Machiavelli Would Love the Power 5's Latest Scheduling Play (FCS games)

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://www.college-sports-journal.com/index.php/ncaa-division-i-sports/fbs-football/817-machiavelli-would-love-the-power-5-s-latest-scheduling-play

The likely end result from the "Power 5" scheduling each other more often is an overall reduction of OOC opportunities across the board, IMO - and a flattening, or maybe even a decrease, in the size of financial guarantees across the board.

This "Power 5" scheduling arrangement is likely to affect both Wannabe 5 schools and FCS schools equally, and both in a bad way.

[Saint3333]

Let's wait and see how FCS games are treated in the calculation before predicting which group loses more in the process. Both the G5 and FCS are going to be losers in this deal no doubt about it, but the P5 will throw the G5 just enough to move the proposal along which could mean the FCS is thrown completely under the bus.

[MplsBison]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess that the CFP selection committee will favor P5 teams that schedule G5 teams over FCS teams in the non-conference part of the schedule.

It won't matter than the FCS teams are actually better on the field, they'll just conclude that being in the same sub-division is what matters.

[walliver]

ESPN would be more than happy for the P5 to only play other P5 teams, because that's where the viewers are.

USA Today has an article in today's edition talking about scheduling problems that UCF is having. Apparently, UCF is too good to play for a money game, but not part of the P5. They still have 2 open spots in their 2015 schedule they are having trouble filling.

FCS and G5 programs that will be successful in the future, will be those than can adequately fund their programs internally without depending on "free money" from the Big 5.

Fewer "gimme" games means less demand, therefore lower payouts to P5 and FCS teams.

[walliver]

I don't know why this needs its own thread, since the topic is being discussed on multiple threads.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Mostly because of the fantastic article linked above :)

That's the thing, forcibly reducing supply of B5/P5 OOC games has this cascade effect.

* Teams like UCF will need to settle for lower guarantees and/or "one and dones" to fill out their schedule if they hope to be somewhere in the vicinity of the playoff (even thought the odds are now further stacked against them ever qualifying)

* Teams like UCF can't afford to schedule FCS teams in order to be in the conversation for the CFP, so they're likely to decrease the overall number of those games

* P5 teams will be able to say to teams like UCF, "Why should we schedule you when we can get Austin Peay here, get a guaranteed win, not worry about any return game, and it costs me less money?" UCF might still be able to get some games, but it will cost them in lower guarantees and lack of home games because they're competing with FCS for the same slots.

* P5 teams now have as a scheduling priority: 1) other P5 teams; 2) subpar FCS teams that are qualifiers (preferably those without a recent winning history, like Austin Peay, Savannah State, Charleston Southern), 3) top FCS teams that are qualifiers, 4) low-end non-P5 teams like UMass or Georgia State, with no winning tradition, and finally 5) top non-P5 FBS teams.

[Saint3333]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/05/07/big-ten-commissioner-jim-delany-question-and-answer/8774193/

Or one could conclude that P5 teams could begin receiving the FCS treatment of the last 5 years. They don't travel to P5 programs and the payout is $500-600k vs. $1M.

Then they would drop FCS games all together (depending on the playoff SOS calculation) and P5 members would schedule FCS games to guarantee 6 home games, paying FCS members $200-300k.

Be careful what you wish for LFN.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

There is no reason whatsoever for P5 teams to schedule good teams out-of-conference, because they get all the "schedule strength" they need from their conference games. There's no need for Vanderbilt to seek out UCF - they already have Georgia. They can schedule Presbyterian, UMass, Georgia State and Army - why set themselves up for a possible loss?

There is every reason for non-P5 teams to schedule P5 teams out-of-conference. Even if they go undefeated in their league they can't achieve the "schedule strength" necessary to become playoff contenders.

[walliver]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/05/07/big-ten-commissioner-jim-delany-question-and-answer/8774193/

Or one could conclude that P5 teams could begin receiving the FCS treatment of the last 5 years. They don't travel to P5 programs and the payout is $500-600k vs. $1M.

...

I wish the reporter had asked him what he meant by "DI" as the commissioner never mentions "FBS". He obviously cares for neither G5 or FCS. Interestingly he refers to the P5 as the "Group of Five" which makes the term G5 confusing. Will we have a G5 and a Gof5;)?

Apparently he has a dream of a single "Division I" where the B1G and SEC can pick and chose which rules they want to follow or ignore, which seems to completely defeat the purpose of a single division, or even having rules at all for that matter.

Interestingly, the scenario he describes for relative autonomy is not that different from the goals of many Southern leaders prior to Mr. Lincoln's military antics. The NCAA does not have an Army or Navy, so it will basically have to let the Big Boys have their way.

