Warning, Don's on a rant!

[Don]

OK, here we go again. There seems to be some people that can't resist the urge to condemn D1A teams that play D1AA opponents. Why is there this hatred of playing D1AA programs? How is playing a D1AA opponent ANY worse than playing a bottom dwelling D1A team?

Consider this, 1982 to 2006 (25 years) D1A teams have a record against D1AA teams of only 1244-256-11 or 82.69%. Over that same span D1A teams have a record against other D1A teams that have lost at least 9 games of 3420-481-15 or 87.53%. In other words D1A teams lose more often to D1AA teams than they do to D1AA teams with 9 or move losses. There are only 7 teams that haven't played any D1AA teams over the past 25 years. These are ND, Ohio St, Mich, Mich St, USC, UCLA, and Wash. The records of these 7 teams against the D1A opponents with 9 losses or more are Ohio St. 38-0-0, Notre Dame 29-0-0, Michigan 26-0-0, UCLA 21-0-0, USC 20-0-0, Michigan St. 32-2-0,and Washington 26-2-0. How in the world could anyone in good conscience claim that playing D1AA is WORSE than playing D1A teams with 9 or more losses? SO why throw stones at teams for playing D1A opponents?

Why not look at the relative number of really sucky teams (whether D1A or D1AA) on a schedule compared to the number or really good teams? Then throw stones!!

If one bothers to look one would find that many schools play MORE teams that suck than they play good teams. What constitutes good opponents? How about 8 or more wins. What constitutes sucky? How about 9 or more losses? Well to me the bar should be raised. A good opponent should have 9 or more wins and a sucky team should be with 7 or more losses. (Thus, mediocre teams would have 5-8 wins).

Quizz Time. Over the past 25 years, how many D1A teams have played more opponents that have won 9 or more games in a season that they played D1A teams with 7 or more losses (D1AA teams are counted in here as D1A teams with 7 or more losses) during the regular season?

Answer. Only 4 teams. (Of course) UF has played 8 more teams with 9 or more wins than they have played teams with 7 or more losses (93 vs 85), FSU has played 5 more, Alabama has played 2 more, and ND has played 2 more.

Notice that means that most teams play more sucky teams than they play good teams.

Here are the top 25 teams

Florida 8 SEC
Florida St. 5 ACC
Alabama 2 SEC
Notre Dame 2 Independent
Stanford -1 Pac 10
Vanderbilt -1 SEC
USC -2 Pac 10
Auburn -3 SEC
Kentucky -7 SEC
Maryland -10 ACC
Georgia -13 SEC
LSU -13 SEC
Temple -14 MAC
Colorado -14 Big 12
UCLA -14 Pac 10
Arkansas -16 SEC
South Carolina -16 SEC
Mississippi St. -18 SEC
Purdue -18 Big Ten
Tennessee -20 SEC
Texas -20 Big 12
Missouri -20 Big 12
Washington -21 Pac 10
Washington St. -21 Pac 10
Northwestern -22 Big Ten

What about conferences?
-12.000 SEC
-19.300 Pac 10
-29.750 ACC
-31.917 Big 12
-32.091 Big Ten
-72.500 Big East
-73.556 MWC
-85.750 CUSA
-95.385 MAC
-131.333 WAC
-144.125 Sun Belt

This means that on average the SEC teams only play 12 more teams that have 7 or more losses than they play teams with 9 or more wins while the PAC 10 has played 19.30 more bad teams than good teams, etc.

Data courtesy of http://www.sportslinknetwork.com/cfbtrivia/teamrecord.php

[CJHawkeyes]

While I'm not sure there is necessarily any competitive difference between the bottom of I-A and the I-AA teams scheduled, I-A vs I-AA games serve no competitive purpose. They do nothing to help determine a I-A champion. Furthermore, even if I-A teams ares still compelled to play weaklings, limiting the pool to the bottom of I-A as opposed to adding 120 more weaklings to the pool limits this practice. Make all the teams that played I-AA competition last year schedule each other and I guarantee you will get at least one matchup worth more than all I-A vs I-AA games combined. I also think the ability of a I-A weakling to be better when a game is played compared to when it was scheduled is far greater.

