Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
B1G dropping FCS prohibition
Author Message
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #41
RE: B1G dropping FCS prohibition
Not an option for Minnesota, or Wisconsin, as no instate FCS (or G5) programs to keep the money with.

And Murray whole budget is only $2.8M?? No. Probably closer to $15M
07-20-2017 12:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MissouriStateBears Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,625
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 88
I Root For: Missouri State
Location:
Post: #42
RE: B1G dropping FCS prohibition
(07-20-2017 11:53 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  We play every instate program. We happen to play Murray State this year. An in-state program that a trip to Louisville helps them meet their overall athletic budget of $2,801,000 for 13 sports. Murray receives $500,000 for playing Louisville.

I don't look at it as making the schedule easier. I look at it as keeping dollars in the state funding educational opportunities in the state. We play Western next year and Eastern the following year.

Some folks get all worked up about nonsense.
CJ

2.8 million is close to Murray State's football budget.
07-20-2017 12:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,011
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 732
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #43
RE: B1G dropping FCS prohibition
(07-20-2017 12:32 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Not an option for Minnesota, or Wisconsin, as no instate FCS (or G5) programs to keep the money with.

And Murray whole budget is only $2.8M?? No. Probably closer to $15M


I do think those 2 states need some FCS schools to help keep the budget money instate spending wise. Nebraska is in the same boat. If Omaha kept football at the FCS level? Would like to see a Nebraska Vs Omaha game just to keep the money spent instate to raise dollars in the economy.
07-20-2017 12:47 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,722
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #44
RE: B1G dropping FCS prohibition
(07-20-2017 11:53 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  We play every instate program. We happen to play Murray State this year. An in-state program that a trip to Louisville helps them meet their overall athletic budget of $2,801,000 for 13 sports. Murray receives $500,000 for playing Louisville.

I don't look at it as making the schedule easier. I look at it as keeping dollars in the state funding educational opportunities in the state. We play Western next year and Eastern the following year.

Some folks get all worked up about nonsense.
CJ

Agreed.

Just from a selfish Illinois perspective, playing in-state FCS opponents like Illinois State, Eastern Illinois, Western Illinois and Southern Illinois is actually more interesting for our fans than playing virtually any G5 school outside of Northern Illinois.

At the same time, FCS opponents are the most cost-efficient for athletic departments for one-and-done buy games. As we saw with basic supply-and-demand, the Big Ten's FCS ban simultaneously reduced the supply of available non-conference opponents for Big Ten schools and increased the demand for G5 non-conference opponents, so the cost of those one-and-done buy games skyrocketed. I'm fairly certain that this cost issue was the biggest of them all for the Big Ten rolling back this rule. The cost isn't a big deal for the Michigans and Ohio States of the world, but it's pretty material for most of the rest of the league even with increased TV revenue. Plus, like I've said, playing some random G5 team isn't going to sell more tickets at a place like Illinois compared to an in-state FCS school, so the economic math of increased costs for buy games coupled with no increase (or even a decrease) in ticket sales doesn't make sense.
07-20-2017 01:21 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,900
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #45
RE: B1G dropping FCS prohibition
(07-20-2017 01:21 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(07-20-2017 11:53 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  We play every instate program. We happen to play Murray State this year. An in-state program that a trip to Louisville helps them meet their overall athletic budget of $2,801,000 for 13 sports. Murray receives $500,000 for playing Louisville.

I don't look at it as making the schedule easier. I look at it as keeping dollars in the state funding educational opportunities in the state. We play Western next year and Eastern the following year.

Some folks get all worked up about nonsense.
CJ

Agreed.

Just from a selfish Illinois perspective, playing in-state FCS opponents like Illinois State, Eastern Illinois, Western Illinois and Southern Illinois is actually more interesting for our fans than playing virtually any G5 school outside of Northern Illinois.

At the same time, FCS opponents are the most cost-efficient for athletic departments for one-and-done buy games. As we saw with basic supply-and-demand, the Big Ten's FCS ban simultaneously reduced the supply of available non-conference opponents for Big Ten schools and increased the demand for G5 non-conference opponents, so the cost of those one-and-done buy games skyrocketed. I'm fairly certain that this cost issue was the biggest of them all for the Big Ten rolling back this rule. The cost isn't a big deal for the Michigans and Ohio States of the world, but it's pretty material for most of the rest of the league even with increased TV revenue. Plus, like I've said, playing some random G5 team isn't going to sell more tickets at a place like Illinois compared to an in-state FCS school, so the economic math of increased costs for buy games coupled with no increase (or even a decrease) in ticket sales doesn't make sense.

I definitely prefer in-state games. I'm from Texas and everyone grows up watching Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, etc. but everyone also has family, friends, or went themselves to a smaller Texas college. There is a very strong interest to watch Stephen F. Austin play Texas A&M or Sam Houston St play Texas Tech or Lamar play Texas. I know a lot of people who went to all of those schools.
07-20-2017 02:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,281
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 217
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #46
RE: B1G dropping FCS prohibition
(07-20-2017 10:01 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  You think state lawmakers should be making football schedules???? Good grief, get a hold of yourself. They have much, much better things to be doing than worrying about college athletics. 07-coffee3

Yikes, where to begin...

