Talk:Power conferences

Six teams to break into the BCS?

Okay, so six different times so far, non-AQ teams have made it into BCS games. However, only 4 different teams have done so. I think the list should be a bit more clear. Hillshum|Talk 16:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Utah (2), Hawaii, BSU (2), TCU

Of these, only BSU in 2010 was "non-AQ". The rest were in the BCS game via AQ bid/rules. If the article is going to call out these teams for special attention I don't think "non-AQ" is the right term. Reamon (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There are Automatic Qualifying rules; not automatic qualifying conferences

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)

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)

Conference and bowl ties are not just historic

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)

BCS really only applies to CFB

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)

From the article: "The official term for this is Automatic Qualifying (AQ) Conference."

What is the reference for this? The BCS does not define such a term, at least not that I've seen on the BCS web site. Reamon (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Found a mention of "AQ conference" on the BCS web site. "The five non-AQ conferences are just as much BCS conferences as the six AQ conferences. Conferences earn AQ status by on-field competition." http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4809755 The FAQ also mentions the term. http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4809793 Alas, there is no explicit definition that I've found. It seems that rule 2 of the "Automatic qualification" section infers what is defined as an "AQ conference." If someone sees something else on the BCS web site that is more explicit please post it. Reamon (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Update Map

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)

Wait nevermind, didn't notice the different section headers. 108.48.23.27 (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Group of Five conference champions not eligible for CFP (dubious)

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)

Archive, Make Historic, or Create New Topic

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)

It looks like there are a good number of sources over the last year referring to the Power Four (sometimes with the P4 abbreviation) and stating that the Power Five era has come to an end. With the Pac-12 stripped of its autonomy status, I don't think there's much argument to be made that the Power Five still exists, but the concept of College football power conferences certainly still does. I'd suggest that title should be changed to either College football power conferences or Power Four conferences and the article should be updated accordingly, with the Power 5 name and abbreviation still bolded as a former name for a past era. Cookieo131 (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. The P4 has really taken off in terms of use. DesertVulture (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Final paragraph necessity

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&#124 (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Should this be an article just covering the "Power Five" era, or should this expand to a whole history of "Upper Tier" CFB conference designations?

With the Pac-12 all but being dissolved, it's becoming pretty obvious that the "Power Five" this article refers to is no longer current. Pretty much no one considers the now Pac-2 a power conference. But should this stay as a signifier of only the "Power Five" era, or should this article be expanded to include the entire history of college football's upper tiers? (ie, the AQ system and whatever the Bowl Coalition used before)

Would love to hear other opinions, as both options seem good for me, although personally I favor the second option as it feels more complete. (Especially since "Automatic Qualifying conference" redirects here already)

G5bestcfb (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I just moved it Power Four conferences (and spent a good portion of my Sunday afternoon updating the article). I saw that one editor reverted the move and than another editor reverted the revert, so I guess we'll see how that goes. In terms of your other point about covering the history of college football's upper tiers, what specific changes would you make? I've tried to cover the history of college football's upper tiers already with the "History" section but am certainly open to other ideas/edits. I guess we could also think about changing the name of the article to something like "Power conferences (college football)", though that might run afoul of WP:COMMONfNAME. Orser67 (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to see more evidence of "Power Four" in actual use by significant sources, not just one-off quips about how the "Power Five has now become the Power Four", before we accept it as the COMMONNAME. I reverted the bold moves, open a move discussion if desired.

We're also seeing articles discussing the "Power Two" of the B1G and SEC. Conference realignment seems to clearly not be done, and it's unclear if this "Power Four" grouping will have much long-term significance.

In my opinion it's WP:TOOSOON to establish how to cover this post-5 era of college football. They haven't even played a game yet. Let's observe how the significant coverage refers to the conferences.