[ZOOMBAG]

OK, here we go again. There seems to be some people that can't resist the urge to condemn D1A teams that play D1AA opponents. Why is there this hatred of playing D1AA programs? How is playing a D1AA opponent ANY worse than playing a bottom dwelling D1A team?

Consider this, 1982 to 2006 (25 years) D1A teams have a record against D1AA teams of only 1244-256-11 or 82.69%. Over that same span D1A teams have a record against other D1A teams that have lost at least 9 games of 3420-481-15 or 87.53%. In other words D1A teams lose more often to D1AA teams than they do to D1AA teams with 9 or move losses. There are only 7 teams that haven't played any D1AA teams over the past 25 years. These are ND, Ohio St, Mich, Mich St, USC, UCLA, and Wash. The records of these 7 teams against the D1A opponents with 9 losses or more are Ohio St. 38-0-0, Notre Dame 29-0-0, Michigan 26-0-0, UCLA 21-0-0, USC 20-0-0, Michigan St. 32-2-0,and Washington 26-2-0. How in the world could anyone in good conscience claim that playing D1AA is WORSE than playing D1A teams with 9 or more losses? SO why throw stones at teams for playing D1A opponents?

Why not look at the relative number of really sucky teams (whether D1A or D1AA) on a schedule compared to the number or really good teams? Then throw stones!!

If one bothers to look one would find that many schools play MORE teams that suck than they play good teams. What constitutes good opponents? How about 8 or more wins. What constitutes sucky? How about 9 or more losses? Well to me the bar should be raised. A good opponent should have 9 or more wins and a sucky team should be with 7 or more losses. (Thus, mediocre teams would have 5-8 wins).

Quizz Time. Over the past 25 years, how many D1A teams have played more opponents that have won 9 or more games in a season that they played D1A teams with 7 or more losses (D1AA teams are counted in here as D1A teams with 7 or more losses) during the regular season?

Answer. Only 4 teams. (Of course) UF has played 8 more teams with 9 or more wins than they have played teams with 7 or more losses (93 vs 85), FSU has played 5 more, Alabama has played 2 more, and ND has played 2 more.

Notice that means that most teams play more sucky teams than they play good teams.

Here are the top 25 teams

Florida 8 SEC
Florida St. 5 ACC
Alabama 2 SEC
Notre Dame 2 Independent
Stanford -1 Pac 10
Vanderbilt -1 SEC
USC -2 Pac 10
Auburn -3 SEC
Kentucky -7 SEC
Maryland -10 ACC
Georgia -13 SEC
LSU -13 SEC
Temple -14 MAC
Colorado -14 Big 12
UCLA -14 Pac 10
Arkansas -16 SEC
South Carolina -16 SEC
Mississippi St. -18 SEC
Purdue -18 Big Ten
Tennessee -20 SEC
Texas -20 Big 12
Missouri -20 Big 12
Washington -21 Pac 10
Washington St. -21 Pac 10
Northwestern -22 Big Ten

What about conferences?
-12.000 SEC
-19.300 Pac 10
-29.750 ACC
-31.917 Big 12
-32.091 Big Ten
-72.500 Big East
-73.556 MWC
-85.750 CUSA
-95.385 MAC
-131.333 WAC
-144.125 Sun Belt

This means that on average the SEC teams only play 12 more teams that have 7 or more losses than they play teams with 9 or more wins while the PAC 10 has played 19.30 more bad teams than good teams, etc.

Data courtesy of http://www.sportslinknetwork.com/cfbtrivia/teamrecord.php

Actual quality doesn't matter. Div IAA can only offer 63 scholarships vs 85 for Div IA. That some IA teams barely have more players on scholarship than IAA teams do is irrelevant. It is still a MAJOR league team playing a MINOR league team and should be an NCAA VIOLATION. Any team that schedules a Div IAA is nothing more than a cowardly, money grabbing act. I refuse to try and buy Nebraska season tickets for the sole reason they continue to schedule IAA teams and I'll be DAMNED if I'm going to pay good money to see a chump game.

