College Football: Should FBS vs. FCS Games Be Banned Permanently?

“COLLEGE FOOTBALL WINS FOR SALE - $400,000 per each – Inquire Inside!”

So, what happens when an assistant athletic director in charge of scheduling or head coach walks down University Avenue and sees the above sign displayed prominently in the window of a shop front titled “FCS Operations”?

Well, prior to the 2009 season at least 20 percent of these officials (from automatically qualifying (AQ) BCS schools) went into the FCS Superstore, pulled out the university VISA and signed up for an almost guaranteed bona fide victory.

That is correct, last season a whopping 21 percent of all FBS-BCS (formerly Division IA) out of conference games were scheduled against FCS (formerly Division IAA) programs.

Prior to the advent of the Bowl Championship Series the scheduling of FCS opponents by FBS programs was a rarity, since its founding the practice has flourished.

Case in point, in 1998 (the first year of the BCS) only eight percent of out of conference games were scheduled against FCS foes by FBS-BCS programs, while in 2009 the average was 21 percent.  That represents an increase of 13 percent in 11 years.

This trend was further heightened in 2006 when the NCAA allowed an official 12^th regular season game to be added to teams schedules.   And, the fad has grown even further in 2008 and 2009.

For the 2010 season 90 of the 710 total games involving FBS teams will be played versus an FCS opponent.

Show Me the Money

The benefits to both programs (that of the FBS and its FCS counterpart) are fairly obvious: The FBS program gets the almost (a very key word) guaranteed win and the FCS program gets the cash payout.

In many cases the money awarded the program scheduled to take the “beating” allows the entire athletic budget to be made. 

That said, let’s not pretend like the FBS schools are being benevolent in asking a FCS school to be on its dance card. They can feel good about where the money goes and what it means all they want to but they shouldn’t pretend like this is the underlying and gracious purpose.

It’s kind of like feeling good about the prostitutes’ car payment being made on time and using that as a reason for participation.  I’m not saying...I’m just saying.

So, how much does it cost to lure a FCS school into playing at a FBS-BCS opponent’s venue?

Well, Nebraska paid South Dakota State close to $400,000 to come to Lincoln this past weekend, while Missouri paid McNeese State $310,000 to visit Columbia on September 11.

Of course, there are big payouts between FBS BCS teams and FBS mid major teams too, but in reality these two groups are all in the same league and technically have a shot at the same postseason. These teams are truly on the same playing field.

No Guarantees

It’s not rocket science to identify why programs schedule the ultimate cupcake in an FCS opponent; it’s all about the win.

Furthermore it’s not hard to see that beyond the money FCS schools have the benefit of playing a “big time” program, playing in front of a huge crowd, and having the opportunity for that “one shining moment” upset that proves that they belong among the very top echelon of college football.

And that is the beautiful thing about sports; you can arrange the win, you can pay for it in full, but still there are no guarantees.  The game still has to be played and in the end the players on the field get to decide what happens. 

Even though FBS teams have the obvious advantage of talent, athleticism, and the home crowd; anything can and will happen.

Thus far in 2010 (through Week 4) FBS teams have won all but six of the 78 contests played versus FCS schools.  That’s a 92 percent winning margin with an additional 12 FBS versus FCS matchups remaining to be played this season.

There has been much ado made, especially lately, that the FCS is “closing the gap” vs. the FBS.  The numbers simply tell us this is untrue; in reality there are just more FBS vs. FCS games which equals more wins but the winning percentage has seen only a nominal rise.

For example, in 2005 the FBS was 52-2 vs. the FCS netting a 96 percent winning percentage and in 2008 they were 85-2 or 97 percent vs. the FCS.

Regardless, you can schedule the ultimate “cupcake” but you still have to go through the motions, play the game, and take the scary eight percent chance that you won’t execute, the FCS team will, and you will be left with a “signature loss.”

And, you’ll have paid dearly financially for the pleasure.

Reasons to Retain the FBS vs. FCS Games

Currently, the NCAA allows FBS programs to use one win over an FCS program to count towards the six wins required to become bowl eligible.  This rule basically makes a clear statement that the NCAA sanctions matchups between FCS and FBS programs.

So, why keep this practice legal?

It’s a Win/Win Situation:  The FCS schools make money and compare their talent and abilities with the athletes at the next level. The FBS schools get an opportunity to “warm up” for the regular season by playing a program from the next level down and have a very good chance (roughly 95 percent) of adding one game to their bowl eligibility tally.

Division Jumping:  FCS schools such as Connecticut have moved up to the FBS in recent years and seen success in doing so.  Without “trial games” vs. the FBS would the Huskies and others had an opportunity to prove to themselves and prospective conferences that they were ready for a move upwards?

Banning FBS vs. FCS games would seriously limit this type of mobility.

Recruiting: The FBS schools would draw in a different group of viewers from the opposing FCS program and surrounding geographical area fan base. This could, arguably, help with recruiting (for both schools).

It’s Already Limited: As long as the NCAA continues its policy of only one FCS game per season counting towards bowl eligibility the FBS vs. FCS games, though overall trending upwards, is in reality limited. 