PK-WIKI (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This is frankly a pretty ridiculous claim, but (unlike you, apparently) I have no interest in getting into an edit war. There is very clearly a Power Four now and everyone (including but not limited to the vast majority of reliable sources, including the eight that I included on the page, as well as the five other editors who have weighed in so far in one way or another) other than WSU and OSU fans knows it. Orser67 (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Please assume good faith when replying to other users on Wikipedia. I am certainly not edit warring; our policy requires that contentious moves of long-stable articles be discussed. The other user was out of line to re-move an article title that has been shown to be controversial without opening a request here: WP:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

PK-WIKI (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I will assume good faith if you do your research before make comments and edit summaries on Wikipedia; you claimed your edit was to "revert [an] undiscussed move" on August 11 when in fact the talk page had had a discussion open since August 5 in which no one objected. Also you are the one single-handedly making this move "contentious" so it's a bit rich for you to use that a justification for reverting other people's actions. Orser67 (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This would have been WP:TOOSOON to change six months ago, but not anymore. There's already a good variety of sources using the term Power Four outside of the context of the demise of the Power Five:

CBS Sports, Fox Sports, On3, Rivals, PFF, Athlon Sports

The articles mentioning a potential Power Two you linked are both speculative on the future, while these are about the present. That speculation may be worth a mention in the article (and it already is mentioned). But holding off on this change because some think it may change further in the future sounds like WP:CRYSTAL.

I noticed that you put a WP:CITENEED on my edit to the lead that the term originated in 2014; I drew this from the body of the article and believe it's true (The P5 originated with the end of the BCS and the creation of the CFP following the demise of the old Big East conference), but it does seem the citation for the claim doesn't actually say it.

But since the move is now up for discussion, as above, I think there's room for a discussion on whether the article should be moved to College football power conferences (or some other equivalent) or to Power Four conferences. I'm a proponent of the former, since the article and most of its sources are about the P5, and as you say, further changes could happen. It should not stay as Power Five, unless everything is going to be changed to past tense. The Power Five was, the Power Four is, and the Power Two may be.

Cookieo131 (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I no longer think that the term Power Five originated in 2014 (I still think that's when it gained prominence), as an article from 2006 did use it, so I have removed that claim from the lead. Perhaps the 2005 NCAA conference realignment would be when the P5 could be said to have started... but I won't put that in the article without a source, of course. Cookieo131 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that 2005 NCAA conference realignment is likely when the term gained prominence, specifically the Big East losing Virginia Tech, Miami and Boston College to the ACC. Prior to that realignment there were 6 BCS conferences / Automatic Qualifying conferences. Term "Power Five" was seemingly coined in the media to separate the five from the now-diminished Big East, even if(?) the Big East / AAC still did retain a BCS AQ bid. Then the grouping became even more official with the move to the CFP in 2014, at which point the Big East definitely had its AQ (or equivalent) status dropped.

Note that this top-tier conference grouping goes back to at least the Bowl Coalition in 1992, which contained Notre Dame plus the ACC, Big East, Big Eight, SEC, and SWC. Alongside non-Coalition Big Ten and Pac Ten. That's "Power Seven" (my term) plus Notre Dame. At that point, there was NO PATH to the Bowl Coalition championship game or the Rose Bowl for any mid-major team. In 1996 the Big 12 joined the Bowl Alliance in place of the Big Eight and SWC, making it "Power Six" (my term), which continued into the early years of the BCS.

Notre Dame should probably be given more prominence in the lead of this article, considering that they are given official, special, equal recognition alongside the Power Five conferences in all of the official BC / BA / BCS / CFP seeding regulations.

PK-WIKI (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I would, like you said, change the name to something like College Football "Power Conferences" or something similar. (Just "Power Conferences" runs into issues with college basketball, as the Big East is certainly a power conference there, and there has been some sources refering to them as a "Power 6" back when the Pac-12 still had 12). That would be a whole different discussion over whether to refer to them as "Power" conferences or "High-Major", as I have seen used in that context before.

And as for "Power Four" being the official term or not, well, ESPN (one of the main instigators of the Pac-12's collapse) seems to be saying it's the Power 4 now. Fox Sports and Sports Illustrated as well, and CBS Sports even had it said that way last year. Don't forget NYT/The Athletic either. So I would say that it qualifies as the new term for these conferences. The next realignment domino likely to fall (ACC Collapse or potentially Pac/MW reverse merger, if you think that would count as Power) won't happen until after 2026 at the absolute earliest, so personally I don't think it's too soon in the slightest to state things such now.

