Future Conference Scheduling Alliances

[DFW HOYA]

"No more FCS cupcakes. No more Group of Five opponents. It’s one Power Five against another: 30 head-to-head matchups, season after season."

This is being discussed between voices in the Big 12 and Pac-12. Not many teams in this subdivision play these schools, but it could spread to other I-A conferences. The Big Ten already doesn't regularly schedule I-AA teams, would others follow?

Secondly, would any conferences in this subdivision pursue its own scheduling alliances? The Patriot-Ivy alliance has frittered away and comparably sized conferences (SoCon v. OVC) haven't pursued it.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/...ture-together/

[walliver]

The two conferences owning most of the recent championships are happy to schedule a FCS game and Sun Belt game every year. Most SEC and the top half of the ACC routinely play 7 home games and 5 away. They don't want to give up that revenue. TV revenue won't go up because the major broadcasters only need 5 or 6 big time matchups each week, and they're not going to get big ratings for Wake Forest vs. Vanderbilt anyway.

At the FCS level, P5 vs P5 matchups would just mean that fewer top teams make the playoffs.

[FUBeAR]

The Big Ten already doesn't regularly schedule I-AA teams

Not exactly...

Big Ten TRIED not scheduling/playing FCS, beginning in 2015 - https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...2016/30938987/

7/31/15 - “Big Ten teams have committed to...no longer schedule Football Championship Subdivision opponents beginning in 2016, Commissioner Jim Delany said Friday.”

...but...

...Reversed that decision just 2 years later - https://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...all-scheduling

7/24/17 - “Big Ten teams are allowed to schedule FCS opponents again”


All this TALK about competition & ‘value for fans’ is BS. As my friend, Walliver, alluded, each party to these transactions, FBS Conferences, FBS Schools, & FCS Schools is going to pursue the path that makes FINANCIAL sense for them. The rest of the ‘noise’ is just posturing as the Big 10 was doing in 2015...and, let’s see, since that ‘ban’ went into effect (2016), the Big 10 has won 0 CFP (FBS) Championships, and has had 1 Team make 1 ‘playoff’ appearance, losing 31-0 to a Team that, in that same season, beat an FCS Team with a losing record by a similar score.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the ‘positive competitive aspects’ derived from eschewing the scheduling of FCS Teams, is it?

[OhioHen]

"No more FCS cupcakes."

Big 12

So the Big 12 no longer wants to schedule that cupcake from Fargo. Makes sense to me.

[walliver]

So the Big 12 no longer wants to schedule that cupcake from Fargo. Makes sense to me.

The Big 12 schedules their cupcake games during conference play. They should just rename the conference "the Big II and Some Other Guys".

[WestCoastAggie]

"No more FCS cupcakes. No more Group of Five opponents. It’s one Power Five against another: 30 head-to-head matchups, season after season."

This is being discussed between voices in the Big 12 and Pac-12. Not many teams in this subdivision play these schools, but it could spread to other I-A conferences. The Big Ten already doesn't regularly schedule I-AA teams, would others follow?

Secondly, would any conferences in this subdivision pursue its own scheduling alliances? The Patriot-Ivy alliance has frittered away and comparably sized conferences (SoCon v. OVC) haven't pursued it.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/...ture-together/

MEAC vs. SWAC could make sense.

[centraljerseycat]

7/24/17 - “Big Ten teams are allowed to schedule FCS opponents again”


Hey Rutgers has to beat somebody...

[BEAR]

I thought the idea for these teams wanting an FBS natty was they schedule the highest FBS teams they could beat first then the highest ranked FCS teams they could beat next. Kinda ladder down. I mean we all know some upper level FCS teams easily compare to some lower level FBS teams. Imagine if all teams had equal # schollys. Yikes. I've seen enough FBS vs FCS games to see that fatigue wears on a road FCS Team and they have no scholly player to rotate in like the FBS school does.

[DFW HOYA]

Imagine if all teams had equal # schollys. Yikes. I've seen enough FBS vs FCS games to see that fatigue wears on a road FCS Team and they have no scholly player to rotate in like the FBS school does.

Imagine the fatigue of a zero-scholarship team playing a conference full of 60 scholarship teams.

[FUBeAR]

I thought the idea for these teams wanting an FBS natty was they schedule the highest FBS teams they could beat first then the highest ranked FCS teams they could beat next. Kinda ladder down. I mean we all know some upper level FCS teams easily compare to some lower level FBS teams. Imagine if all teams had equal # schollys. Yikes. I've seen enough FBS vs FCS games to see that fatigue wears on a road FCS Team and they have no scholly player to rotate in like the FBS school does.

EXACTLY!

General Differences in ‘competitiveness’ of FBS vs. FCS

1) DEPTH (due, in large measure, to 22 more scholarships for FBS)









2) Overall Team speed
3) 1-5 (or so) ‘FREAK’ Athletes on FBS Teams and usually 0-1 of those on FCS Teams
4) A bunch of other really minor stuff that most (ignorant) fans & media like to make a big deal about