Another article about the future of FBS vs. FCS games;

[kdinva]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBC_GUARANTEE_GAMES?SITE=VARIT&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


There are a couple of good quotes at the end of the article........basically, those AD's said, if you're not a regular top-40 (or so) 1-A team, then scheduling 1-AA's should not be a big deal, to get that 12th game, etc.

[OL FU]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBC_GUARANTEE_GAMES?SITE=VARIT&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


There are a couple of good quotes at the end of the article........basically, those AD's said, if you're not a regular top-40 (or so) 1-A team, then scheduling 1-AA's should not be a big deal, to get that 12th game, etc.

I don't really know what to think. With all the talk of not playing FCS Michigan State just firmed up the 2016 date with Furman.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The Big Ten already is discouraging its teams from scheduling FCS foes, though not penalizing those that do.

Gee, it only took a year for the meme "The Big 10 won't schedule FCS teams anymore" to be finally dead and buried.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The marketplace suggests major-conference programs would rather play guarantee games against lower-level FBS programs than FCS schools. Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith explained why the Big Ten doesn't want its schools playing FCS teams.

"It's twofold," Smith said. "Part of it was strength of schedule. We're trying to improve our nonconference strength of schedule. And the other part was television. We have been wildly successful with our television package. And as we move toward renegotiation for future years, we want to make sure that we have the most attractive nonconference schedules that we can have, and FBS schools are looked upon more favorably by television."

This is the other part of the meme that will take another year to eradicate.

1. The "marketplace" most certainly does not favor other FBS/G5 teams. Scheduling FCS teams will always be better for the FBS/P5 teams' bottom line. Guaranteed home game, less of a guarantee.

2. Pursuing "schedule strength" is folly in OOC matchups. Why on earth schedule Central Florida with a chance to lose when you can schedule Florida A&M and get a home game, a much better chance to win, and not have it harm bowl eligibility? Furthermore, who knows if, in two years, UCF is 3-8 and will harm or help your "schedule strength"? High risk, little reward.

3. TV viewers simply do not care one iota whether Ohio State plays Eastern Michigan or Eastern Illinois. They will get the same people watching the games anyway, almost all of them rabid Ohio State fans or rabid Michigan fans wanting to see them humbled. Trying to say that Eastern Michigan is any sort of significant TV draw is ludicrous, because to the average CFB TV viewer, Eastern Michigan and Eastern Illinois are one and the same.

[woffordgrad94]

I was actually afraid for a time when I heard that the so-called Power 5 teams were going to stop scheduling FCS. I thought that would really hurt schools that rely on these money games to finance their athletics. But I can see now that my worries were unfounded. Wofford goes to Clemson next year and also plays at Idaho (not sure if that should really be considered a money game though). We are ticketed for Ole Miss in 2016. As far as I know, these games are continuing to be scheduled. And they should be. The big school get a guaranteed home game and a great chance for an easy win, while the FCS gets a nice check and their players get to play at a big stadium in front of a big crowd. Win-win.