Creampuffs Are Bad For an FBS (I-A) Program's Health!

Sure, there are upsets. Last year, Appalachian State upended Michigan in the season opener, and Louisiana-Monroe beat Alabama late in the year.

But these are the exceptions that prove the rule: scheduling minnows--opponents from non-BCS conferences in the Football Bowl Subdivision, or even better, opponents from the Football Championship Subdivision--is an easy way to (1) pad a program's win total, thereby increasing its chances of a bowl game; (2) throwing "red meat" to the fan base by demolishing a mismatched opponent; and (3) increasing the number of home games, since the opponent will either be asked just to play once, or will not be allowed to host a "return game" in a future season (which is what almost always happens when the two opponents are more evenly matched).

Some coaches are more than willing to "pad the schedule" and thus create a pernicious habit of "record inflation" that makes the program appear stronger or more successful than it actually is--i.e. when it is forced to play its peers, the heretofore hidden weaknesses are cruelly, and usually systematically, revealed.

This happens in the same way that undergraduate college students are seen to be smarter than they actually are due to "grade inflation", but when they are tested in the job market, many of the graduates are found wanting in basic yet important job skills such as literacy (especially as applied to writing) and basic math skills.

One of the most blantant examples of this was the program at Kansas State University  under Bill Snyder. Admittedly, the program was in poor shape when Snyder arrived, and so a little padding early on may have been important in building confidence. But Snyder persisted in scheduling weak opposition throughout his career at K-State, and it became almost a predictable outcome that the Wildcats would falter late in the year, when they finally played a tough opponent.

The most damaging such "lesson" occurred in 1998, in the Big 12 Championship Game between Kansas State and Texas A&M. The Wildcats had only to win to secure a place in the national title game, but ended up losing--and losing the consolation bowl game they were placed in as well.

Nine years later, an almost identical situation happened, when Missouri met Oklahoma in the Big 12 Championship Game in 2007. The Tigers were on the verge of going to the BCS Championship Game, but were thoroughly outplayed by the Sooners.

The Tigers had made the title game by beating Kansas, which also had made sure to schedule weak non-conference opponents against which it could run up the score. The game against Missouri was the first real challenge for Kansas, and they failed it.

There are such examples in every FBS conference, and particularly the BCS or "major" conferences.  They will search for weaker opponents from (A) the non-BCS or "mid-major" conferences; or (B) the FCS (former I-AA), which is becoming more common due to the NCAA lifting the rule that wins against I-AA opponents did not count toward bowl eligibility.

One recent exception to this rule in recent years is Wake Forest; the Demon Deacons consistently schedule their non-conference opposition from BCS conferences, or one of the three FBS independents (Army, Navy, and Notre Dame).

Another admirable decision is by a conference: when the NCAA expanded the schedule to 12 games, the Pac-10 chose to add a ninth conference game to its schedule, so that each conference member played every other conference member every year, leaving three non-conference games (as before). The Big East (with only eight members) is the only other BCS conference to play a complete (round-robin) conference schedule. Whereas these schedules used to be the norm, now in the era of mega-conferences they are the exception.

Just as with the concept of a playoff for FBS, the concept of changing the way teams schedule opponents is unlikely to get much support unless there is a concerted effort on the part of fans, coaches, administrators, AND the television media to institutionalize some degree of consistency of scheduling.

The simplest--and therefore least likely--solution is to require complete (round-robin) conference schedules of EVERY team in FBS. For teams in conferences which have 12 members (ACC, Big XII, SEC), this leaves only one non-conference game. Smaller conferences would be able to schedule additional non-conference games (Big "Ten": 2 games; Pac-10: 3 games, same as now; Big-East: 5 games, until expansion to a minimum of 10 teams).

A more nuanced solution would return the rule that games against FCS (I-AA) opponents would not count toward bowl eligibility, combined with a requirement to schedule at least *two* non-conference games against opponents from BCS conferences. This would mean that teams from 12-team conferences would most likely have at *most* two "easy" games in a season.

Football purists (and I count myself among them) would welcome a way to both keep the best traditions of college football (the bowls, playing attractive non-conference games) and improve the appeal and marketability of the sport (a limited eight-team playoff: see one of my previous articles for a workable system).

Unfortunately, it will require that some of the most stubborn opponents of reform (certain administrators, coaches, and alumni) realize that there is more to be gained than lost by making the necessary changes.