(11-30-2019 01:00 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(11-30-2019 12:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  They're horrible for the fans and for college football.

Its one thing when Vanderbilt schedules 3-8 West Carolina who lost this year already 59-7 to Wofford, but its obscene that a top 20 program like Alabama does it.

So you would be happy if everyone scheduled like ND? Is there a major difference between UNM as Western Carolina?

Happy of the P5 did it. Happy if the "power schools" did it. If P5 plays Go5, Go5 plays FCS, FCS plays Div2, I'd be happy with that.

The place to put it in place is the CFP standings. If the CFP standings treat an FCS win as a "bad win" because the game was played, and docks the school that played it, the FCS games will quickly disappear from the real aspirants for the National Championship.

But that's not going to happen, so the FCS cupcake tray will stay nearly full.

(11-30-2019 01:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-30-2019 12:56 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  It’s a great way to keep football at all levels alive. FBS schedule FCS. FCS schedule Div II. And so on. It keeps opportunities to play the game for everyone

Now should an Alabama play starters into the 4th. Or even the third. Heck no. But it helps college football


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

USC, UCLA and Notre Dame have never scheduled FCS. Texas has only done it two or three times due to schedule difficulties. Oklahoma normally doesn't do it anymore.

Schools like Alabama, Georgia, Ohio St., Michigan, etc. should not be doing it. Its fine for the G5 and bottom 2/3 of FBS.

OU is starting to play FCS teams now. Our athletic director gives money as the reason, as the going rate for a money game with a G5 team is around $1M. OU can get an FCS team for a rent-a-win for around $500K. So, this year OU played South Dakota. Next year, it's Missouri State. In 2021, it's Western Carolina, while in 2023, it's Illinois State. To add insult to injury, our Tier 3 contract with Fox calls for Fox to own the rights to one game, which they use for a pay-per-view game. So, we have fans paying $45 for PPV of OU vs. an FCS team.

Our fans don't like it, but it is what it is.

I don't mind money trickling down to lower-level programs. I just don't like using regular season games to do it, and trying to sell the game as a legitimate contest. Outside of games between the lower end of FBS and top FCS teams, these games usually aren't a contest. (Note to ADs: Don't schedule North Dakota State) I'd be for FBS teams playing FCS teams in spring games, though.

The NCAA needs to approve a preseason exhibition the last two weeks of August. FBS schools can schedule a home game against FCS schools in one of these two weeks. Starting Labor Day weekend they need to be playing 12 FBS opponents. I’m tired of hearing money being the reason why fans and season ticket holders are forced to bear pointless 50+ point blowouts.

(11-30-2019 08:58 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(11-30-2019 01:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-30-2019 12:56 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  It’s a great way to keep football at all levels alive. FBS schedule FCS. FCS schedule Div II. And so on. It keeps opportunities to play the game for everyone

Now should an Alabama play starters into the 4th. Or even the third. Heck no. But it helps college football


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

USC, UCLA and Notre Dame have never scheduled FCS. Texas has only done it two or three times due to schedule difficulties. Oklahoma normally doesn't do it anymore.

Schools like Alabama, Georgia, Ohio St., Michigan, etc. should not be doing it. Its fine for the G5 and bottom 2/3 of FBS.

OU is starting to play FCS teams now. Our athletic director gives money as the reason, as the going rate for a money game with a G5 team is around $1M. OU can get an FCS team for a rent-a-win for around $500K. So, this year OU played South Dakota. Next year, it's Missouri State. In 2021, it's Western Carolina, while in 2023, it's Illinois State. To add insult to injury, our Tier 3 contract with Fox calls for Fox to own the rights to one game, which they use for a pay-per-view game. So, we have fans paying $45 for PPV of OU vs. an FCS team.

Our fans don't like it, but it is what it is.

I don't mind money trickling down to lower-level programs. I just don't like using regular season games to do it, and trying to sell the game as a legitimate contest. Outside of games between the lower end of FBS and top FCS teams, these games usually aren't a contest. (Note to ADs: Don't schedule North Dakota State) I'd be for FBS teams playing FCS teams in spring games, though.

The money is great for FCS programs. It also provides FCS fanbases one "big time" game a year. JMU, for example, played WVU this year, lost by a touchdown. It was a good game, semi close for alumni to travel to, AND we got a paycheck. We have UNC, VT, among others scheduled for the future. Just a way for some FCS teams to support their programs financially!

The Big 10 banned them, but I think they backed off that because the cost of FBS games has gone from 700-800k up to 1 million and sometimes 1.2 or 1.4 million while FCS has stayed 300-500k.

LOL at P5 fans whining about FCS games. Don't like them? Then don't accept those bowl invitations your team gets by beating an FCS team to get to 6-6.