[CJHawkeyes]

BTW, comparing the records of a specific group of teams (all of I-AA) defined by their classification to a non-specific group of teams (I-AA bottom feeders) defined by their losing does not work. If the exact opposite results occur in any year, the bottom feeders will change but their records will remain the same. However, I doubt any team that schedules USC based on recent results could be accused of buying a win if the Trojans turned into the Blue Devils overnight. I think it makes more sense to compare the winning percentage of I-AA teams as a group to individual I-A members. How many individual I-A members only won 18 percent of their games versus I-A competition from '82 to '06? Besides that, how much of I-AA's successes have come against I-A bottom feeders? 99 percent? I don't believe a ranked team had ever lost to a I-AA opponent whereas I'm sure a handful have lost to I-A bottom feeders. Ultimately, when these games are scheduled compared to when they are played, the room for improvement is much greater for a I-A bottom feeder than a I-AA team.

[Blue Hen]

Very good statistical offerring, Don. I think you're possibly missing the point of the 1A vs 1AA complaints, however. It really has nothing to do with wins, losses, and what teams happen to be good or 'sucky' at the time. It's the fundemental rules difference between the two divisions. The 'Bowl' teams are allotted 85 full time FB scholarships.........the 'Champ' teams are allotted 63 full time FB scholarships. It's not a level playing field and games should not count or even be played vs lower divisions with different rules and constraints......but in the exhibition/mythical world of big time CF, schools know that they can produce big revenue with these home games and that they can , further, schedule their way to the top of the opinion polls with gawdy, artificial W-L records.....which leads to more post season revenue. NO GOOD ! BECOME A SPORT !

[Don]

BTW, comparing the records of a specific group of teams (all of I-AA) defined by their classification to a non-specific group of teams (I-AA bottom feeders) defined by their losing does not work. If the exact opposite results occur in any year, the bottom feeders will change but their records will remain the same. However, I doubt any team that schedules USC based on recent results could be accused of buying a win if the Trojans turned into the Blue Devils overnight. I think it makes more sense to compare the winning percentage of I-AA teams as a group to individual I-A members. How many individual I-A members only won 18 percent of their games versus I-A competition from '82 to '06? Besides that, how much of I-AA's successes have come against I-A bottom feeders? 99 percent? I don't believe a ranked team had ever lost to a I-AA opponent whereas I'm sure a handful have lost to I-A bottom feeders. Ultimately, when these games are scheduled compared to when they are played, the room for improvement is much greater for a I-A bottom feeder than a I-AA team.


You're mis-reading my post.

I gave you the winning %age of games between All D1A teams and ALL of D1AA compared to all of D1A teams vs ALL D1A teams that lost 9 or more games. As a whole the D1AA teams beat more D1A teams than the D1A teams with 9 or more losses beat ALL of D1A teams.

[Don]

Very good statistical offerring, Don. I think you're possibly missing the point of the 1A vs 1AA complaints, however. It really has nothing to do with wins, losses, and what teams happen to be good or 'sucky' at the time. It's the fundemental rules difference between the two divisions. The 'Bowl' teams are allotted 85 full time FB scholarships.........the 'Champ' teams are allotted 63 full time FB scholarships. It's not a level playing field and games should not count or even be played vs lower divisions with different rules and constraints......but in the exhibition/mythical world of big time CF, schools know that they can produce big revenue with these home games and that they can , further, schedule their way to the top of the opinion polls with gawdy, artificial W-L records.....which leads to more post season revenue. NO GOOD ! BECOME A SPORT !

THIS is what I am talking about. NO ONE is padding their schedule by playing D1AA teams to shoot up the polls. Give me ONE example of a team that has benefited from playing a D1AA team MORE than they would have benefited by playing FAU, FIU, Temple, etc. Trust me I know. My team, UF, has scheduled Western Kentucky and FAU for 2007. Both are D1A this year and UF will crush both. Last year UF scheduled UCF (D1A, 4-8) AND Western Carolina (D1AA 2-9) last year! They beat UCF 42-0 and WCU by 62-0. Do you really think the pollsters were impressed with either victory? Did UF shoot up the rankings last year by padding their schedule with Western Carolina or by playing against 7 good teams with an average record of 10-3?

[Blue Hen]

.....but you can move up in the polls by scheduling and beating 1AA teams. Heck, in 04 alone, I remember AUBURN jumping from 9 to 8 in the Coaches Poll ( a BCS poll ) , after beating the Citadel. Fresno State jumped up 3 slots in the same moronic poll after beating Portland State. There are hundreds of examples over the years.
These programs that like to pad their records with 1AA rent-a-wins know exactly what they are doing. It works quite well in this idiotic system.

