(09-09-2022 06:05 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 10:31 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-09-2022 10:26 AM)YNot Wrote:  FCS games are lame. There is an inherent structural disparity simply because of the number of scholarship players on each sideline. Then, add in the severe budget and resource disparity and it becomes clear that these games are silly. The opposing teams don't play for the same championship or receive votes for the same rankings. It's like the New York Yankees hosting a 3-game series with the Albuquerque Isotopes and counting those wins and stats.

There are too few inter-conference FBS games largely BECAUSE of the rules that permit and count the FCS games. It's just too tempting to schedule the FCS home payday games because you're buying an almost certain win at a more affordable price.

It would be extremely healthy for college football to increase the number of FBS v. FBS OOC games from a competitive standpoint and for rating and ranking teams for the FBS postseason. We need more games like Alabama-Texas and Utah-Florida as well as UNC-Appalachian State and Oregon State-Fresno State. A good middle ground is to continue to permit the FCS payday home games, but as an exhibition that does not count in the win-loss record or stats. If teams want more data points to impress the CFP selection committee, they need to choose FBS data points.

This is just special pleading for the G5. G5 vs P5 games aren't THAT much more competitive than P5 vs FCS games, they're just more expensive. IF you abolish FCS games, so that Kansas and Missouri can't schedule Missouri State and Central Arkansas, you don't get more Kansas vs Missouri, you just get Missouri vs South Alabama and Kansas vs Arkansas State.

Not a big improvement, really. And Arkansas State and South Alabama lose a guaranteed win vs Alabama State and Central Arkansas.

The affect of more Missouri-South Alabama and Kansas-Arkansas State would be tremendous. I anticipate that there would be more G5 v. P5 upsets, which would help to decrease the actual and perceived gap. And, not everyone can play a full slate of only the weakest G5 schools...so there would be more exciting cross-conference games. In fact, we would have 25-30% more cross-conference FBS games such that the pollsters and CFP selection committee would have more data points from which to make better comparisons and rankings judgments.

I think both of you have strong points. I doubt forbidding FCS games sees the renewal of some of these lost rivalry games, but I don't think the FCS games are a total waste, since there may be regional interest, or the possibility of these bouts having histories themselves (i.e., looking at Rutgers and Colgate, or some of the SBC and CUSA schools scheduling old CAAF, SoCon, or Big South rivals). As is, there is definitely egregious abuses, but, some of these games/series come from some place. Forbid the FCS games outright, and, sure, you see schools digging deep for SBC, CUSA, or UConn/UMass...that's still a better puncher's chance to hit than what gets played out there in FCS.

Penn State's previous game against Villanova and the upcoming one in a few years with Delaware come to mind as "walking the thin line." Yes, they are blatant attempts to support PSU's efforts for playoff consideration, but, there are local/regional ties to these games that make them better than, say, PSU scheduling MEAC, OVC, or MVFC foes, where there is no connection whatsoever other than a cheap home body-bag buy game. I'd much prefer to see Pitt, Syracuse, WVU, Temple, or even one of the SA's, or just see PSU go west against MWC or western CUSA or AAC schools, but I can personally deal with VU or UD rather than Eastern Illinois or Indiana State.

(09-10-2022 12:34 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(09-10-2022 11:25 AM)hburg Wrote:  

(09-10-2022 11:02 AM)Porcine Wrote:  

(09-10-2022 10:50 AM)hburg Wrote:  The fact that some p5 schools refuse to play G5 schools on the road is a travesty. Just shows they are afraid of losing, but if they are P5 and suppose to win. So why the fear?

Let us know when the G5s can get 75-100,000 fans to show up.

Fan numbers are mute. If you are a P5 school, you are supposed to win, home or away. doesn't matter where you play. It's easy to always win at home, harder to win on the road. So if you are really the best team, prove it on the road, even at a G5.

Make up the money difference of home game versus road game and they just might.

I get it but damn... do the P5 not make enough money already? When is enough enough? P5's have like triple to quadruple the budgets of the G5 as is.

(09-12-2022 09:59 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(09-10-2022 12:34 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(09-10-2022 11:25 AM)hburg Wrote:  

(09-10-2022 11:02 AM)Porcine Wrote:  

(09-10-2022 10:50 AM)hburg Wrote:  The fact that some p5 schools refuse to play G5 schools on the road is a travesty. Just shows they are afraid of losing, but if they are P5 and suppose to win. So why the fear?

Let us know when the G5s can get 75-100,000 fans to show up.

Fan numbers are mute. If you are a P5 school, you are supposed to win, home or away. doesn't matter where you play. It's easy to always win at home, harder to win on the road. So if you are really the best team, prove it on the road, even at a G5.

Make up the money difference of home game versus road game and they just might.

I get it but damn... do the P5 not make enough money already? When is enough enough? P5's have like triple to quadruple the budgets of the G5 as is.

There was a time when money hadn't ruined the game for everybody yet.

At this point, a P5 would be crazy to forego the income from an easy home game in order to gift a hand-out to a G5 team. You also have to include how important that game is for the local economy around the P5 school.

It would be irresponsible for somebody like Alabama to leave Tuscaloosa, and all that it means to the city etc., to go and play in Lafayette like they did 30 years ago.

I don't think it is so much just being ****** as it is realizing all the moving parts here.

Some in the P5 like this idea. Granted, you'd have a less liklihood of undefeated teams and 1L would pretty much take it's place.

They would like that because:
(a) Bigger non-conf games draws in more viewership
(b) You can still aim for what should be lower P5 teams if you're a top dog all the time in P5 to soften the adjustment

Problem is, this will never happen. G5s need $$. Plus, you'd be eliminating Navy, Army, and Air Force from the picture. G5s would dissipate, basically becoming FCS -- or taking the top tier of FCS to combine with them.

G5 teams can't/won't get together not to play P5s - lol. It'd be the P5s banding together to only face each other, and do no FCSs & only play themselves. Never will happen to that extent, but it Could get to the extent where it'd be Uncommon to play a G5 -- like a military school, high level G5, etc where every non-conf season it'd be about as prevalent as seeing a G5 vs P5 in regular bowls. Not very prevalent.

(09-12-2022 05:19 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  Some in the P5 like this idea. Granted, you'd have a less liklihood of undefeated teams and 1L would pretty much take it's place.

Which idea is "this idea". Banning buy games (which would seem to be infeasible), banning FCS games, or banning games between an FBS school in a conference that has a NY6 contract and an FBS school in a conference that doesn't have a NY6 contract?