(12-01-2019 09:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  The Big 10 banned them, but I think they backed off that because the cost of FBS games has gone from 700-800k up to 1 million and sometimes 1.2 or 1.4 million while FCS has stayed 300-500k.

Minnesota played South Dakota State this year and nearly lost. Was that previously before a scheduling ban of FCS schools?

(11-30-2019 07:55 PM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  Why FCS? Not every one can schedule Rutgers, Northwestern, Maryland, Vanderbilt, Kansas, Georgia Tech, Cal....

To me, it would be better for these schools to never schedule FCS just to avoid potential embarrassment.

The only FCS programs we play are in-state schools. For a poor state like Kentucky, it only makes sense for Louisville and Kentucky to play Eastern Kentucky and Morehead State. UK played Eastern in 2017 and we paid them $600,000 to come to Louisville this season.

It is becoming increasingly difficult, as it should, to justify some of the extravagance you see at UofL and UK when Eastern, and other in-state schools are being forced to trim their budgets to by almost 25%. I would expect it to soon be a law in Kentucky that UofL and UK will be forced to play in-state FCS schools on some type of rotation.

The Murray Student paper did this nice piece in September 2018.

https://thenews.org/2018/09/20/the-haves...partments/

Some things are more important than football.

(12-01-2019 02:19 PM)Realigned Wrote:  

(12-01-2019 09:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  The Big 10 banned them, but I think they backed off that because the cost of FBS games has gone from 700-800k up to 1 million and sometimes 1.2 or 1.4 million while FCS has stayed 300-500k.

Minnesota played South Dakota State this year and nearly lost. Was that previously before a scheduling ban of FCS schools?

That "ban" never really got enforced. Essentially you had to allow all previously scheduled games to go through and then at that point some of the schools then started questioning the wisdom of the decision. It was a lot of talk with little substance.

(11-30-2019 10:00 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The NCAA needs to approve a preseason exhibition the last two weeks of August. FBS schools can schedule a home game against FCS schools in one of these two weeks. Starting Labor Day weekend they need to be playing 12 FBS opponents. I’m tired of hearing money being the reason why fans and season ticket holders are forced to bear pointless 50+ point blowouts.

No one is going to add preseason exhibitions in football when players already sit out bowl games for injury purposes and the NFL has entire starting lineups not play a snap during preseason to the point where they discuss cutting games.

(12-01-2019 09:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  The Big 10 banned them, but I think they backed off that because the cost of FBS games has gone from 700-800k up to 1 million and sometimes 1.2 or 1.4 million while FCS has stayed 300-500k.

Right, the money is the issue and always will be as long as FBS teams are permitted to count a game vs. an FCS team in the standings. That's why only a rule change could stop it.

Arizona State paid Kent State $1.5 million to play in Tempe this season. Probably at least a million dollars more than ASU paid Sacramento State to play in Tempe. It's not even close to being worth the extra million dollars.

The economics of paying over a million for a buy game are so poor, it's almost surprising that teams haven't pushed to permit 2 FCS games a year to count in the standings.

(12-01-2019 06:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-01-2019 09:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  The Big 10 banned them, but I think they backed off that because the cost of FBS games has gone from 700-800k up to 1 million and sometimes 1.2 or 1.4 million while FCS has stayed 300-500k.

Right, the money is the issue and always will be as long as FBS teams are permitted to count a game vs. an FCS team in the standings. That's why only a rule change could stop it.

Arizona State paid Kent State $1.5 million to play in Tempe this season. Probably at least a million dollars more than ASU paid Sacramento State to play in Tempe. It's not even close to being worth the extra million dollars.

The economics of paying over a million for a buy game are so poor, it's almost surprising that teams haven't pushed to permit 2 FCS games a year to count in the standings.

That's definitely a huge reason. For my alma mater of Illinois, the cost of bringing in a G5 school for a guarantee game is probably 3 times as much compared to playing a local FCS school like Illinois State, Eastern Illinois, etc., yet the attendance may actually be better for the local FCS school games. The game day revenue at a place like Ohio State or Michigan might make those G5 guarantee payouts negligible, but most schools aren't in that type of financial position.

Also, there was an assumption (hope?) from the Big Ten that eliminating FCS games would provide an advantage in the CFP rankings. That clearly hasn't been the case - the CFP committee has made it abundantly clear that they simply don't care. They haven't given any more credit to wins over G5 opponents than to FCS opponents. Alabama's formula of 1 name brand non-conference opponent (typically at a neutral site) plus 3 patsies (including always having an FCS opponent) has been shown over and over again that it's perfectly acceptable to the CFP committee. As a result, the Big Ten was competitively and financially handcuffing themselves for an assumption that didn't turn out to be true. Hence, the Big Ten backed off.