[CJHawkeyes]

You're mis-reading my post.

I gave you the winning %age of games between All D1A teams and ALL of D1AA compared to all of D1A teams vs ALL D1A teams that lost 9 or more games. As a whole the D1AA teams beat more D1A teams than the D1A teams with 9 or more losses beat ALL of D1A teams.

Exactly my point. You are comparing all of I-AA versus teams that LOSE nine games. I-AA teams are I-AA teams regardless of their records. Teams that are members of a group due to losing at least nine games will not win a high percentage. Again, I think comparing I-AA members as a whole versus individual I-A members makes more sense. If all individual I-A members win more than 18% of their games during the period mentioned than each individual member is a greater threat than I-AA as a whole.

[Don]

.....but you can move up in the polls by scheduling and beating 1AA teams. Heck, in 04 alone, I remember AUBURN jumping from 9 to 8 in the Coaches Poll ( a BCS poll ) , after beating the Citadel. Fresno State jumped up 3 slots in the same moronic poll after beating Portland State. There are hundreds of examples over the years.
These programs that like to pad their records with 1AA rent-a-wins know exactly what they are doing. It works quite well in this idiotic system.


In 2004 on Sept 24 Auburn was ranked #9 and FSU was ranked #8. The following week FSU dropped to #9 and Auburn moved up to #8. On Sept 25 Auburn played the Citadel and FSU played Clemson. Keep in mind that FSU had already lost a game and Auburn had't. FSU beat a Clemson team that had lost on Sept 11, and on Sept 18 before losing to FSU on Sept 25. FSU didn't look clean in that game.

Also, on Sept 17 Fresno State was ranked #19 , Michigan was #17 and Iowa was #16. Michigan had already lost to ND on Sept 11 (recall ND ended up 6-6) and on Sept 18 barely beat (4-7) San Diego St team. Iowa lost on Sept 18 to ASU 44-7. So what's the problem with moving an undefeated Fresno State ahead of Iowa and Michigan?

[HellYeahHokie]

Here's something to consider:

Ask the Div 1AA teams if they would like to see their paycheck for playing in these games taken away. See if how the level playing field manages without that source of income.

[Don]

Exactly my point. You are comparing all of I-AA versus teams that LOSE nine games. I-AA teams are I-AA teams regardless of their records. Teams that are members of a group due to losing at least nine games will not win a high percentage. Again, I think comparing I-AA members as a whole versus individual I-A members makes more sense. If all individual I-A members win more than 18% of their games during the period mentioned than each individual member is a greater threat than I-AA as a whole.


Why throw stones at teams that play D1AA opponents when as a group they OUTPERFORM D1A teams that win only 9 games? Either don't throw stones or throw stones at teams that play D1AA opponents AND at teams that play D1A opponents that lose 9 or more games!!! There are teams in D1A that always suck (FAU, FIU, Temple, etc.) Why is scheduling one of those superior to scheduling a D1AA opponent?

[CJHawkeyes]

Here's something to consider:

Ask the Div 1AA teams if they would like to see their paycheck for playing in these games taken away. See if how the level playing field manages without that source of income.

How is that relevant? If the games not even permitted, a level playing field between I-A and I-AA would not be necessary. These games serve no competitve and exist to make money and pad records. If teams are forced to play I-A only, the pool of weaklings is much smaller and some will have to play competition. Even then, the weakest of the weak I-A teams is a greater threat over the long haul than all of I-AA combined.

[Don]

I seem to have stirred up folks.

Here are some more stats. The AP polls have been around since 1936. How have the RANKED teams (good teams) perform against the two groups, NON-D1A and D1A that have lost 9 or more games?

Well those teams that ended up in the final yearly AP poll since 1936 are:
1389-15-2 or 0.9886202 against D1A teams that have lost 9 or more games
520-11-6 or 0.9739292 against NON D1A teams

AGAIN D1A ***GOOD***TEAMS LOSE MORE OFTEN TO NON-D1A TEAMS THAN THEY DO TO D1A TEAMS THAT SUCK (LOSE 9 OR MORE GAMES IN A SEASON). So stop slamming them for scheduling them!!!

