Sponsored by the Ohio Valley and Southland conference.

http://southland.org/news/2016/6/9/FB_0609163323.aspx

This may get some traction as some conferences are large that an extra conference game will be nice.

Not to mention getting 6 home games which would help a lot.


Seems to be mentioned on other boards that this will further blurr the lines for the lowest G5 schools and FCS.....not sure I agree with that.

Not sure I like this...I love it as a fan but I think the seasons are going too long for the players (time commitments and physical toll on their bodies).

That's a lot of games for teams that make the 20-team playoffs. 2 teams could possibly play 17 games total.

Where FBS most likely number of games is 15. Yes technically 16 if you play in Hawaii, but most likely 15 at the most for 2 teams.

(06-27-2016 03:34 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Not sure I like this...I love it as a fan but I think the seasons are going too long for the players (time commitments and physical toll on their bodies).

Well they were already playing more games than FBS anyway for those teams that made it to the final 4 of the FCS playoffs.

But, to have 6 home games will help the FCS teams fianancially

FCS schools already played 12 games in a season. McNeese State had one less game last year because the game they play against LSU was canceled because of the weather. It would have given them a 11th game last year.

Why is it assumed that teams will make more money when they play a 6th home game? I thought the only way they made money was playing at P5 schools.

First its a 24 team playoff. The maximum number of games played is 11 except on seasons that have an extra week http://www.dailycomet.com/article/201606.../160609677
Schools who have healthy attendance do make money on home games.
this also would allow for more quality ooc games.

I would like to see that 12th game be a preseason exhibition. One that doesn't count in W-L records, statistics, or eligibility (that is, a player can participate without affecting his redshirt status). It would be optional and could (but need not) be a "buy" game for an FBS team, which would not count against the FBS limit of 12 regular season games.

In this scenario, these would be the only FCS opponents an FBS team may schedule. They could also be used to experiment with rule changes.

(06-28-2016 09:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  I would like to see that 12th game be a preseason exhibition. One that doesn't count in W-L records, statistics, or eligibility (that is, a player can participate without affecting his redshirt status). It would be optional and could (but need not) be a "buy" game for an FBS team, which would not count against the FBS limit of 12 regular season games.

In this scenario, these would be the only FCS opponents an FBS team may schedule. They could also be used to experiment with rule changes.

That's a very good idea.

It'd be interesting if teams like NDSU would still only schedule 11 games. The rule will allow 12, but not require it.

They get six home games a year anyway, via buy games. One of the few FCS programs that can afford it. And whose fans expect those six guaranteed tailgating dates.


But certainly the playoff selection committee will consider the schedules and possibly dock teams that only play 11. We'll see.


If they're going to do this -- just make the season start a week earlier. Same for FBS, too. And then reduce the time that players can report for fall camp by a week.

(06-28-2016 09:53 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 09:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  I would like to see that 12th game be a preseason exhibition. One that doesn't count in W-L records, statistics, or eligibility (that is, a player can participate without affecting his redshirt status). It would be optional and could (but need not) be a "buy" game for an FBS team, which would not count against the FBS limit of 12 regular season games.

In this scenario, these would be the only FCS opponents an FBS team may schedule. They could also be used to experiment with rule changes.

That's a very good idea.

Making the 12th game an exhibition game would be a step backward for the FCS sub-division. As mentioned above, FCS already has some 12 game regular seasons. The proposal, which seems reasonable to me, is to increase that number should a program have that desire.

I guess making the games exhibition games would be advantageous to those FBS teams losing to FCS teams; particularly if the current decade's trend continues ... (9 losses in 2015, 8 losses in 2014, 16 in 2013, 10 in 2012, 6 in 2011, 7 in 2010). Perhaps, an 11 game regular season with an exhibition game should be carried across all of Division I. It might be a win-win if conferences like the B1G backed off of discussed guidelines to discontinue scheduling FCS teams. There would no longer be a reason for FBS programs to duck an FCS opponent.

I'm just wondering what kind of interest the casual fan would have in attending an exhibition game. If the idea is to increase the possibility for an FCS program to schedule six home games, the idea of an exhibition game seems counterproductive.

(06-28-2016 01:40 PM)LUSportsFan Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 09:53 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 09:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  I would like to see that 12th game be a preseason exhibition. One that doesn't count in W-L records, statistics, or eligibility (that is, a player can participate without affecting his redshirt status). It would be optional and could (but need not) be a "buy" game for an FBS team, which would not count against the FBS limit of 12 regular season games.

In this scenario, these would be the only FCS opponents an FBS team may schedule. They could also be used to experiment with rule changes.

That's a very good idea.

Making the 12th game an exhibition game would be a step backward for the FCS sub-division. As mentioned above, FCS already has some 12 game regular seasons. The proposal, which seems reasonable to me, is to increase that number should a program have that desire.

