http://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/4...philosophy

This could relieve some pressure to move up to FBS but not eliminate the desire.

(07-19-2017 05:52 PM)NoDak Wrote:  http://www.grandforksherald.com/4300124-...philosophy

This could relieve some pressure to move up to FBS but not eliminate the desire.

To put a finer point on it: The Big Ten is only allowing its members to schedule an FCS opponent if they have four home conference games in a season. If they have five, it's still a no go.

That'll be helpful to the FCS schools that labor in their shadow, but if an FCS is going to move up, it's going to move up regardless. I don't think this substantially changes anyone's trajectory for better or for worse.

(07-19-2017 05:52 PM)NoDak Wrote:  http://www.grandforksherald.com/4300124-...philosophy

This could relieve some pressure to move up to FBS but not eliminate the desire.

That link didn't work for me. Found one from Fox sports. (AN ARTICLE!!! NOT A VIDEO!)

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...ing-071917

"...the policy has been modified since the Big Ten decided to increase to a nine-game conference schedule. During seasons when a Big Ten team has only four home conference games, it will be allowed to schedule an FCS opponent."

Some of the better games are when the Big 10 loses to a MVFC team.

Well, that is disapointing. I was hoping the big ten was eventually moving towards 11 P5 games a year.

Of course if the Big Ten ever moves to 10 conference games, it will be easier to buy out the FCS games when the time comes than it would be to buy out G5 or P5 ooc games.

Big Ten coaches have publicly said they want 10conf games over 9, because of the unfairness of 5 away games cs 4 home games every other year.

I think we'll get there ... Big Ten games are more valuable than most non conf games that get scheduled. And when we get 10, then it will be a hard rule against FCS.

(07-19-2017 05:52 PM)NoDak Wrote:  http://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/4...philosophy

This could relieve some pressure to move up to FBS but not eliminate the desire.

Speaking of FCS opponents, sorry to hear about Deion Harris- was looking forward to seeing how our receivers matched up against him.

If / when the Big Ten plays 10 conference games (thus guaranteeing 5 road games), will both of the remaining games become "buy" games, or will league teams learn to get by on just 6 home games?

Thoughts?

It just means maybe 4 or 5 fewer G5 vs P5 games in the future. The B1G sees the ACC and SEC gaining an advantage with a free win against an FCS school. It is also $500-750K cheaper to book an FCS victim than a G5.

I can't believe it.It is a ridiculous turnabout!! Pathetic.

(07-19-2017 09:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If / when the Big Ten plays 10 conference games (thus guaranteeing 5 road games), will both of the remaining games become "buy" games, or will league teams learn to get by on just 6 home games?

Thoughts?

At the very least, teams like Iowa would have to alternate, 6 home games one year and 7 home games the next year. Since they would want to keep the home and away series with Iowa State that they play every year. Then the other ooc game would be a buy game at home every year.

I gam guessing other Big Ten teams would do something similar. Alternate 6 homes games one year with 7 home games the next year. 1 ooc game against a P5 and and 1 ooc buy game.

(07-19-2017 09:20 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  I can't believe it.It is a ridiculous turnabout!! Pathetic.

Eh. I fully expect the B1G to be well ahead of "powerhouse" conferences like the ACC and SEC in terms of not scheduling too many FCS games.

In 2017:

2 B1G teams out of 14 play an FCS game.
13 ACC teams out of 14 play an FCS game.
14 (!!!!) SEC teams out of 14 play an FCS game.

If we're going to call people pathetic, let's get it right. The ACC and SEC and their over-reliance on FCS games are pathetic!

(07-19-2017 09:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Big Ten coaches have publicly said they want 10conf games over 9, because of the unfairness of 5 away games cs 4 home games every other year.

I think we'll get there ... Big Ten games are more valuable than most non conf games that get scheduled. And when we get 10, then it will be a hard rule against FCS.

I'm not sure how they can say it's unfair when in every other year it's 5 home and 4 away.

You are right Bearcat. The SEC and ACC are the worst offenders.I mainly meant it was pathetic to change a policy only started two years ago.

(07-19-2017 09:09 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 05:52 PM)NoDak Wrote:  http://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/4...philosophy

This could relieve some pressure to move up to FBS but not eliminate the desire.

Speaking of FCS opponents, sorry to hear about Deion Harris- was looking forward to seeing how our receivers matched up against him.

Tough to lose a CB where scouts were talking first round potential. Hopefully will be back next year when we face Washington.

(07-19-2017 09:23 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 09:20 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  I can't believe it.It is a ridiculous turnabout!! Pathetic.

Eh. I fully expect the B1G to be well ahead of "powerhouse" conferences like the ACC and SEC in terms of not scheduling too many FCS games.

In 2017:

2 B1G teams out of 14 play an FCS game.
13 ACC teams out of 14 play an FCS game.
14 (!!!!) SEC teams out of 14 play an FCS game.

If we're going to call people pathetic, let's get it right. The ACC and SEC and their over-reliance on FCS games are pathetic!

7 Big 12 teams out of 10 play an FCS game.
8 PAC-12 teams out of 12 play an FCS game.

(07-19-2017 09:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If / when the Big Ten plays 10 conference games (thus guaranteeing 5 road games), will both of the remaining games become "buy" games, or will league teams learn to get by on just 6 home games?

Thoughts?

That's a good point.

The only way to ensure 7 home games on a 10 game conference schedule is for the 2 remaining game to be buy games every year which eliminates the possibility for non-conference series with the P5.

That may be "ok" for the lower half of the B1G in attendance (Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Maryland & Rutgers) but for the upper half its not workable, IMO.

(07-19-2017 09:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If / when the Big Ten plays 10 conference games (thus guaranteeing 5 road games), will both of the remaining games become "buy" games, or will league teams learn to get by on just 6 home games?

Thoughts?

7 home games is more important than P5 non-conf games, so I hope they go that way.

The Big teams will be just fine with 10 P5 (conf) games, plus the CCG. That's a schedule that gets you in the CFP practically autobid.

(07-19-2017 09:46 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 09:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If / when the Big Ten plays 10 conference games (thus guaranteeing 5 road games), will both of the remaining games become "buy" games, or will league teams learn to get by on just 6 home games?

Thoughts?

That's a good point.

The only way to ensure 7 home games on a 10 game conference schedule is for the 2 remaining game to be buy games every year which eliminates the possibility for non-conference series with the P5.

That may be "ok" for the lower half of the B1G in attendance (Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Maryland & Rutgers) but for the upper half its not workable, IMO.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point, but its really the upper half of the Big Ten that wants the 7 home games because their attendence is over 65k and usually they sell out. Going from 7 to 6 home games would be a big drop in revenue.

The bottom half would probably be ok with 6 home games because the additional tv revenue from an all P5 schedule would be more revenue than they would get from that extra home game.

North Dakota State is better for SoS than Iowa State and Kansas. That is the key word there.