[CJHawkeyes]

Why throw stones at teams that play D1AA opponents when as a group they OUTPERFORM D1A teams that win only 9 games? Either don't throw stones or throw stones at teams that play D1AA opponents AND at teams that play D1A opponents that lose 9 or more games!!! There are teams in D1A that always suck (FAU, FIU, Temple, etc.) Why is scheduling one of those superior to scheduling a D1AA opponent?

When games are scheduled the ceiling for I-AA teams is only as high as its national champion. The ceiling for the worst I-A teams is much greater. Illinois is bad now but was the Big Ten champs a few short years ago. I'm not saying a win versus FAU, FIU, and Temple is much more impressive than I-AA wins, but why increase the pool of weaklings by 120 to include teams that will be much less successful over the long haul.

[HellYeahHokie]

It takes money to run a football program, even at the Div1AA level. Nobody is pretending running a football program doesn't require getting money. I wouldn't argue that there are a lot of programs that are going too far, and that the business is getting too big.

But it doesn't change the fact that athletic departments need money to run their team. Especially small programs like Div1AA teams. For many of these teams, that paycheck from playing a Div1A team is the biggest single source of revenue they are going to see in a year.

I don't like watching Div1AA teams get pummeled. I'm glad there is a rule to limit them. But I understand that making money is part of the reality. I don't like paying taxes either, but someone has to maintain the roads.

[Don]

Here's something to consider:

Ask the Div 1AA teams if they would like to see their paycheck for playing in these games taken away. See if how the level playing field manages without that source of income.

There are plenty of teams that are bodybag opponents for the big boys. Why limit the revenue sharing to sucky D1A teams.

[CJHawkeyes]

I seem to have stirred up folks.

Here are some more stats. The AP polls have been around since 1936. How have the RANKED teams (good teams) perform against the two groups, NON-D1A and D1A that have lost 9 or more games?

Well those teams that ended up in the final yearly AP poll since 1936 are:
1389-15-2 or 0.9886202 against D1A teams that have lost 9 or more games
520-11-6 or 0.9739292 against NON D1A teams

AGAIN D1A ***GOOD***TEAMS LOSE MORE OFTEN TO NON-D1A TEAMS THAN THEY DO TO D1A TEAMS THAT SUCK (LOSE 9 OR MORE GAMES IN A SEASON). So stop slamming them for scheduling them!!!

Your stats represent flawed methodolgy. You are comparing specific teams to non-specific teams that LOSE. If someone scheduled Illinois following its Sugar Bowl year for this year, it can't be accused of buying a win like a team that scheduled a I-AA opponent the same year. Individual I-A members are more successful than I-AA members as a whole.

[CJHawkeyes]

It takes money to run a football program, even at the Div1AA level. Nobody is pretending running a football program doesn't require getting money. I wouldn't argue that there are a lot of programs that are going too far, and that the business is getting too big.

But it doesn't change the fact that athletic departments need money to run their team. Especially small programs like Div1AA teams. For many of these teams, that paycheck from playing a Div1A team is the biggest single source of revenue they are going to see in a year.

I don't like watching Div1AA teams get pummeled. I'm glad there is a rule to limit them. But I understand that making money is part of the reality. I don't like paying taxes either, but someone has to maintain the roads.

Yes money matters, but I doubt these games exist for the benefit of I-AA teams. These are cheap easy wins that serve no competitive purpose.

[ktffan]

There is tons of evidence out there that tell us that the better I-AA teams are better teams than the lesser mid-majors. This flies in the face of an oft given argument about a team that stuggled with a I-AA team and the ranter tells us how much that team suck because a I-AA team competed with them, as if the I-AA team was lower than anything I-A had to offer.

What's lost in that, however is viewing it from the other end, as in scheduling. While the higher I-AA teams are better than the lower I-A teams, there still remains the high end of where a team can reach. Even the best I-AA team is never going to be better and a decent mid-major, however a I-A team has the capability to reach higher than that. For instance, a mid-major that was 3-9 last year might catch fire and go 8-4 and become a challenging opponent for a major team, any I-AA team will not have that capability. No I-AA team has ever beaten a team from a major conference that finished with a winning record, so when scheduling a I-AA team, the majors can be pretty sure they have a game they should win. Not always the case with a bad I-A team. So when you view the game in terms of SCHEDULING, scheduling a I-AA team is worse, even if the team might be better.

