There’s an awkward pause that one reaches when they’re about to say “Power 5.”

It’s a realization that the term “Power 5” is outdated. We can thank the death of the Pac-12 for that. That leaves us with 4 true power conferences with the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten and of course, the SEC.

That means we’re in a place of transition, which means we need to evolve our college football vernacular.

The “Power 5” is dead. “Core 4” is alive.

While I don’t have trademarking capabilities of such a thing — neither does that one New York Yankees team that claimed that in an entirely different sport 2 decades ago — I do have ownership of “Core 4.”

It started as a response to Andy Staples asking the all-important question — what do we do now that we can’t call it the “Power 5?”

Andy has since endorsed it, as have I on virtually every episode of The Saturday Down South Podcast. It rhymes, which means it flows. Any alliteration would’ve been forced. Trust me. I pondered “Fearsome Four,” though that sounds more like a movie or a lame marketing campaign for a group of returning starters than it does a group of college conferences. Same with “Ferocious Four” or “Fearsome Four,” and while “Final Four” is probably the most literal term in this era of realignment, that’s already trademarked.

Core 4 is the way to go. Get on board.

Do I expect the “Group of 5” to get on board with that? No, but then again, they didn’t like being called “Group of 5” in the first place.

The entire reason that these affiliations came to be in the first place was to show that not all FBS conferences are created equal. If you choose to ignore the basis of that opinion — recruiting class rankings, TV money, AP Top 25 finishes, national championships, NFL Draft picks, guaranteed future Playoff spots, etc. — then that’s on you.

This stat from Brett McMurphy ahead of the 2023 season forecasted exactly how things played out for the likes of UCF, Cincinnati, BYU and Houston. None of those teams had a winning record in conference play and they went a combined 8-28:

Again, that’s not my way of hating on Group of 5 programs. It’s just showing that there is indeed a jump, which is why the “power conferences” deserve a name that reflects that.

Speaking of “power conference,” that might be the default answer that some have when they hit that awkward pause. I get it. It’s still not good enough.

By not having a number in the name, you leave it up for interpretation. We don’t need Group of 5 schools claiming that they’re a “power conference” after having an outlier season. I’m not trying to keep the little man down. I just don’t want Tulsa out here claiming that it can hang with anyone in the ACC in the event that it has a 10-win season with a win against a 6-win Miami (FL) team in a bowl game.

If Tulsa can claim “power conference” status, who can’t? Temple? Louisiana-Monroe? We don’t need to blur those lines. Now is the time to redefine them.

“Core 4” does that.

I realize that it’s going to take some getting used to. I’ve tried to think of it this way. If I need a term and I’m referring to something that happened in the past, it’s “Power 5.” If I need a term and I’m referring to something that’s going to happen in the future, it’s “Core 4.”

We need reps. Reps build confidence so there isn’t that awkward pause. It’s like when you find yourself in another country and you second-guess yourself as you’re about to speak the native language. If you spent a month or a year there, that awkward pause would fade.

There’s plenty of time to rid yourself of the “Power 5” habit or the awkward pause because for now, any talk of a Super League is just that — talk. Might as well get on board with “Core 4” and turn the page to the future.

Sorry, Yankees.