Frankly, you raise a good point in your last sentence. We are honestly more likely to see 2 FCS games allowed to count per season as opposed to an elimination of those games. Call me crazy, but easier games that are also more profitable seem to be ripe for *expansion* as opposed to contraction.

(12-02-2019 03:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-01-2019 06:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-01-2019 09:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  The Big 10 banned them, but I think they backed off that because the cost of FBS games has gone from 700-800k up to 1 million and sometimes 1.2 or 1.4 million while FCS has stayed 300-500k.

Right, the money is the issue and always will be as long as FBS teams are permitted to count a game vs. an FCS team in the standings. That's why only a rule change could stop it.

Arizona State paid Kent State $1.5 million to play in Tempe this season. Probably at least a million dollars more than ASU paid Sacramento State to play in Tempe. It's not even close to being worth the extra million dollars.

The economics of paying over a million for a buy game are so poor, it's almost surprising that teams haven't pushed to permit 2 FCS games a year to count in the standings.

That's definitely a huge reason. For my alma mater of Illinois, the cost of bringing in a G5 school for a guarantee game is probably 3 times as much compared to playing a local FCS school like Illinois State, Eastern Illinois, etc., yet the attendance may actually be better for the local FCS school games. The game day revenue at a place like Ohio State or Michigan might make those G5 guarantee payouts negligible, but most schools aren't in that type of financial position.

Also, there was an assumption (hope?) from the Big Ten that eliminating FCS games would provide an advantage in the CFP rankings. That clearly hasn't been the case - the CFP committee has made it abundantly clear that they simply don't care. They haven't given any more credit to wins over G5 opponents than to FCS opponents. Alabama's formula of 1 name brand non-conference opponent (typically at a neutral site) plus 3 patsies (including always having an FCS opponent) has been shown over and over again that it's perfectly acceptable to the CFP committee. As a result, the Big Ten was competitively and financially handcuffing themselves for an assumption that didn't turn out to be true. Hence, the Big Ten backed off.

Frankly, you raise a good point in your last sentence. We are honestly more likely to see 2 FCS games allowed to count per season as opposed to an elimination of those games. Call me crazy, but easier games that are also more profitable seem to be ripe for *expansion* as opposed to contraction.

Continuing on the ASU example, going back at least a decade, their is little or no attendance difference at Sun Devil Stadium between FCS teams and G5 teams (especially the UTSA/Kent States of the world). NAU has generally been an exception, but you would expect that with half the roster from Phoenix area High Schools, and most alums living in the Phoenix area.

Only P5's seem to draw casual fans to go. Michigan State, Illinois, etc draw good crowds.

I just don't understand why people get so bent out of shape about it.

(12-02-2019 04:42 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  I just don't understand why people get so bent out of shape about it.

Agreed.

(12-02-2019 04:32 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 03:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-01-2019 06:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-01-2019 09:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  The Big 10 banned them, but I think they backed off that because the cost of FBS games has gone from 700-800k up to 1 million and sometimes 1.2 or 1.4 million while FCS has stayed 300-500k.

Right, the money is the issue and always will be as long as FBS teams are permitted to count a game vs. an FCS team in the standings. That's why only a rule change could stop it.

Arizona State paid Kent State $1.5 million to play in Tempe this season. Probably at least a million dollars more than ASU paid Sacramento State to play in Tempe. It's not even close to being worth the extra million dollars.

The economics of paying over a million for a buy game are so poor, it's almost surprising that teams haven't pushed to permit 2 FCS games a year to count in the standings.

That's definitely a huge reason. For my alma mater of Illinois, the cost of bringing in a G5 school for a guarantee game is probably 3 times as much compared to playing a local FCS school like Illinois State, Eastern Illinois, etc., yet the attendance may actually be better for the local FCS school games. The game day revenue at a place like Ohio State or Michigan might make those G5 guarantee payouts negligible, but most schools aren't in that type of financial position.

Also, there was an assumption (hope?) from the Big Ten that eliminating FCS games would provide an advantage in the CFP rankings. That clearly hasn't been the case - the CFP committee has made it abundantly clear that they simply don't care. They haven't given any more credit to wins over G5 opponents than to FCS opponents. Alabama's formula of 1 name brand non-conference opponent (typically at a neutral site) plus 3 patsies (including always having an FCS opponent) has been shown over and over again that it's perfectly acceptable to the CFP committee. As a result, the Big Ten was competitively and financially handcuffing themselves for an assumption that didn't turn out to be true. Hence, the Big Ten backed off.