A couple notes on the information given. When the divisions split in 79 and futher split in 82, there was a smaller gap between the divisions. In fact, some of the MAC teams were considered I-AA teams in 82 before coming up to I-A again in 83. If you compare the records of I-A teams vs I-AA team from 82-91, you'll find that the I-AA teams were winning a far greater percentage of games than they have since 92. As a result, I try not to run that wide a gap when viewing this information.

[CJHawkeyes]

kt,

Your middle paragraph explained my point much better than I did.

[HellYeahHokie]

Yes money matters, but I doubt these games exist for the benefit of I-AA teams. These are cheap easy wins that serve no competitive purpose.


These games do exist for the benefit of 1-AA teams. Why else would they agree to play them? Those programs need the money. Additionally, a lot of those players on Div1-AA teams had dreams of playing in a big time college program. For whatever reason, they didn't make it. But the experience of playing in a big stadium, and that environment, is something they are happy to get that chance. At least that's what I've read from player interviews. Just like Rudy at Notre Dame...just the chance to run on that field is an experience to treasure.

And of course, the Div1AA schools schedule them because they get the lion's share of the money from the game, and they get an easy win (usually). A bit of a symbiotic relationship.

[Don]

Your stats represent flawed methodolgy. You are comparing specific teams to non-specific teams that LOSE. If someone scheduled Illinois following its Sugar Bowl year for this year, it can't be accused of buying a win like a team that scheduled a I-AA opponent the same year. Individual I-A members are more successful than I-AA members as a whole.

Yes it can, Illinois is 122-145-5 over the past 25 years, Illinois is 58-104-2 over the past 15 years and is 34-75-0 over the past 10 years. If you schedule Illinois you can expect a easy win. Only 3 season in the 25 has Illinois had more than 9 wins vs 4 times they have lost 9 or more games.


You want specific team vs specific team.

OK, over the past 25 years VT is 4-1 vs Richmond but is 5-0 all time vs Akron. Therefore Richmond is a better opponent for VT than is Akron.

[buckeyejim]

In the last 25 years Virginia Tech beat Richmond in 1981-1982-1983-1984 and lost to the Spiders in 1985.

In the last 25 years Virginia Tech beat Akron in 1989-1991-1995-1996-2000.

In the '80's Virginia Tech was an Independent and played a much easier schedule yet Virginia Tech was a combined 37-19-0 in the years that they played Richmond.

Except for 1989, Virginia Tech was a member of the Big East Conference and played a much tougher schedule going a combined 42-15-1 in the seasons they played Akron.

I think it's pretty safe to say that the Virginia Tech squads fromthe time frame when they played Richmond are much weaker Hokie teams than the squads that played Akron.

If it were Akron that played Virginia Tech in the early '80's and Richmond that played Virginia Tech in 1989-2000, I think that it might have been the Zips who could have snagged a win and the Spiders who might have gone winless.

[CJHawkeyes]

These games do exist for the benefit of 1-AA teams. Why else would they agree to play them? Those programs need the money. Additionally, a lot of those players on Div1-AA teams had dreams of playing in a big time college program. For whatever reason, they didn't make it. But the experience of playing in a big stadium, and that environment, is something they are happy to get that chance. At least that's what I've read from player interviews. Just like Rudy at Notre Dame...just the chance to run on that field is an experience to treasure.

And of course, the Div1AA schools schedule them because they get the lion's share of the money from the game, and they get an easy win (usually). A bit of a symbiotic relationship.

I meant these games do not exist for the benefit of I-AA teams from a I-A perspective. If these weren't cheap easy wins with big home payoffs for I-A teams then I-A teams wouldn't schedule them regardless of how much I-AA teams needed.

[CJHawkeyes]

Yes it can, Illinois is 122-145-5 over the past 25 years, Illinois is 58-104-2 over the past 15 years and is 34-75-0 over the past 10 years. If you schedule Illinois you can expect a easy win. Only 3 season in the 25 has Illinois had more than 9 wins vs 4 times they have lost 9 or more games.