I say avoid all the discussions about whether the name should update with new developments, and go with an article title that in general would cover every past and future incarnation of the system. G5bestcfb (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Personally I am fine with titling this article pretty much anything plausible other than "Power Five" (or other possible titles that use the number five), since the Pac-12 is very clearly not a power conference anymore according to pretty much everyone (including but not limited to reliable sources) other than one person who suddenly took an interest in this article five days ago. Orser67 (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 16 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. While there's some suggestion that other names may be even better, there's no direct consensus on that... but there is consensus that the proposed name is preferable to the current name, so moved as specified. If people want to exploore other moves in future RMs, they can go ahead.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Power Five conferences → Power Four conferences – The Pac-12 has lost all but two members following recent college football realignment, and the vast majority of reliable sources now refer to a group of "Power Four conferences" instead of "Power Five conferences". Although media usage of the term (and its reflection on the media's underlying opinion of the strength of the conferences) should be the decisive factor, it is also relevant that the Pac-12 lost its status in 2024 as an "autonomy conference", which the other four power conferences have. See the second paragraph of this old edit for a slew of sources about how the Power Four has supplanted the Power Five. Orser67 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll also add that I have no particular objection to using a title like "Power conferences (college football)", but for this article follow Wikipedia policies (most importantly respecting reliable sources), it's imperative that the article at least make clear in the lead that there is currently a "Power Four" and not a "Power Five". Orser67 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Support - I still favor using "College football power conferences" (or some other equivalent) since it better represents the subject over time from BCS/AQ Conferences (which this page originally was for -- as I'm sure you know, since you were the one to move it to Power Five in the first place almost a decade ago!) to the Power Five to the present, but I have no objection to immediately changing the title to the currently existing Power Four from the former name. Cookieo131 (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Support - I agree with Cookie, Power Four conferences is better than what it is now but "Power conferences (college football)" is what this page IMO should be titled, especially given how much content of the article right now is spent on talking about the way things were before the current "Power" moniker became properly established, (along with lists that go back before the 2010s), which fit much better with a title that can more easily apply to multiple eras of history instead of just the current point in time.

For the lead concern, it can literally be the second/third sentences, for example:

The "Power conferences" in college football are the athletic conferences that are seen as having the highest level of play within the sport, and also whose teams have both the easiest path to achieving a high ranking within polls, and highest chance to be selected for national championship contention. Currently, there are four conferences generally considered to be "Power"; the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big Ten Conference, the Big 12 Conference, and the Southeastern Conference. The teams within these conferences, along with the football independent Notre Dame, are collectively referred to as the "Power 4".

Historically, schools had chosen their conference affiliation out of mostly geographic concerns... (etc.)

Obviously "Power Four" along with "Power Five" probably too would redirect straight to this article. Don't think there would be much of a problem on that front. G5bestcfb (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Just want to say that I'd be totally cool with including the "Power Four" term in the way you proposed. Orser67 (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose move to "Power Four conferences". I don't dispute that the two-member Pac-12 is no longer a "power conference". However it's unclear and too soon to determine if this "power four" grouping has long-term significance in the 12-team playoff era. Reliable sources also describe two tiers in the current power structure, with the B1G/SEC as "Power Two" conferences above the others.

But Support move to Power conferences (college football) as a title that is inclusive of both the Power Five notable era and the Power Four / Power Two current reality.

In the future, would perhaps support a move back to Power Five conferences as a past-tense historical article depending on what we see from the 12-team CFP and further realignment, with the P5 era being preserved here and the new format being described at a new article. PK-WIKI (talk)