"Making schedules?" No. That's not what's happening here. This is about just getting a game or two. Are you telling me even THAT is too much?

These are children spending their parents' money, right? Then, yes, the states are not out of line pushing this on THEIR (and our) institutions.

If the exposure enhances enrollment across all state institutions, then **** yes, they should. It's bad practice if states don't even request it of these schools.

Equally bad a practice is a conference telling schools how to schedule when there can be some developmental benefits from such games. Like I referenced earlier about rivalries like Rutgers-Colgate (or Rutgers and a couple of the Patriot League schools who it used to frequently see), or potential benefits of Penn State-Lehigh, and others potentially out there...there's value to these games because there's still identity and legacy tied to them, too. The Big Ten has been utterly TERRIBLE with the OOC and scheduling demands ever since expanding past its namesake; theirs is a horribly myopic philosophy that has cost its member schools and, by extension, the conference itself untold money.

The signals this stuff sends is exactly what's wrong in higher education, and like what's discussed in the UNC and Louisville scandal threads, or the Horizon one with UIC's issues with its governing body. That is, only one campus can get the resources. The rest can shove off. Accountable to nobody but themselves...and this silly conference that thinks WAY too high of itself.

And, you're really talking to the wrong sort about what I should expect from my government. If it enhances and promotes, and, thus, betters ALL of my state institutions, provides a boost to local economies, provides local and regional interest...why shouldn't I, or anyone, not want that for their state? It's the VERY thing that made football so popular.
07-20-2017 03:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #47
RE: B1G dropping FCS prohibition
(07-19-2017 08:55 PM)goofus Wrote:  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.

Yes, pretty disappointing. They want easier wins and cheaper opponents.
07-20-2017 03:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #48
RE: B1G dropping FCS prohibition
(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!

The BIG had a policy against FCS games and STILL played 2. And they are reversing that policy, at least partly.
07-20-2017 03:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #49
RE: B1G dropping FCS prohibition
Division I basketball has a rule that allows each D-I team to play up to two non-D-I opponents each season, with the games vs. non-D-I teams being exhibitions not counted in the regular-season record.

FBS football should have a similar rule: Allow each FBS team to play one exhibition vs. an FCS or other non-FBS team each year, in addition to a maximum of 12 games vs. FBS opponents, with only games vs. FBS opponents counting toward a team's record.

But until that happens, the bottom line is that if a P5 team can buy a G5 opponent and sell X tickets, or save over $500,000 by buying an FCS opponent while still selling X tickets, athletic directors are going to want to opt for the less expensive option whenever they can.
07-20-2017 04:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,010
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 657
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #50
RE: B1G dropping FCS prohibition
(07-20-2017 03:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(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!

The BIG had a policy against FCS games and STILL played 2. And they are reversing that policy, at least partly.

Those were scheduled prior to the temp ban. It was written that games scheduled didn't need to be cancelled.
07-20-2017 04:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,010
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 657
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #51
RE: B1G dropping FCS prohibition
(07-20-2017 04:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Division I basketball has a rule that allows each D-I team to play up to two non-D-I opponents each season, with the games vs. non-D-I teams being exhibitions not counted in the regular-season record.

FBS football should have a similar rule: Allow each FBS team to play one exhibition vs. an FCS or other non-FBS team each year, in addition to a maximum of 12 games vs. FBS opponents, with only games vs. FBS opponents counting toward a team's record.

But until that happens, the bottom line is that if a P5 team can buy a G5 opponent and sell X tickets, or save over $500,000 by buying an FCS opponent while still selling X tickets, athletic directors are going to want to opt for the less expensive option whenever they can.

Or for a school like Arizona State, scheduling NAU gives them X+20% over random G5
07-20-2017 04:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
msm96wolf Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,558
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 180
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #52
RE: B1G dropping FCS prohibition
Provides a better chance for the team to get that FCS win to count as a Bowl Eligible win. Look for those B10 teams to schedule more home fodder games at a cheaper rate than G5 teams. B10 was hoping other conferences would follow their lead and none did.
07-20-2017 07:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,281
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 217
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #53
RE: B1G dropping FCS prohibition
(07-20-2017 07:35 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  B10 was hoping other conferences would follow their lead and none did.

It was silly to even try and steer the group in such a way. The playoff is still in its infancy, with zero consistency or a baseline in which validates or proves majors should be doing this.

The only one who might think about such a thing is the Big XII, but, when it comes down to it, I doubt it's the schedule that's really holding them back, like TCU and Baylor would suggest with their weak-*** OOCs a few years back. It's the lack of a thirteenth game, the CCG. They get that back...at 12-1 rather than 11-1, no way does a soft schedule hold that kind of team back.