You want specific team vs specific team.

OK, over the past 25 years VT is 4-1 vs Richmond but is 5-0 all time vs Akron. Therefore Richmond is a better opponent for VT than is Akron.

I never said Illinois was a giant killer, but I would imagine Illinois would be more successful against any other I-A opponent over a 25 year period than would any I-AA opponent. I'm not suggesting that some I-AA wins aren't better than some I-A wins, but when games are scheduled, the odds of a I-A team becoming a threat by the time a game is played are much greater. No ranked team has ever lost to a I-AA opponent. I-AA teams are only successful versus bad I-A teams whereas bad I-A teams do beat good I-A teams. I remember #4 Wisconsin lost to 2-9 Cincinnati in 1999. Certainly, scheduling FIU this year based on this year isn't very brave and I'm defending that type of scheduling either. However, I still contend all individual I-A teams are more successful versus I-A than I-AA as a whole. Even if a few aren't, that is still a very small pool of teams available to those majoring in cupcakes. Make the 70 teams that played I-AA opponents last year schedule each other with the goal finding the easist opponent and I bet the bottom 35 win more games than I-AA teams did last year.

[Don]

That's speculation, counselor!

[ktffan]

In the last 25 years Virginia Tech beat Richmond in 1981-1982-1983-1984 and lost to the Spiders in 1985.

VT also beat Richmond in 1986. In 1981 they were a I-A team, not to mention that 81 was 26 years ago.

Also, what was I-AA back in the early 80s we closer to I-A than things were today. Also, VT in the 80s would have been considered closer to mid-major rather than a major independent (note the 86 team finished 9-2-1 and ranked behind several 3 loss teams (some with a tie).

[Don]

When games are scheduled the ceiling for I-AA teams is only as high as its national champion. The ceiling for the worst I-A teams is much greater. Illinois is bad now but was the Big Ten champs a few short years ago. I'm not saying a win versus FAU, FIU, and Temple is much more impressive than I-AA wins, but why increase the pool of weaklings by 120 to include teams that will be much less successful over the long haul.

But, don't you see that is the point. Some teams feel they have enough hard opponents so what is wrong with scheduling teams that you are pretty confident are weaklings whether or not they are D1A or D1AA?

UF was the only team that played 8 opponents that won 8 or more games last year. There were only 32 other teams that played more than 6. Of those 33 total teams how many DID NOT have losing records at the end of the year? Only 9 of the 33.

Florida 7-1
Boston College 5-1
Virginia Tech 4-2
Notre Dame 4-2
Rutgers 4-2
Tennessee 4-3
Nebraska 3-3
Georgia 3-3
Arkansas 3-3

How many of the nine played a D1AA team? Seven!!
Florida 1
Boston College 1
Virginia Tech 1
Notre Dame 0
Rutgers 1
Tennessee 0
Nebraska 1
Georgia 1
Arkansas 1

SO WHAT!!!

[Blue Hen]

here's the problem and injustice : Michigan and Iowa played risky games, Fresno State had a 'rent-a win' week. When the smoke cleared Fresno was rewarded for joining 1AA (for the week). No good. No question whatsoever....a CF team can schedule its way up the polls.

[CJHawkeyes]

Don,

I'm not condoning weak scheduling regardless of the classification. Under the setup I favor, I-AA games would be eliminated and teams would not be encouraged to pursue the weakest I-A opponents. The problem now is that even if teams are encouraged to schedule weaklings, why increase the pool from 10 teams to 130? Nobody is scheduling a I-AA opponent because it is a bigger challenge than Temple but rather because Temple isn't available and I-AA team will always play on the road. These games simply serve no competitive purpose regardless of how many I-AA teams may be better than the worst I-A teams. For example, suppose everyone played 12 games, teams were ranked best to worst record, and each team pursued the weakest schedule possible. From a competition's best interest perspective, which is better, limiting everyone to playing I-A opponents or allowing each to play one I-AA opponent? The latter reduces the playoff race to 11 games because no contender will ever lose. the games do nothing to help shape the top of the national standings. Limit teams to I-A opponents and not everyone will get an opponent as weak as your average I-AA opponent and even those that do are occasionally upset.