re: Big Ten to stop schdlng FCS opponents, SEC (and everyone else) should do it too

quote:

---

I keep seeing comments like "Good, about time teams started playing real top 25 competition OOC" on the ESPN article but in reality those Big 10 schools are going to fill the FCS slots with games against schools like Ohio, UMass, and Mid Tenn St.

Of course it wouldn't bother me too much if the SEC adopted this b/c A&M would end up with regional schools like SMU, Houston, Rice, UTSA, North Texas, UTEP, Texas State, La Tech, ULM, ULL, Tulane, and Tulsa. I'd much rather play those schools than Lamar and Sam Houston.

---

They are not even going to do this, the B1G is planning on going to a 9 or 10 game conference schedule, so what they are doing is dropping the FCS opponent and adding a conference game to help with how spread out the "rivalry" games were going to be.

So yeah, they are dropping a FCS slot, but the top tier teams will be adding Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, etc. in that games place. While the names sound better on paper, at the end of the year it will still be a team with 3-6 wins like the teams you listed.

What this will do for the B1G is add to the "we don't know" factor similar to the Mich/Ohio State game back in 06 remember how those two teams were "clearly the two best teams in the country and were deserving of a rematch" before Florida destroyed Ohio St. in the BCS title game?

Some of the B1G schools may play a home an home with other BCS schools or neutral site games, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them become more secluded as the playoff comes into being as the "we don't know" factor comes in, it would be hard to say an undefeated Ohio State or Michigan team is any better or worse than anyone else in the country when they haven't played anyone outside of the B1G, similar to what you run into with Notre Dame this year, because "we don't know", the beat a bunch of teams with decent names on paper...

Took them this long to learn their lessons from 2007?

It's not the Football teams job to fund athletic departments.

quote:

---

It's not the Football teams job to fund athletic departments.

---

I'm not going to argue this point because obviously you are coming from some sort of fantasy land, while I'm discussing reality.

quote:

---

where do you think the money all those people in the AD are paid comes from?

---

I understand the economics of it and that they do pay for those things, but that doesn't mean they should have to. Esp if it impedes successful growth and change in the sport itself, which lets face it, college football needs more then any organized sport in this country.

quote:

---

that's probably a touch too idealistic. I understand what you are saying and agree with it to some extent - I think we'd all like to see better games. But I think you are ignoring the benefit to the schools of college athletics.

Most people gloss over it, but the AD is essentially the marketing department for big state schools. By people becoming LSU fans of various sports, they promote LSU the school. They encourage non-athletes to apply to LSU. A&M's move to the SEC (and it's good football season) led to a 30% increase in applicants in one year. That's enormous value to the school. It makes the school more selective, which leads to better graduates and higher rankings, which leads to enhanced value of a diploma over time.

This is what athletics is about to the academics. And it's why football does and will always subsidize other sports - because a sport doesn't have to make money to build exposure for a school (and this is especially important among the growing women's sports as it's a demographic that doesn't necessarily follow football). The fact that most of the SEC schools operate in the black is really just an added bonus.

---

This is a good argument and deep down I understand and agree with the reality of it all.

But if you can't be "idealistic" on an SEC message board, where can you?????

Realistically, I still think it's a good idea to improve regular season games and getting rid of FCS games could be part of the solution.

quote:

---

Third, it makes big time college football less accessible to fans. A lot of people can't afford to buy season tickets or pay to go for a big game but these lesser games allow them to go, take their families, and get a chance to enjoy The Swamp or Bryant Denny or Kyle Field because the tickets are often discounted or more readily available through season ticket holders giving them away or selling them on the cheap. These games are also the ones that schools often invite various groups or underprivileged kids to attend. The more people that can experience a big time college football environment the better. I know of a lot of stories of kids that didn't have great mentors but went to a big college game on campus and realized, "Wow, I really need to study and work hard so I can do this someday!"

---

Your first two points were good. This one is BS. Nobody wants to go to these games, and the stadiums are rarely fill for them.

And I can tell you for a FACT that at Tiger Stadium, from 2008-09 when I went to every game, the "cheap" games were a grand total of $5 less than the "big" games. $50 v $45 face value. If I've got money to pay 45, I'll sure as hell pay 50.

I would imagine there would be some heavy pushback from the business communities in Baton Rouge, Tuscaloosa, Athens etc.. if the home slates drop from 7 or 8 home games to 6. With that said I would love it as a fan if we all played 12 competitive FBS games.

quote:

---

if the home slates drop from 7 or 8 home games to 6.

---

First, let me ask you whether we are talking about the recent FCS development, or the hypothetical scenario I described earlier in the thread.

If you are just talking about the former - the idea that we shouldn't play FCS teams anymore - I would argue that such a rule should not decrease the number of home games for most teams in most years. Not playing FCS teams doesn't mean you can't, for example, schedule a Sun Belt team and a MAC team to compensate.

But there aren't enough non-AQ FBS teams to go around, you might say? True. However, this would only mean that some teams would have to look for other opponents, not all teams. Accounting for the fact that most such deals result in home-and-homes, you only lose a home game half the time. Further, teams like Alabama would still have pull, and could leverage some lesser programs into bad deals. Given all of that, I would say a good estimate would be one less home game every three or four years for most teams, depending on the stature of the program.