And, all things considered...ALL majors could tighten things up by even remotely challenging themselves in the non-conference. It's not like Ohio State's schedule was rock solid...it's what happens when you win one or two great games, to then see the rest of the conference, or other majors not doing squat. But, you simply can't resist the low-hanging fruit, and, if you're not going to resist, you might as well be a bit strategic about it.

The one thing that will concern me with this abandonment will be the challenges those in the AAC, MWC, and CUSA face. There are a lot of slackers in the P5 football ranks, and the Big Ten's got a bunch of them in their turf...you feel bad for the Colorado State's, East Carolina's, and Southern Miss' out there, because the Northern Colorado's, NC Central's, and MVSU's are going to find their way onto majors' schedules more easily than their intrastate FBS counterparts.
07-21-2017 08:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,109
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #54
RE: B1G dropping FCS prohibition
(07-20-2017 07:35 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  B10 was hoping other conferences would follow their lead and none did.
Big 10 was hoping they would sign a good TV contract and they did. Then after pressure from the Indiana's & Illinois' of conference, they asked their media partner if adding some back would be OK, and Fox & ESPN (evidently) said, "some, but no more than 6/7". Hence the revised AD agreement.
(This post was last modified: 07-21-2017 08:33 AM by BruceMcF.)
07-21-2017 08:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
megadrone Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,306
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 46
I Root For: Rutgers
Location: NJ
Post: #55
RE: B1G dropping FCS prohibition
As a fan, I hate them. I'd rather have a game against our former Big East schools than playing some MEAC school -- that was our conference of choice.

Games against Temple, Cincinnati, Syracuse, Pitt or WVU instead of Morgan State, Delaware State et. al? Fortunately we've got Temple, BC and VT on the schedule coming up. The only FCS I want to play is Princeton, and only in 2019.
(This post was last modified: 07-21-2017 09:45 AM by megadrone.)
07-21-2017 09:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #56
RE: B1G dropping FCS prohibition
(07-20-2017 04:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  FBS football should have a similar rule: Allow each FBS team to play one exhibition vs. an FCS or other non-FBS team each year, in addition to a maximum of 12 games vs. FBS opponents, with only games vs. FBS opponents counting toward a team's record.

If teams are going to go through the trouble of putting that game on the season ticket, marketing it, getting the stadium staffed and ready for a game, getting the opponent there, getting the team prepared to play, etc. etc. etc., there's no way they're going to just let that be an exhibition game. They'll want it to count for bowl eligibility.

So more likely, IMO, if they were going to have a rule allowing a 13th game, they'd make it say that it had to be an FCS game, played in what are currently either week 0 or week 1 (because TV will want some big matchups in week 0, if that becomes a regular thing), and allow it to count for bowl eligibility.
07-21-2017 10:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SactoHornetAlum Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 118
Joined: Apr 2014
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Sac State
Location:
Post: #57
RE: B1G dropping FCS prohibition
(07-20-2017 04:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Division I basketball has a rule that allows each D-I team to play up to two non-D-I opponents each season, with the games vs. non-D-I teams being exhibitions not counted in the regular-season record.

FBS football should have a similar rule: Allow each FBS team to play one exhibition vs. an FCS or other non-FBS team each year, in addition to a maximum of 12 games vs. FBS opponents, with only games vs. FBS opponents counting toward a team's record.

But until that happens, the bottom line is that if a P5 team can buy a G5 opponent and sell X tickets, or save over $500,000 by buying an FCS opponent while still selling X tickets, athletic directors are going to want to opt for the less expensive option whenever they can.

And this ladies and gentlemen is the arrogance of someone from the University of Snobifornia!

We are all Division I...whether its FBS or FCS. So some schools decide for football only to play a cost containment version. So what? That doesn't make it exhibition-esque. Last time I checked these were all institutions of higher learning. 01-wingedeagle
07-21-2017 11:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TOPSTRAIGHT Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,786
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 451
I Root For: WKU
Location: Glasgow,KY.
Post: #58
RE: B1G dropping FCS prohibition
Until strength of schedule becomes a bigger factor in playoff implications, schools/conferences will continue to "wiggle off the hook" of challenging competition when possible.Why? Money,perception,politics.

There is still a slim hope that several BIG TEN schools will minimize or refuse FCS games by their own choice.
07-21-2017 03:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,727
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #59
RE: B1G dropping FCS prohibition
Honestly, I don't see where there's that much difference between a weak G5 team and an FCS team -- the odds of a decent P5 team losing that game is roughly 0.0%

In my mind, the number and quality of TOP opponents is far more important in determining who deserves to be in the playoffs -- and that requires one or more P5 non-conference games (and they better be good teams, too!). If you plan to hang your hat on your conference record then you better be sure that your conference mates are going to play and win some good OOC games -- otherwise you've proven absolutely nothing relative to the other conferences.
07-21-2017 03:17 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #60
RE: B1G dropping FCS prohibition
(07-21-2017 03:17 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Honestly, I don't see where there's that much difference between a weak G5 team and an FCS team -- the odds of a decent P5 team losing that game is roughly 0.0%

http://gobison.com/news/2016/9/17/footba...h=football

05-nono
07-21-2017 03:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.