I guess making the games exhibition games would be advantageous to those FBS teams losing to FCS teams; particularly if the current decade's trend continues ... (9 losses in 2015, 8 losses in 2014, 16 in 2013, 10 in 2012, 6 in 2011, 7 in 2010). Perhaps, an 11 game regular season with an exhibition game should be carried across all of Division I. It might be a win-win if conferences like the B1G backed off of discussed guidelines to discontinue scheduling FCS teams. There would no longer be a reason for FBS programs to duck an FCS opponent.

I'm just wondering what kind of interest the casual fan would have in attending an exhibition game. If the idea is to increase the possibility for an FCS program to schedule six home games, the idea of an exhibition game seems counterproductive.

I believe that there are forces in play that could lead to the elimination of FBS vs FCS games entirely. Or, at the very least, could eliminate them with respect to the FBS programs that can best afford to pay sizable guarantees in exchange for a lucrative home date for the FBS team. Given the importance which that revenue source is to many FCS programs, my suggestion was meant as a way to preserve it.

As for fan interest, I would suggest that fans of those FBS programs are sufficiently eager to see their team by the end of a long summer that they will be happy to watch such an exhibition. I could be wrong, but if a solution like this guarantees seven home games to P5 schools whose conferences are already playing, or planning to play, a nine game league schedule to accommodate their media partners, it will be embraced.

(06-28-2016 01:59 PM)ken d Wrote:  I believe that there are forces in play that could lead to the elimination of FBS vs FCS games entirely. Or, at the very least, could eliminate them with respect to the FBS programs that can best afford to pay sizable guarantees in exchange for a lucrative home date for the FBS team. Given the importance which that revenue source is to many FCS programs, my suggestion was meant as a way to preserve it.

As for fan interest, I would suggest that fans of those FBS programs are sufficiently eager to see their team by the end of a long summer that they will be happy to watch such an exhibition. I could be wrong, but if a solution like this guarantees seven home games to P5 schools whose conferences are already playing, or planning to play, a nine game league schedule to accommodate their media partners, it will be embraced.

I see the college football FCS payday games as similar to a Triple-A baseball team coming to a Big League stadium.

I have no problem with the New York Yankees hosting the Triple-A Albuquerque Isotopes for an exhibition game. However, that game should not count to pad the Yankees' win-loss record or to pad players' batting average, ERA, and other stats.

We are already limited with only 12 or 13 data points from which to evaluate the best college football teams. It's a sham to hide behind an FCS payday game for 1/12th of your resume.

A pre-season exhibition game is a perfect compromise. It still provides the opportunity for lots of $$$ to both the FBS home team and the travelling FCS payday opponent, but without belittling the regular season and perpetuating the current mockery. Plus, it gives the FBS home team an opportunity to tune-up for the regular season.

THEN, hopefully we see more 9-game conference schedules and a bunch more Ohio St-Oklahoma, Ole Miss-Florida St., Wisconsin-LSU, Auburn-Penn St., etc. type OOC games each year.

I like the idea of 12 game schedules for FCS schools. As a fan, football seasons are short enough with a limited number of opportunities to see your team so another chance is welcome in my book.

I am also a fan of the exhibition game theory. Split the 12 regular season games up evenly between home and away (neutral site games are tricky though; money is probably not as good as a home game but not a true road game for competitive reasons).

Exibition games is a stupid idea.
Its difficult in fcs to schedule quality fcs ooc games and this provides that opportunity. This coming year we are lucky in that our ooc games include ccu and liberty by mid season there should be the ability to judge the quality of our teams on a national level vs our position in our respective conferences. Now if all fcs teams played ooc games then playoff seeding could be more accurate.

yea in the era of worry on brain concussions and head injury leys keep adding games. lets make some of these kids play an nfl 16 game schedule. yea

This should be up to FCS schools, entirely. FBS schools, and their fans, have no dog in this hunt.

Cnelson,

Agreed. The only DI members that should get to vote on this matter are those who sponsor FCS football (which I believe would come to between 1/4 to 1/3rd of total DI member body).

Too bad it probably won't work that way. AFAIK, only the "autonomy body" of P5 schools can vote as a separate quorum, and then only on issues that are just "optional" for the rest of DI.

(06-28-2016 09:23 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  Exibition games is a stupid idea.
Its difficult in fcs to schedule quality fcs ooc games and this provides that opportunity. This coming year we are lucky in that our ooc games include ccu and liberty by mid season there should be the ability to judge the quality of our teams on a national level vs our position in our respective conferences. Now if all fcs teams played ooc games then playoff seeding could be more accurate.

+10000

(06-28-2016 11:40 PM)billings Wrote:  yea in the era of worry on brain concussions and head injury leys keep adding games. lets make some of these kids play an nfl 16 game schedule. yea

Even with the current rules the playoff team average 14 or 15 games. Plus, to be able to have a 6th or 7th home game is needed and as you know that first game against D2 or NAIA schools won't have the majority of starting players in the game for long just as the Alabama's do when they usually have a blowout after 1 1/2 qtrs.