Frankly, you raise a good point in your last sentence. We are honestly more likely to see 2 FCS games allowed to count per season as opposed to an elimination of those games. Call me crazy, but easier games that are also more profitable seem to be ripe for *expansion* as opposed to contraction.

Continuing on the ASU example, going back at least a decade, their is little or no attendance difference at Sun Devil Stadium between FCS teams and G5 teams (especially the UTSA/Kent States of the world). NAU has generally been an exception, but you would expect that with half the roster from Phoenix area High Schools, and most alums living in the Phoenix area.

Only P5's seem to draw casual fans to go. Michigan State, Illinois, etc draw good crowds.

FCS games against Wofford or The Citadel or SC State have always drawn better than random FBS games against teams from the other side of the country.

It is a bit of a quirk in the rules that you can attain and retain FBS status playing four games against non-FBS schools but only one counts for bowl purposes.

The only thing that finally convinced the administration at Arkansas State to move FBS was the adoption of NO FCS games count toward bowls (quickly amended to one every four years). The FBS contracts dried up, we were playing Memphis and Ole Miss practically every year.

The loss of those contracts coupled with new state regulations on athletic finances forced the move.

No one outside of a weird circumstance like Idaho is voluntarily going FCS these days but having more opportunities for income and exposure in FBS would take away a great deal of pressure on schools to move.

Play a legal FBS schedule and win as many as you lose, then you are bowl eligible. Maybe that means you should have to schedule 9 or 10 FBS schools but it would be better.

I think it's an improvement even though it guts the market for buy games. Hey if AState can't get $1.9 million for a buy game and can only get $1 million, the responsible thing is cut $900,000 from the budget. In turn it ought to create more home/home opportunities within the G5 and if not well then play to FCS, win more games and sell more tickets and get more donations.

(12-02-2019 04:32 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 03:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-01-2019 06:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-01-2019 09:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  The Big 10 banned them, but I think they backed off that because the cost of FBS games has gone from 700-800k up to 1 million and sometimes 1.2 or 1.4 million while FCS has stayed 300-500k.

Right, the money is the issue and always will be as long as FBS teams are permitted to count a game vs. an FCS team in the standings. That's why only a rule change could stop it.

Arizona State paid Kent State $1.5 million to play in Tempe this season. Probably at least a million dollars more than ASU paid Sacramento State to play in Tempe. It's not even close to being worth the extra million dollars.

The economics of paying over a million for a buy game are so poor, it's almost surprising that teams haven't pushed to permit 2 FCS games a year to count in the standings.

That's definitely a huge reason. For my alma mater of Illinois, the cost of bringing in a G5 school for a guarantee game is probably 3 times as much compared to playing a local FCS school like Illinois State, Eastern Illinois, etc., yet the attendance may actually be better for the local FCS school games. The game day revenue at a place like Ohio State or Michigan might make those G5 guarantee payouts negligible, but most schools aren't in that type of financial position.

Also, there was an assumption (hope?) from the Big Ten that eliminating FCS games would provide an advantage in the CFP rankings. That clearly hasn't been the case - the CFP committee has made it abundantly clear that they simply don't care. They haven't given any more credit to wins over G5 opponents than to FCS opponents. Alabama's formula of 1 name brand non-conference opponent (typically at a neutral site) plus 3 patsies (including always having an FCS opponent) has been shown over and over again that it's perfectly acceptable to the CFP committee. As a result, the Big Ten was competitively and financially handcuffing themselves for an assumption that didn't turn out to be true. Hence, the Big Ten backed off.

Frankly, you raise a good point in your last sentence. We are honestly more likely to see 2 FCS games allowed to count per season as opposed to an elimination of those games. Call me crazy, but easier games that are also more profitable seem to be ripe for *expansion* as opposed to contraction.

Continuing on the ASU example, going back at least a decade, their is little or no attendance difference at Sun Devil Stadium between FCS teams and G5 teams (especially the UTSA/Kent States of the world). NAU has generally been an exception, but you would expect that with half the roster from Phoenix area High Schools, and most alums living in the Phoenix area.

Only P5's seem to draw casual fans to go. Michigan State, Illinois, etc draw good crowds.

How about New Mexico, Colorado St., Air Force, Utah St., UNLV, San Diego St. or Fresno St.? When you bring in a school from halfway across the country nobody in the area has heard of (except maybe in a Neil Young song), you can't expect much interest.

(12-02-2019 04:42 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  I just don't understand why people get so bent out of shape about it.

The school are ripping off their fans and their media partners.

They are also playing a team with far less talent and possibly creating more chances for injury because of the size and speed difference.

Again, its one thing for a mediocre program to do it. But why can't Alabama do what Ohio St. does and play in state FBS programs like South Alabama, Troy and UAB? They would destroy them as well.