It's simple economics, even though ADs and coaches will give other reasons for it. When they say it's not about the money, that's when you know it's about the money.

The price of G5 buy games keeps going up. Buying an FCS opponent instead of a G5 opponent can save $1 million or more, with no significant loss of game day revenue for the home team.

As a fan I would rather that FBS teams either never buy an FCS game or count those games only as exhibitions, but that's not going to happen. Changing the rules to permit FBS teams to play two FCS opponents each year (and have those games count toward bowl eligibility) is more likely than changing the rules to prohibit games against FCS opponents.

(01-17-2020 12:05 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 10:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 04:19 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 09:03 AM)Crayton Wrote:  I believe it was relaxed in years where they only had 4 conference home games. Not sure how strictly that principle has been followed, before or after.

Really hard to tell before, since when the original AD agreement was made, they grandfathered in games already contracted. So you would have needed to have had a good database of contracted games that included the dates when the games were announced, plus a list of any waivers that were granted for one reason or another.

But that was also when they were negotiating for a new contract. Once they landed one, it is easier to run a compromise like the "when your division has 4 Big Ten home games" by the media partners to see if they object.

Nobody schedules FCS games 3 years in advance, at least not any FBS schools. Those are usually the last games scheduled.

Need to look at your teams' schedules more closely. I note that UGA already has FCS Samford scheduled for '22, Tennessee Tech for '24, Austin Peay for '25.

Kentucky has FCS Youngstown State scheduled for '22 and '26, E. Kentucky for '23, Murray State for '24 and '27.

Texas doesn't appear to need the FCS games, and has instead opted to have long-term payday deals with UTEP (/'20, '25, '27, '29, '31)and UTSA ('22, '24, '26, '28,'30), and two against Rice ('21, '23)

I'm surprised.

I would bet many of those FCS games change though. Is it a pencilled in game or a contract? I don't know.

Texas has only played FCS schools when there were short term scheduling problems, like when SMU got the death penalty.

(01-17-2020 12:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It's simple economics, even though ADs and coaches will give other reasons for it. When they say it's not about the money, that's when you know it's about the money.

The price of G5 buy games keeps going up. Buying an FCS opponent instead of a G5 opponent can save $1 million or more, with no significant loss of game day revenue for the home team.

As a fan I would rather that FBS teams either never buy an FCS game or count those games only as exhibitions, but that's not going to happen. Changing the rules to permit FBS teams to play two FCS opponents each year (and have those games count toward bowl eligibility) is more likely than changing the rules to prohibit games against FCS opponents.

It is about the money. But I'm not sure its a good long term financial decision. Its part of the reason attendance is down. You aren't giving your fans a good product. And there are a lot of no shows which drives down other revenue. It strengthens alternative ticket sales which reduces the incentive to donate and get season tickets. It also reduces the value of the Tier III TV contracts.

The gap between the cost of a G5 and FCS game does seem to be growing. So I do agree they are unlikely to be eliminated by any conference. I expect the Big 10 to continue to backtrack.

I still laugh when I think of all the chest thumping from the Big Ten crowd on this a few years ago.

(01-17-2020 08:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 03:33 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 09:40 AM)chester Wrote:  Folks who are for divisions in the SEC, ACC & C-USA, but are against an odd number of conference games because of "unbalanced home/away" should keep this in mind. It's a non-factor regarding conferences that have an odd number of teams per division.

Nonsense. If you have built your team to contend THIS year it is most definitely a factor if this is the year you play five conference road games. It does you absolutely no good to have five home games next year when you are rebuilding and aren't a factor in contending for the title.

That's silly, as nobody builds a team to contend "this year". Sure, as it turns out, going in to a given season the coaches might think they have a contender, but nobody knows that in advance as there are too many moving parts. Nobody knows what years will be contending years or rebuilding years, unless you are a super-power like an Alabama, Clemson, or Ohio State where you figure you are going to contend every year.

So the two are never that kind of factor. Heck if it is, then of course you would build your team to contend in a year where the schedule, like having 5 home games, is favorable. But nobody can control that.

Once again you prove that you are clueless.