While it is interesting to speculate about what will happen to the non Big 5 conferences, no-one really knows. I personally think that the TV money is neither unlimited or safe long-term. If the cable/satellite TV industry went an an a la carte payment system, ESPN's business model would require massive restructuring (as would NBC Sports and Fox Sports). Consumers wishing to keep ESPN could easily find themselves paying $30-50 a month for current coverage. Within 10-15 years, we could easily have a system where most regular season games would be pay-per-view. In this scenario, conference affiliations would be less important than individual team performance, which would be bad for Wake Forest, Duke, Purdue, Northwestern et al.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

While it is interesting to speculate about what will happen to the non Big 5 conferences, no-one really knows. I personally think that the TV money is neither unlimited or safe long-term. If the cable/satellite TV industry went an an a la carte payment system, ESPN's business model would require massive restructuring (as would NBC Sports and Fox Sports). Consumers wishing to keep ESPN could easily find themselves paying $30-50 a month for current coverage. Within 10-15 years, we could easily have a system where most regular season games would be pay-per-view. In this scenario, conference affiliations would be less important than individual team performance, which would be bad for Wake Forest, Duke, Purdue, Northwestern et al.

One thing that is not speculation is picking a four-team playoff with a "schedule strength" component, plus an agreement among the P5 to spend at least one OOC game playing another P5 school, makes it a practical impossibility for a non-P5 team to make the playoffs. They'd have to hope for an undefeated season and four or five P5 conference champions with two losses or more.

[walliver]

One thing that is not speculation is picking a four-team playoff with a "schedule strength" component, plus an agreement among the P5 to spend at least one OOC game playing another P5 school, makes it a practical impossibility for a non-P5 team to make the playoffs. They'd have to hope for an undefeated season and four or five P5 conference champions with two losses or more.
That shouldn't be news. It was obvious when the SEC demanded the teams be picked by a committee with no automatic bids, that the lesser 5 weren't really on the invitation list. Basically what is going to happen is that the SEC, B1G, and PAC champions will take three spots with the fourth taken by either the ACC champ, B12 champ, or a second SEC team. Most likely, as soon as a second SEC team displaces the ACC and B12 champions, there will be a big push to expand to 6 teams (expanding to 8 would probably mean allowing a G5 team in).

[Saint3333]

When a guy like this says Division 1 you can bet he is only talking about the FBS.

LFN I think everyone agrees the P5 conference will do everything possible to stack the deck to block a G5 member from getting into the playoffs. One of the most likely concessions will be that FCS wins count against the team that plays them in SOS or the dreaded only count once every four years we've seen before. I love that you believe however this shakes out will benefit the P5, harm the G5, and have little to no impact on the FCS. Wake up, this hurts the G5 and FCS no doubt about it.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

When a guy like this says Division 1 you can bet he is only talking about the FBS.

LFN I think everyone agrees the P5 conference will do everything possible to stack the deck to block a P5 member from getting into the playoffs. One of the most likely concessions will be that FCS wins count against the team that plays them in SOS or the dreaded only count once every four years we've seen before. I love that you believe however this shakes out will benefit the P5, harm the G5, and have little to no impact on the FCS. Wake up, this hurts the G5 and FCS no doubt about it.

It harms FCS in the sense that the overall number of FBS games is reduced, and that the guarantee $s are likely to remain flat for all.

[MplsBison]

Guys, can we agree on one thing going forward (regardless of what they say in the articles) for the sake of anyone who is reading this thread's sanity?

P5 or B5 - "Power five" or "Big five" - Refers to the PAC, XII, B1G, SEC and ACC (+Notre Dame)

G5 or non-P5 - "Group of five" or "non-Power five" - Refers to the MWC, CUSA, MAC, SB, AAC

(Not sure what that does for BYU, Army and for 2014 Navy and UMass)


Saint, sorry don't mean to pick on you but you keep using P5 to refer to what really should be the G5 and vice versa.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Annnnnnnddddd Pitt's AD, right before the ACC's summer meetings, agrees.

http://triblive.com/sports/college/pitt/6074020-74/pederson-acc-schools#ixzz318PiWp8S


Pederson said there doesn't appear to be much support for banning FCS schools from ACC schedules.

“There are a lot of good FCS schools that are willing to play you, and sometimes it's hard to find the other people who are willing to play you (without demanding a home game in return),” he said. “Especially if you are trying to keep seven home games.”

[MplsBison]

Agrees with what? Who on here was talking about FCS teams being banned?

[walliver]

Annnnnnnddddd Pitt's AD, right before the ACC's summer meetings, agrees.

http://triblive.com/sports/college/pitt/6074020-74/pederson-acc-schools#ixzz318PiWp8S

There are a lot of Big-5 teams playing with the Big Boys who are not really Big Time programs.
The ACC has Clemson and Florida State, but then a big drop-off. Georgia Tech played in the championship game with a 6-6 record 2 years ago.
The SEC has Vanderbilt, Kentucky and Mississippi State (What TV market oriented conference would have two teams from Mississippi?).
The Big Ten can boast of Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State, but things drop off rapidly after that.
The Big Twelve has Texas, Oklahoma, and more recently Baylor and T. Boone Pickens State, but the conference gets fairly weak after that.
The PAC has the most parity, but we can debate whether it consists of mostly good teams, or just doesn't have any dominant team.