Schools who choose to play more than one FCS game (like Kansas State did in 2009) will suffer the consequences of only having one of the games “count” towards postseason play.

Nobody’s Getting Hurt: Really, what’s the big deal? Who cares who plays who?  Everyone plays “cupcakes”; it is an established practice so who really cares if they come from FBS or FCS conferences?

Indeed, why fix something that isn’t even broke?

Reasons to Ban FBS vs. FCS Games

On the other side of the coin, what would be the inherent benefits of prohibiting FBS vs. FCS games? 

Fairness: Not every program can readily afford to line up “cupcakes” and beat them one by one.  Though it costs top ten programs more to entice a FCS team to come to town for a whipping, these teams have more money to work with in the first place where as teams from smaller schools, with smaller stadiums cannot compete in cash flow and therefore cupcake purchasing.

Even though college football is technically an amateur sport it is obvious that money drives success in terms of facilities, staffing, equipment, travel capabilities (and arguably recruiting), etc.  Why add the ability to lure non conference opponents to the growing list of financial disparity?

It Further Complicates the BCS Picture: Since strength of schedule is less a part of the reformulated BCS calculation than previously programs pay less of a “penalty” for scheduling "fluffy" games.

Arguments and subsequent rankings involving who played FBS mid majors, FCS schools, and lower tier programs from BCS conferences in non conference play is tricky and perilous at best.  Why not exclude the FCS question all together and “even the playing” field to some degree for non conference games? 

Wouldn’t it be easier to argue strength of schedule if every FBS program was required to play each and every game against another FBS team?

There are Plenty of FBS Opponents to Play: In reality, though scheduling is a complicated business, there are plenty of teams in the FBS (120 total) to satisfy the non conference scheduling needs of the FBS.

Instead of the automatically qualifying BCS conference teams playing teams from FCS conferences why not replace these games with teams from the Sun Belt, Conference USA, MWC, and WAC conferences?

It would be prudent to mention that if FBS teams were indeed required to play only other FBS schools then teams would require an extra bye week and weeks 14 and 15 of the regular season (which now only host a dozen games over the two week period) would include more contests. This is doable and has its inherent advantages.

It’s Better for the Game:  It’s simply more exciting (and arguably revenue generating) to watch Florida play East Carolina than it is to watch Florida play Stony Brook. 

Everyone knows that Florida will blow out Stony Brook and if they don’t it is only entertaining and interesting to watch in a morose sort of way.

But, though Florida should also beat East Carolina the gap in talent is greatly decreased and the reality of a good game is much nearer than is a huge blowout.  

A Step Towards Finding Out Who the Good Teams Really Are:  Sure most of the big automatically qualifying programs that already play perilous conference schedules would much rather pad their schedules with a couple of “cupcakes” and the more icing on top the better. 

That said requiring FBS teams to stop playing FCS schools would help all of college football determine who the elite programs in college football really are. 

The BCS has been extremely successful in “muddying the waters” of football at the collegiate level.  Banning FCS play would do a lot to at least marginally clear this murkiness.

Aren’t you sick of hearing, “Well, going into Week 4 Texas A&M seems to have a solid team, but with wins over Stephen F. Austin, Louisiana Tech, and FIU it is hard to say just how good this team is . . .?”

Let’s see how good the elite programs really are; let’s force them to play FBS teams only!

The Bottom Line

It’s hard not to draw comparisons between college basketball and college football. 

In basketball there is no FBS, FCS or BCS (but of course there are less expenses incurred in fielding a basketball team than a football team) and really anyone in Division I has a shot to win the title (via the true playoff which we won’t delve into in this forum).

This means that a team like Butler can be in the NCAA Championship, which they were this past season when they took on Duke for the title. 

Therefore, it makes since that Butler and Duke could and would play in the regular season.

In football, Duke could play Butler as a non conference game at some point during their regular season but that would be the only place they could meet. 

And so, it makes sense that there would be no need, ever, for the two to meet on a football field.

One of the arguments heard often in defense of the BCS is it provides “the best regular season” in all of sports.  Meaning, I suppose, that every game is so critical to admission into the coveted and cash bloated BCS that every week is literally a “must win” situation.

But, with the current system that allows these mismatches between the FBS and FCS teams how truly thrilling are games like Missouri vs. McNeese State, Texas A&M vs. Stephen F. Austin, and South Florida vs. Stony Brook?

Is this truly good for the FBS, the FCS and college football?

Does this really fit the bill for “the best regular season” in all of sports?

As long as the “laissez faire” approach to scheduling non conference opponents remains unchecked programs will continue to be forced to follow the trend to remain competitive; schedule one FCS game, a couple of lower tier mid majors and maybe (if the team has national championship aspirations) schedule a “home and away” series with a good team from another BCS conference.

This will continue onwards until someone in the NCAA opts to put a stop to it. 

In reality, banning FBS vs. FCS games would do little to bolster a BCS system that seems more determined to make money than make sense, but it would be a small step in the right direction.