Going into the 2020 season you have a depth chart where 15 out of 22 starters are seniors. Your team is built to contend in 2020, as 2021 will be a rebuilding year.

(01-17-2020 01:13 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 08:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 03:33 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 09:40 AM)chester Wrote:  Folks who are for divisions in the SEC, ACC & C-USA, but are against an odd number of conference games because of "unbalanced home/away" should keep this in mind. It's a non-factor regarding conferences that have an odd number of teams per division.

Nonsense. If you have built your team to contend THIS year it is most definitely a factor if this is the year you play five conference road games. It does you absolutely no good to have five home games next year when you are rebuilding and aren't a factor in contending for the title.

That's silly, as nobody builds a team to contend "this year". Sure, as it turns out, going in to a given season the coaches might think they have a contender, but nobody knows that in advance as there are too many moving parts. Nobody knows what years will be contending years or rebuilding years, unless you are a super-power like an Alabama, Clemson, or Ohio State where you figure you are going to contend every year.

So the two are never that kind of factor. Heck if it is, then of course you would build your team to contend in a year where the schedule, like having 5 home games, is favorable. But nobody can control that.

Once again you prove that you are clueless.


Going into the 2020 season you have a depth chart where 15 out of 22 starters are seniors. Your team is built to contend in 2020, as 2021 will be a rebuilding year.

What a dumb response. As I said, at best you might know that *going in to 2020* it looks like a contending year, but that is TOO LATE to do anything with regards to scheduling, and you can't "build" your team for that in advance, as you never know which underclassmen are going to beat out seniors for a job, which seniors are going to leave early, whether the past fall's recruiting fills key holes or not, etc. There's no "building" or "targeting" years in advance as contending or rebuilding years, they just happen to work out that way.

Your statement remains ridiculous.

Yes, scheduling occurs further out than "building" or "rebuilding". You know how many home games you have in a given year while you are on the recruiting trail.

Additionally, as was also stated, the malus of an extra away game is shared by your division-mates; you can't name an opponent who has a leg up on you. The only issues remaining are (1) your cross-division draw (compare Alabama's and Auburn's this year), and (2) whether you draw your division's heavy-weight home or away.

(01-17-2020 01:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 01:13 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 08:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 03:33 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 09:40 AM)chester Wrote:  Folks who are for divisions in the SEC, ACC & C-USA, but are against an odd number of conference games because of "unbalanced home/away" should keep this in mind. It's a non-factor regarding conferences that have an odd number of teams per division.

Nonsense. If you have built your team to contend THIS year it is most definitely a factor if this is the year you play five conference road games. It does you absolutely no good to have five home games next year when you are rebuilding and aren't a factor in contending for the title.

That's silly, as nobody builds a team to contend "this year". Sure, as it turns out, going in to a given season the coaches might think they have a contender, but nobody knows that in advance as there are too many moving parts. Nobody knows what years will be contending years or rebuilding years, unless you are a super-power like an Alabama, Clemson, or Ohio State where you figure you are going to contend every year.

So the two are never that kind of factor. Heck if it is, then of course you would build your team to contend in a year where the schedule, like having 5 home games, is favorable. But nobody can control that.

Once again you prove that you are clueless.


Going into the 2020 season you have a depth chart where 15 out of 22 starters are seniors. Your team is built to contend in 2020, as 2021 will be a rebuilding year.

What a dumb response. As I said, at best you might know that *going in to 2020* it looks like a contending year, but that is TOO LATE to do anything with regards to scheduling, and you can't "build" your team for that in advance, as you never know which underclassmen are going to beat out seniors for a job, which seniors are going to leave early, whether the past fall's recruiting fills key holes or not, etc. There's no "building" or "targeting" years in advance as contending or rebuilding years, they just happen to work out that way.

Your statement remains ridiculous.

(01-17-2020 04:50 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Yes, scheduling occurs further out than "building" or "rebuilding". You know how many home games you have in a given year while you are on the recruiting trail.

Additionally, as was also stated, the malus of an extra away game is shared by your division-mates; you can't name an opponent who has a leg up on you. The only issues remaining are (1) your cross-division draw (compare Alabama's and Auburn's this year), and (2) whether you draw your division's heavy-weight home or away.