Presumably there is no problem with just moving this to Power conferences, which redirects here already. Dekimasuよ! 09:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem/opportunity with Power conferences, no disambiguation, is that men's basketball has/had the Power Six conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC) atop the Mid-majors. So if the article is just titled "Power conferences" I'd expect a top-level section for basketball. Whereas the current article is solely focused on the power conferences that exist in college football. Every other sport might have its own separate and distinct "Power" conferences as well. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd go with Power conferences because the future of "Power number" is very much in flux, given (1) the very uncertain future of the ACC, with Clemson and Florida State suing to get out, and (2) the B1G and SEC arguably an elite within an elite. I do see the merit of PK's idea of reestablishing "Power Five" as a past-tense historic page. — Dale Arnett (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• FBS power conferences (Football Bowl Subdivision). – wbm1058 (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Power Four conferences as an obvious improvement over "no consensus". – wbm1058 (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Support move to Power conferences per @PK-WIKI. ~ Sandy14156 (Talk ✉️) 23:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - it looks to me like there is a consensus to make a move, and this discussion has been ongoing for a couple weeks now. Can someone please close this and make the move? Orser67 (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support Power Four conferences until the ACC or Big XII or something implodes in 2027 Red Slash 19:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 1 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Power conferences per discussion below. Best, (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans 07:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Power Four conferences → Power conferences (college football) – While the "Power Five" conferences died with the old Pac-12, it's unclear and too soon to determine if this "Power Four" grouping has long-term significance in the 12-team playoff era. Reliable sources also alternately describe two tiers in the current power structure, with the B1G/SEC as "Power Two" conferences above the Big 12 (diminished by the loss of Texas and Oklahoma) and the ACC (with Florida State and others currently actively trying to break out of the conference).

In the moved article, Automatic Qualifying, Power Five, Power Four, and Power Two would all be included as MOS:BOLDALTNAMES in the lead.

Power conferences (college football) is a title that is inclusive of both the BCS / Power Five notable historic era that makes up much of the article and both options for the Power Four / Power Two current reality. This is supported by reliable sources:

Washigton Post, 2023: The Power Five concept that existed for more than a decade is dead. The sport will be framed around the “Power Two” conferences and everyone else for the next decade. “Everyone else” includes a haphazardly assembled, coast-to-coast Big 12, which picked Utah, Arizona, Arizona State and former Big 12 member Colorado off the Pac-12’s carcass to compensate for losing Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. Then there’s the ACC, whose East Coast members are leaning against annexing Pac-12 castaways California and Stanford.

The article title Power conferences (college football) and/or Power conferences without disambiguation was supported by most participants in the recent requested move, with the closer stating While there's some suggestion that other names may be even better, there's no direct consensus on that... but there is consensus that the proposed name is preferable to the current name, so moved as specified. If people want to explore other moves in future RMs, they can go ahead. I'm doing that now. In my opinion the "(college football)" disambiguation is needed, as Power Six conferences atop the Mid-majors is a term that exists / existed in College Basketball. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Wouldn't it have been better to send Power conferences to WP:RFD first, to determine if it is the primary topic? 162 etc. (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  That can happen at any point in the future. PK-WIKI (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  As it stands, Power conferences redirects to this article, so the proposed move to Power conferences (college football) is intentionally adding unnecessary disambiguation. Oppose as proposed; neutral on Power conferences. 162 etc. (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I can generally support broadening the topic to "Power conferences", as awkward as that is. I don't see a need for disambiguation, as the one possible conflict (at this time) is a red link. However, we should not rely on a Washigton Post analyst's purported ability to see a decade into the future as the basis for "Power Two"—other, current and tangible, examples of that should be brought forward, else the article should stick with Power Four, at least for now. Dmoore5556 (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Just this week there was major news of the Big Ten and SEC petitioning the CFP for extra automatic bids for their conferences, above those afforded to the ACC, Big 12, and G5+.

  • New York Times: In the spring, the Big Ten proposed — with the SEC’s backing — having the two conferences receive three or four automatic bids to the CFP as all the FBS leagues were moving toward an agreement that locked in the expanded Playoff through the 2031 season. One plan had the SEC and Big Ten each getting three automatic bids to the CFP and the ACC and Big 12 getting two each, with one saved for the highest-ranked champion from the other major college football conferences.
  • Sporting News SEC-Big Ten partnership can ensure ‘Power 2’ gets most College Football Playoff spots [...] The new agreement would allow at least eight Big Ten and SEC schools to qualify for playoff berths, assuming the SEC follows the Big Ten's lead and transitions to a nine-game conference schedule. Ultimately, the would-be partnership is the next step toward a “Power 2” league. The SEC and Big Ten already own the vast majority of TV rights and revenue share.

