🏈 If FBS schools no longer play FCS schools in football, what are the ramifications?

[TerryP]

If you follow college football at all, you probably are familiar with last week’s story out of Wisconsin, where Barry Alvarez was quoted as saying that Big 10 schools would not schedule FCS opponents going forward:

“The nonconference schedule in our league is ridiculous,” Alvarez said on WIBA-AM. “It’s not very appealing…
“So we’ve made an agreement that our future games will all be Division I schools. It will not be FCS schools.”​

A couple of quick points:
- Obviously, FCS schools are members of Division I. You would think the director of athletics at a D-1 institution would know that.
- Alvarez claimed that the Big 10′s non-conference schedule “is ridiculous”, yet he is the same AD who in recent years scheduled multiple FCS schools from all over the country, including The Citadel, Wofford, Northern Iowa, South Dakota, Austin Peay, and Cal Poly. The Badgers will play Tennessee Tech in 2013.

Alvarez’s comment drew a lot of attention, understandably so, although it is not a lock that the Big 10 will enforce such an edict. Northern Iowa’s AD was blunt: ...

Read More Here...

 

[psychojoe]

Some of the FCS schools make their budget every year by playing an FBS school. It will be tougher on them. Other than that I haveno objection. I'd sooner play Ga. Southern than UAB.

 

[TerryP]

I saw an idea floated the other day I thought was interesting.

It was suggested that the top five conferences go ahead and split off into their respective groups. I've been in favor of that move for several years now.

The suggestion was using a model similar to something they do in the European soccer leagues. Give teams in the next division (those not in the big five but larger than D2 teams) the opportunity to elevate their standing and join one of the big five conferences if they have a proven track record of success.

As another example, think of the Nationwide tour and the PGA tour in professional golf. If you aren't winning, or finishing high enough to be considered competitive on the PGA tour you lose your exemption. With those who have had a lot of success on the Nationwide tour they get their chance to compete on the PGA tour.

I haven't thought about it long enough to see if it would work, but something about the bottom 10 teams out of the big five having to drop down a division and the top of that division being given the opportunity to move up sounds interesting. If anything, it would give that lower division more TV coverage—and in turn more money—if we found ourselves at the end of the year watching a few teams have the chance to play a game, win that game, and then join the "big boys."

On the subject at hand, I don't feel there's any doubt to the efficacy of dropping FCS teams and only playing those in the big five conferences.

 

[porkchop]

I know I'm sounding like Captain Obvious here but I would hate to see the smaller kids not be able to go into the bigger programs and play for a payday. That's kind of the long and the short of it for me. The lesser programs need these games to sustain what they have. Take it away and they cease to exist.

 

[TerryP]

I know I'm sounding like Captain Obvious here but I would hate to see the smaller kids not be able to go into the bigger programs and play for a payday. That's kind of the long and the short of it for me. The lesser programs need these games to sustain what they have. Take it away and they cease to exist.

When these smaller programs are a drain on the state educational coffers—IE: UAB ending up around 18MM in the red and had to be subsidized—why shouldn't they cease to exist? At the very least, at the D1 level?

What's wrong with expecting a university and its athletic departments to live within its means?

 

[Swamptick]

I know I'm sounding like Captain Obvious here but I would hate to see the smaller kids not be able to go into the bigger programs and play for a payday. That's kind of the long and the short of it for me. The lesser programs need these games to sustain what they have. Take it away and they cease to exist.

When these smaller programs are a drain on the state educational coffers—IE: UAB ending up around 18MM in the red and had to be subsidized—why shouldn't they cease to exist? At the very least, at the D1 level?

What's wrong with expecting a university and its athletic departments to live within its means?

Exactly. Let the market solve itself.

 

[jdpas29]

i support free market, capitalist football

 

[psychojoe]

I saw an idea floated the other day I thought was interesting.

It was suggested that the top five conferences go ahead and split off into their respective groups. I've been in favor of that move for several years now.

I will use this to raise an idea of mine again. There obviopusly needs to be some separation from those serious about D-1 football, as opposed to being sentimental about it. The NCAA tried to implement a subsidy for athletes of $2k per year. The "have nots" voted it down.

The schools willing to do this should form their own division. It would help the players defray most of the expenses not covered by their scholarship, something that is long overdue. it would also weed out the UABs of the world. For Bama, with app. 250 athletes on scholarship it would cost around $500k per year.

 

[porkchop]

When these smaller programs are a drain on the state educational coffers—IE: UAB ending up around 18MM in the red and had to be subsidized—why shouldn't they cease to exist? At the very least, at the D1 level?

What's wrong with expecting a university and its athletic departments to live within its means?

I never said that UAB should be subsidized or was entitled to compete at a certain level. If the program is a financial drain then maybe it should cease to exist, but not all of these schools are UAB. Were were talking in general terms. As far as living within means, yes I agree. But playing the bigger schools provides the smaller ones with an opportunity to bank some money for their programs and make improvements. I'm not against that.

 

[252BAMA]

The 12th game was added for the sole purpose of providing the 1AA schools a big payday. The rule that restricted 1A schools from playing 1AA schools more than once every four years was eliminated on the EXACT same day that the 12th game was added. Didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what that was all about.

Prior to that, no one could have been a larger opponent to the playing of a 1AA school by Bama than yours truly. On that day I resigned myself to the fact that Bama would be playing one every year. I would prefer that Bama just send them a check and play someone else.