Quo, Crayton, I agree on all points. And Crayton, to your latter points...as I'm sure you're aware, those same issues exist wherever teams are playing an even number of conference games.

Kaplony, regarding divided 14-member conferences and equitable scheduling (and the lack thereof) there simply is no difference between even-game schedules and odd-game schedules. The only thing that might should be of concern is the ability to schedule the desired total number of home games.

Northwestern and Illinois are a couple 2020 schedules in the conference that I find ridiculous.

With that said, there are 9 teams in 2020 that play 10 P5 games. I'm good with that and I think that's very respectable. Washington, Oregon, Virginia Tech, West Virginia and Notre Dame are some of the matchups to name a few.

(01-18-2020 02:01 AM)chester Wrote:  Kaplony, regarding divided 14-member conferences and equitable scheduling (and the lack thereof) there simply is no difference between even-game schedules and odd-game schedules. The only thing that might should be of concern is the ability to schedule the desired total number of home games.

So there is no difference in having four conference road games and five conference road games? That's what you are trying to say?

(01-18-2020 12:58 PM)cubucks Wrote:  Northwestern and Illinois are a couple 2020 schedules in the conference that I find ridiculous.

There's nothing wrong with a struggling team trying to build confidence with a less challenging non-conference schedule. It's good that Ohio State and Michigan schedule challenging non-con games, because they have teams that should be challenged. But Illinois and Northwestern don't need to do that.

(01-18-2020 01:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:58 PM)cubucks Wrote:  Northwestern and Illinois are a couple 2020 schedules in the conference that I find ridiculous.

There's nothing wrong with a struggling team trying to build confidence with a less challenging non-conference schedule. It's good that Ohio State and Michigan schedule challenging non-con games, because they have teams that should be challenged. But Illinois and Northwestern don't need to do that.

Scheduling Morgan State shouldn’t even be allowed, imo. It’s blatantly ripping off the fans and players. If they scheduled NIU for a buy game, it would be a sellout like 2014.

(01-17-2020 12:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It's simple economics, even though ADs and coaches will give other reasons for it. When they say it's not about the money, that's when you know it's about the money.

The price of G5 buy games keeps going up. Buying an FCS opponent instead of a G5 opponent can save $1 million or more, with no significant loss of game day revenue for the home team.

As a fan I would rather that FBS teams either never buy an FCS game or count those games only as exhibitions, but that's not going to happen. Changing the rules to permit FBS teams to play two FCS opponents each year (and have those games count toward bowl eligibility) is more likely than changing the rules to prohibit games against FCS opponents.

So a UCF game is not in the future from A5 schools. A stretch.

(01-11-2020 08:34 AM)ken d Wrote:  Looking at next year's schedules, I notice that 7 B1G schools have an FCS game on their schedule. That's how many they played in the last two years combined. Did they quietly back off their "no FCS" policy?

Five of those schools are in the presumably weaker West division - Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Nebraska. Could that be an attempt to beef up the W-L records of potential CCG opponents for Ohio State to enhance their CFP chances should they have a regular season loss?

So the Big is going little?

(01-18-2020 12:58 PM)cubucks Wrote:  Northwestern and Illinois are a couple 2020 schedules in the conference that I find ridiculous.

With that said, there are 9 teams in 2020 that play 10 P5 games. I'm good with that and I think that's very respectable. Washington, Oregon, Virginia Tech, West Virginia and Notre Dame are some of the matchups to name a few.

After 2020, Illinois will be playing 10 or 11 P5 teams per year for the rest of the decade. We won’t have any more home-and-home series with G5 programs.

(01-19-2020 07:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:58 PM)cubucks Wrote:  Northwestern and Illinois are a couple 2020 schedules in the conference that I find ridiculous.

With that said, there are 9 teams in 2020 that play 10 P5 games. I'm good with that and I think that's very respectable. Washington, Oregon, Virginia Tech, West Virginia and Notre Dame are some of the matchups to name a few.

After 2020, Illinois will be playing 10 or 11 P5 teams per year for the rest of the decade. We won’t have any more home-and-home series with G5 programs.

