not 68. Ignoring nearly half of the division makes no sense. While certain people pretend that NCAA college football has four divisions (P4, G6, DII, DIII), that is not the case. In reality, they are both D1. In the last five seasons, Group of 6 schools have had players win major awards such as the Mackey, Ray Guy, Thorpe, and Maxwell. And not even two full seasons ago, a player at a school outside of the Power 4 almost, and should have, won the Heisman Trophy.
Furthermore, every single one of those 138 teams is eligible for a spot in the College Football Playoffs. Obviously, some teams have a minuscule chance of ever reaching the playoff, but those teams are scattered throughout all of the FBS, not just those G6 schools. In fact, many G6 schools actually have a better chance of reaching the CFP than some teams in power conferences.
While many P4 teams and pundits would like to exclude Group of 6 teams from major awards or playoffs, they have equal FBS status.
People unfairly compare G6 teams to P4 blue bloods.
While all 138 teams have an equal claim to be in the FBS, that doesn’t mean all FBS teams are equal, just like the Dodgers and Rockies aren’t equal in baseball despite both being major league teams.
Those bashing the Group of 6 teams on TV and other media platforms often expect them to be as good as the best teams in college football. However, they are the best in college football for a reason, and holding mid-majors to that standard is grossly unfair.
The difference between a top-tier mid-major and a bottom-tier P4 team is practically nothing. If anything, a program like Boise State is a better program than Boston College or Pitt. The difference between a top-tier mid-major and a middle-tier power conference team like NC State or UCLA is minimal at best.
The gap between New Mexico and Michigan is obviously large. But the gap between Michigan and Rutgers is too. A Group of 6 team shouldn’t be held to the standard of the college football elite. Instead, the bottom half of the Power 4 and the top half of the Group of 6 is a more realistic comparison. While the Venn diagram wouldn’t be a complete overlap, there would be a lot of middle ground in wins, recruiting classes, bowl games, and other results, despite the disparity in money and resources.
Which leads to the next point…
Not all Power 4 teams are the same.
No one thinks that Ohio State and Kent State are the same. The gap between schools like Ohio State and Kent State is massive. However, the real mistake is thinking that Ohio State and Boston College are the same, despite the narrative. While both have the Power 4 designation, they are not in the same tier. The gap between Ohio State and Boston College is just as great as the gap between Boston College and Kent State.
Only a handful of schools are true blue-bloods, but many others benefit from riding their coattails. This chart explains the gap between the top and bottom end of teams in the P4 circle.
Spending $50 million and $10 million are nowhere near the same spending group, but the narrative treats them as such. A group of 6 programs gets criticized for having smaller budgets, but why aren’t lower-level P4 schools under the same scrutiny?
Instead, Michigan and Rutgers get the same media payouts, even though the latter did nothing to earn them. Schools like Rutgers get an A on the group project because they showed up after others did all the work.
Power 4 teams would do worse on Group of 6 budgets.
We’ve all heard the same tired arguments that teams like Boise State wouldn’t win as many games if they competed in the Big Ten or SEC. Likewise, it’s accurate to say many P4 teams could benefit from playing G6 schedules. But the reverse scenario rarely gets discussed.
If a team like Boise State got the same money as a school like Kansas State, it would likely take only a few years to compete. TCU, Utah, and SMU are good examples of this after they moved into power conferences.
Additionally, force Kansas State to operate with considerably less money, and watch them struggle to retain coaches and players and keep up in recruiting. Sadly, Washington State and Oregon State have been victims of this.
Power 4 teams raid the Group of 6 every year.
Pundits shout from the rooftops that the G6 is an inferior brand of college football. But every offseason, P4 teams will lure talented coaches and top players from the Group of 6 ranks with money in an attempt to improve their programs. If the talent level is so much worse, why do those teams keep poaching season after season? If those schools don’t belong, why do they want G6 players on their roster?
Imagine if Group of 6 teams could stack talent year after year again, like they could a decade or two ago. Imagine if teams from power conferences couldn’t get second chances on players they looked past in recruiting or didn’t want to develop. Instead, they hypocritically bash teams while taking their talent and best coaches.
Are teams from the Power 4 and Group of 6 different? Yes, they are different. But the differences are opportunities, revenue, and tired talking points. Any attempt to separate the two is an attempt to make college football worse and diminish essential parts of the sport that make it great. And it’s time to acknowledge that the Group of 6, or the other half of D1 football, helps make it great.
