A lot of attention has been put on schools playing FCS teams lately, with the College Football Playoff looking at SOS in the future and the Big Ten phasing those games out. While I realize these games are basically automatic wins for FBS teams, there are plenty of benefits to them that people don't realize.

FCS teams get a fairly big paycheck for these games, which helps their programs more than people realize. Would it really be that bad to support those teams? The FCS team also gets their name out there for various benefits such as recruiting.

There are also lots of memorable close games and some big upsets during these games. App State's victory over Michigan will always be part of college football history. And the best teams in FCS (North Dakota State, Montana, etc.) are actually much better than many lower-tier FBS teams (Akron, Eastern Michigan, most of the Sun Belt). I understand it's about TV and fan interest, but Boston College's game against Villanova this season looks to be far more exciting than their game against New Mexico State.

The ACC discussed this at their spring meetings and chose to keep those games, because FCS teams are part of the sport's footprint in the South. The MVFC, Southland, Big Sky, SoCon, CAA and Big Sky are amazing FCS conferences that fall in the Power 5's footprints and can easily compete with the Sun Belt and schools from other Group of 5 conferences.

As a fan of an FCS school for many years, I loved it when UMass first played the annual FBS game. It was a big payday, great, but more, it was a chance to be on television via the actual broadcast or game highlights shown nationally.

At the same time, when there would be am SEC or Pac-12 school close to that spot to play for the national title, I was also real quick to say that while they are a great team, by putting an FCS school on their schedule, they should not be considered.

So for me, I've always seen the different tiers: if you want to be in the running for a national title, you should play only FBS schools...and your OOC schedule should include some strong FBS programs, not just MAC/WAC/SB schools. Then you have the next tier, which are FBS programs, but ones you wouldn't expect to play for a title. And then you have FCS (scholarship).


Now that UMass is FBS, and at that lower tier of FBS, I still feel the same way. I'd hate to see the school not play the likes of Maine, UNH, etc...but it's the price to pay when moving up.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Personally, I don't have a problem with FBS schools scheduling 1 FCS school. That's 1 game out of 12. For me, the issue heightens when the team has 4 OOC games with 1 FCS, 1 SB, 1 MAC, and a lower tier independent like Army, New Mexico St, or Idaho. I would even be fine with 1 FCS and 1 lower tier FBS school if the other 2 (in a 4 OOC schedule) were stronger FBS programs - for 3 OOC games (1 FCS, 1 lower tier FBS, and a strong FBS program). That being said, for example, I would consider a 1-loss Indiana over an undefeated Florida St if Indiana were to schedule their 9 B1G games plus 3 OOC games like Oregon, Tennessee, and Miami (FL), and Florida St scheduled Texas, Marshall, and Florida A&M, simply because Indiana had the guts to step up their OOC while Florida St didn't exactly test themselves. However, if we do see a 4 superconference FBS (PAC, B1G, ACC, SEC - sorry XII), I could see them breaking away, playing 9 conference games, and 3 OOC games (1 from each of the other 3 conferences).

I agree with Quinn. I really see college football as a tiered system in terms of both finances but level of play. something that has always troubled me is the apples to oranges comparisons that get made when you look at OOC scheduling-- who is truly better: the team that went 4-0 against cream puffs or the team that went 2-2 against strong competition?

I think that schools within the same tier of play should be scheduling OOC against programs from the same tier. I think there should be 3 if not 4 tiers within NCAA division I football and a champion crowned within each level through a playoff. Look at how high school football works-- here in Ohio we have 7 levels of play because Ohio's largest high school has 1200 male students while the lowest division contains schools with less than 80

I agree. There are arguments to play one if a school so chooses. Sometimes it is about finding an opponent for an open date. I also like an FBS school from a power conference, to play at least one other BCS-type from another conference.

Sometimes a school backs out of a contract late to schedule another, and the opponent is often left scrambling for somebody for one available date. Also, those power schools are looking for seven or so home dates per season for their fans, more TV coming to town, and money.

While I think it is inappropriate for a strong program to schedule three or four known cupcake OOCs' for a season if tougher choices are available; allowing a school one or two flexible games, as each school may see its needs, is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, if Clemson wants to play nearby Furman some seasons, there can be certain mutal benefits.

However, there is always the risk of upsets (i.e. Michigan vs Appy State, and some already this season). Never a good idea to schedule somebody freely that one can't afford to lose to. It can get certain coaches a long way toward getting canned.

There's already a uniform policy on FCS scheduling as to how many games may count in power ratings. It is one.

I also believe their is an FBS rule that only one win over an FCS school can count toward getting the six wins needed for bowl eligibility.

Fully scholarshipped FCSs should count just like a low level FBS conference team. The quality of opponents are comparable.
This would curb some of the movement to FBS. The schools not in the SEC, B1G, B12, PAC and most of the ACC have more in common with fully funded FCS than the top funded FBS schools.

I don't mind FBS schools Playing FCS teams. Any national title contender would only be hurting themselves if they play a FCS team (for SOS).

_________________
Fan of:
Sun Belt Conference
Summit League
Us National Soccer Team

I agree. It's not like these games go unnoticed by pollsters, the computers, and the media. Some of these games are good matches for institutional types or state interests, so I understand why some of these games occur.

It's only going to get more gruesome for some programs, though. Like, worse than GT-Elon. With the Patriot ramping up to scholarships, I wonder if Lehigh, Lafayette, and Bucknell find their way onto PSU, Pitt, and Temple schedules. Ewwww.

Pitt had been playing one FCS opponent per year, when they has only a 7 game in-conference schedule in the BE.
The ACC is at least 8, maybe thinking of 9. They may make a conscious decision to drop FCS teams.
They decided theay no longer have room in the schedule for WVU, for crying out loud.

The last few years, PSU had been scheduing 4 pansies to start the season, then went into their 8-game B1G schedule.
I believe I have heard the Big Ten will be going to 9, as soon as Maryland and Rutgers come aboard.
I believe I may have also read that Big Ten was contemplating a rule that prohibited scheduling FCS opponents (not sure of status of that).

Temple plays FB in the MAC. Being located in eastern PA (Philly), I could easily see them playing Lehigh, Lafayette, Bucknell....

I could see that happening. I'm wondering if some of the non title contenders will load up on weak teams to help another? (1 FCS team, 2 weak FBS teams and 1 strong title contender) basically trying to help a title contender out by looking good on paper for them. PSU has really nothing to lose by scheduling weak teams for the next few years.

Though you have to question if some of the weaker FBS teams are actually stronger then some FCS teams.

_________________
Fan of:
Sun Belt Conference
Summit League
Us National Soccer Team