That's great and how it should be, in my honest opinion. Money (resources) are all in place for BIG schools to be playing a minimum of 10 P5 games a year.

(01-18-2020 01:07 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 02:01 AM)chester Wrote:  Kaplony, regarding divided 14-member conferences and equitable scheduling (and the lack thereof) there simply is no difference between even-game schedules and odd-game schedules. The only thing that might should be of concern is the ability to schedule the desired total number of home games.

So there is no difference in having four conference road games and five conference road games? That's what you are trying to say?

In relation to the level of fairness in an even-game scheduling system, correct. It doesn't matter if Team X is better built for success in a year in which it has 4 home games and 5 road games because its division mates would also have 4 home games and 5 road games and any or all of them may also be better built for success in that same year.

And it doesn't matter if teams in one division have only 4 home games while those in the other division have 5, because cross-divisional teams do not compete for the same spots in the CCG.

The BIG's system is neither less fair nor more fair than it would be if it involved even-game schedules.

(01-17-2020 12:05 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(01-17-2020 10:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  ... Nobody schedules FCS games 3 years in advance, at least not any FBS schools. Those are usually the last games scheduled.

Need to look at your teams' schedules more closely. ...

Note that 'last game scheduled' doesn't imply only one or two years in advance ... lots of schools at fbschedules are scheduled out five or six years in advance.

Quote: Texas doesn't appear to need the FCS games, and has instead opted to have long-term payday deals with UTEP (/'20, '25, '27, '29, '31)and UTSA ('22, '24, '26, '28,'30), and two against Rice ('21, '23)

Yes, Texas does have a different situation than Illinois ... not only a lot more money, but also a lot more Go5 schools to choose from in-state. If the Go5 schools are more recognizable than the FCS ones ... and if most of the most recognizable FCS Texas schools of the last few decades have stepped up to Go5 ... and if saving $1m just means an extra $1m handed over to the University ... there may be no particular reason for Texas to step into the FCS buy game marketplace.

(01-19-2020 07:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-18-2020 12:58 PM)cubucks Wrote:  Northwestern and Illinois are a couple 2020 schedules in the conference that I find ridiculous.

With that said, there are 9 teams in 2020 that play 10 P5 games. I'm good with that and I think that's very respectable. Washington, Oregon, Virginia Tech, West Virginia and Notre Dame are some of the matchups to name a few.

After 2020, Illinois will be playing 10 or 11 P5 teams per year for the rest of the decade. We won’t have any more home-and-home series with G5 programs.

Illinois is one of the schools that is going to find it hard to build a schedule without home-and-homes with G5s.

They don't have the revenue to do buy games with decent G5 programs, and aren't attractive enough to do home-and-home with high-level P5s. That leaves only the bargain-basement MAC programs (whose price is going up) and the lower 1/3 of P5. That's slim pickings.

(01-20-2020 01:45 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Illinois is one of the schools that is going to find it hard to build a schedule without home-and-homes with G5s.

They don't have the revenue to do buy games with decent G5 programs, and aren't attractive enough to do home-and-home with high-level P5s. That leaves only the bargain-basement MAC programs (whose price is going up) and the lower 1/3 of P5. That's slim pickings.

But where the Big Ten schools are going are, very few Go5 H/H, 2-1, 3-1 contracts, all except the Big 2 pretty much taking as many FCS games as the revised rule allows:

Big Ten Schools with FCS schools 2/4 or 3/6 years:
West Division: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern (3/4), Purdue ('21-'26), Wisconsin

East Division: Indiana (4/6), Maryland (2/4), Michigan State, Penn State, Rutgers (2/4).

Big Ten Schools with away games at Go5 schools in next 6 years:
Nebraska (UC), Indiana (UConn, UC).

So it's as if the media partner said the Big Ten can 7 FCS games, mostly in September, but not 12, and everyone except the Buckeyes and that School Up North said, "yes, thanks for the TV contract money and all, but 1 FCS game every second season is better than none".

Hence the FCS buy games in years that they have four Big Ten home games for all but the Big Two. It directly cuts their buy game budget over a two year cycle, but also reduces the demand in the Go5 buy game market, moderating their Go5 Buy game budget as well, while still giving most schools 7 home games every season.