Division I athletic conferences are often referenced as two subsets. They are alternately referred to as "major" and "mid-major," or as the "P5" or Power 5 conferences and the "G5" or "Group of 5" conferences.
Many G5 conference supporters want no distinction and advocate a single D-I recognition of all D-1 programs. Unfortunately, there is a clear distinction between the two groups that is defined by money. In simple terms, members of P5 conferences have it, while G5 conference members do not (in comparison to P5 conference members).
The money difference results in consistent competitive advantages for P5 conference members. Consequently, there will continue to be a distinction drawn between the "haves" and the "have nots." So if major/mid-major, and P5/G5 references are considered by many to be unjust and derogatory to G5 members, what is appropriate for the distinction that does indeed exist?
Many G5 conference supporters want no distinction and advocate a single D-I recognition of all D-1 programs. Unfortunately, there is a clear distinction between the two groups that is defined by money. In simple terms, members of P5 conferences have it, while G5 conference members do not (in comparison to P5 conference members).
The money difference results in consistent competitive advantages for P5 conference members. Consequently, there will continue to be a distinction drawn between the "haves" and the "have nots." So if major/mid-major, and P5/G5 references are considered by many to be unjust and derogatory to G5 members, what is appropriate for the distinction that does indeed exist?