  Remember that the new "Power Four" group doesn't really have any "current and tangible" examples either in the 12-team CFP. We don't yet know how the 12-team CFP is going to handle selection and seeding. Unlike the contractual rules of the BC/BA/AQ/BCS eras, and the de facto bias in the limited 4-team playoff, the 12-team CFP rules don't actually draw any distinction between P4 and G5, but just gives the top five ranked conference champions automatic selections. A non-P4 champion will be in every 12-team CFP. The NCAA does draw distinction between the P5/P4 conferences, each classified as an "autonomous conference", while the G5 and Pac-2 are "nonautonomous FBS conference", but that wouldn't be enough to write a dedicated article about if not for the real "Power Five" history.

  Other uses of the "Power Two" tier by reliable third-party sources other than the Washington Post:

  • New York Times Power 5? College Sports May Soon Be Dominated by a Mighty 2. The Big Ten and the SEC are consolidating power. The rest of college sports, some fear, could become a muddle.
  • Yahoo Sports The CFP is barreling toward a new format and revenue model that skews toward the new Power Two of college athletics, creating a more formal delineation between two groups: the SEC and Big Ten; the ACC and Big 12. While the Power Two separated themselves long ago through increased revenue streams and recent expansion, a new playoff model is expected to draw a more permanent line. [...] The difference in distribution between the two sets of conferences — SEC/Big Ten and ACC/Big 12 — will likely exceed $300 million a year. The Power Two will earn around a combined $760 million versus around $440 million for the ACC and Big 12. Roughly $115 million is slotted for the Group of Five. [...] As their television deal falls further financially behind the Power Two, seven ACC schools — FSU, Clemson, Miami, North Carolina, NC State, Virginia and Virginia Tech — met independently last year to explore a potential exit strategy from the ACC’s grant-of-rights.
  • Los Angeles Times The TV networks were proven right to have invested so much time and resources into constructing a “Power Two” conference structure that would provide the best inventory to consumers more consistently, and, sure enough, four big brands that will live in the Big Ten and SEC starting next season were invited to the College Football Playoff at the season’s end.
  • Fox Sports The Power Five is, at most, now a Power Four. And it’s arguably a Power Two, because of how much money the Big Ten and SEC schools will soon be earning - some analysts predicting they’ll soon earn more than double the yearly income as their alleged rivals. So what’s stopping the best schools left outside the Power Two from leaving their conferences, just like the best Pac-12 schools left theirs?

  PK-WIKI (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Ping of all involved in the previous move discussion. @Orser67:, @Cookieo131:, @G5bestcfb:, @Dekimasu:, @Dale Arnett:, @Wbm1058:, @Sandy14156:, @Red Slash:. PK-WIKI (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support this title change or a similar variant, but oppose bolding Power Two in the summary or including it in the first sentence at this time. Using a title that reflects that the name in use to describe the power conferences has changed over time is better than using a title that describes less than the last year of a page covering multiple decades. Since it may change again, the title change would reflect that the article is really about the concept of power conferences rather than just its current iteration. The "Power Two" breaking away in a way more meaningful than the TV revenue gap remains speculative or in the future tense per most of your sources ("will be framed around the 'Power Two';" "SEC-Big Ten partnership can ensure ‘Power 2’... next step toward a 'Power 2';" "May Soon Be Dominated by a Mighty 2;" "barreling toward;" "arguably a Power Two"). I also think things are likely to go in that direction — but the future could hold a break as large as splitting FBS entirely. I don't think it's useful to fixate on that specific scenario and I disagree with elevating potential future names to an equal status with names that were formerly or are currently in use. Cookieo131 (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I agree with this approach. A similar article is Pac-12 Conference, which waits until the second paragraph of the lead to recount the prior incarnations. That various writers are speculating about a reduction to a "Power Two", possibly with good reason, could be covered in the article, but in my opinion such speculation won't belong in the lead. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject College football has been notified of this discussion. Web-julio (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• I didn't receive the ping above, but support Power conferences, which still redirects here, rather than adding preemptive disambiguation, which I would oppose. Dekimasuよ! 04:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.