Most of the lower half of the Big-5 don't really want to play good Wannabe-5 teams, and in many cases are hesitant to play good FCS teams. Many of these teams struggle to put butts in seats at their games. If your goal is a 7-game season ticket package, then you have to find teams willing to travel for cash with no return game.
All FBS teams are required to have 5 home games against other FBS teams. Assuming an 8-game conference schedule (4 home and 4 away), these schools would still need an addition FBS home game every year. The easiest way to get to five is to add 2 home-and-home against other Gang of 5 teams every year (one at home and one away). That leaves two free slots. That team could play two money games, but would end up with only 5 home games every year. Such a team could get a few seasons with 6 home games by signing 2-for-1 or 3-for-1 deals, but the easiest way to get 6 home games is one Bigtime money game, and one FCS home game. This means FCS games against Wannabe-5 teams as well as open slots on Big-5 schedules for FCS teams.

The current changes in college football are worrisome, but the sky is not falling. There may be major changes down the road, but for the next few years things will be pretty much as they are now.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

All FBS teams are required to have 5 home games against other FBS teams. Assuming an 8-game conference schedule (4 home and 4 away), these schools would still need an addition FBS home game every year. The easiest way to get to five is to add 2 home-and-home against other Gang of 5 teams every year (one at home and one away). That leaves two free slots. That team could play two money games, but would end up with only 5 home games every year. Such a team could get a few seasons with 6 home games by signing 2-for-1 or 3-for-1 deals, but the easiest way to get 6 home games is one Bigtime money game, and one FCS home game. This means FCS games against Wannabe-5 teams as well as open slots on Big-5 schedules for FCS teams.

All great points, but my quibble is with the above statement. If a Wannabe 5 team is serious about making a run at a playoff bid or playoff access, they'll need to schedule multiple P5 schools. Assuming that their only reason for staying Wannabe 5 is either pretending to be a P5 school or to have a punchers' chance at the P5 playoffs, the only way that's somewhat achievable is through what I described: no FCS teams, and managing multiple games against Alabama, USC, and the like.

[bkrownd]

The Big Ten can boast of Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State, but things drop off rapidly after that.

Your information is several years out of date.

[MplsBison]

Nebraska, Wisconsin and Michigan St.

[MplsBison]

All great points, but my quibble is with the above statement. If a Wannabe 5 team is serious about making a run at a playoff bid or playoff access, they'll need to schedule multiple P5 schools. Assuming that their only reason for staying Wannabe 5 is either pretending to be a P5 school or to have a punchers' chance at the P5 playoffs, the only way that's somewhat achievable is through what I described: no FCS teams, and managing multiple games against Alabama, USC, and the like.

I can't see any G5 team scheduling more than two games with a P5 team. As exciting and lucrative as those games are, they have a home schedule to maintain for their own season ticket holders. They need a minimum of six home games in a twelve game schedule.

The G5 schools know that their champion is going off to war in the big time bowls every year guaranteed. They might live with that for a while, recognizing the chances of clawing their way up from unranked all the way into the top 4 is pretty slim.

[MplsBison]

There are a lot of Big-5 teams playing with the Big Boys who are not really Big Time programs.
The ACC has Clemson and Florida State, but then a big drop-off. Georgia Tech played in the championship game with a 6-6 record 2 years ago.
The SEC has Vanderbilt, Kentucky and Mississippi State (What TV market oriented conference would have two teams from Mississippi?).
The Big Ten can boast of Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State, but things drop off rapidly after that.
The Big Twelve has Texas, Oklahoma, and more recently Baylor and T. Boone Pickens State, but the conference gets fairly weak after that.
The PAC has the most parity, but we can debate whether it consists of mostly good teams, or just doesn't have any dominant team.

Most of the lower half of the Big-5 don't really want to play good Wannabe-5 teams, and in many cases are hesitant to play good FCS teams. Many of these teams struggle to put butts in seats at their games. If your goal is a 7-game season ticket package, then you have to find teams willing to travel for cash with no return game.
All FBS teams are required to have 5 home games against other FBS teams. Assuming an 8-game conference schedule (4 home and 4 away), these schools would still need an addition FBS home game every year. The easiest way to get to five is to add 2 home-and-home against other Gang of 5 teams every year (one at home and one away). That leaves two free slots. That team could play two money games, but would end up with only 5 home games every year. Such a team could get a few seasons with 6 home games by signing 2-for-1 or 3-for-1 deals, but the easiest way to get 6 home games is one Bigtime money game, and one FCS home game. This means FCS games against Wannabe-5 teams as well as open slots on Big-5 schedules for FCS teams.

The current changes in college football are worrisome, but the sky is not falling. There may be major changes down the road, but for the next few years things will be pretty much as they are now.

Good post, valid points. We will see!

I do agree with you on one thing, at least for the next couple years things should be reasonable stable. That's because of two things: A) schedules are set so far in advance in the P5 and B) we're not exactly sure how the rankings are going to play out.

But keep in mind that it might get to a point where it's no longer good enough just to look at the strength of the non-conference schedule for a particular school. It might start to be the strength of the entire conference's non-conference schedule. What I'm getting at here is rejecting the argument of "only the elite P5 schools are going to worry about getting a top ranking, so the rest will still want to play FCS teams". If the non-elite schools in a P5 conference play a lot of FCS games, the committee might look at that and downgrade the strength of all the teams in the conference.