My case against I-AA games

[CJHawkeyes]

I contend that these games serve no competitive purpose. It makes no difference that there are good I-AA teams that are better than bad I-A teams. I-A teams are not purposely scheduling good I-AA teams let alone doing so because they offer a greater challenge than bad I-AA teams. Furthermore, when these games are scheduled, usually years in advance, the upside for bad I-A teams is much greater than good I-AA teams. Appalachian State has reached its ceiling whereas Idaho, for example, could be Boise State in 3-4 years. Even assuming that weak I-A teams are very predictable 3-4 years out, the pool of teams equal to or worse than the best I-AA team is significantly smaller if I-A teams are limited to I-A opponents than if the pool also included approximately 120 I-AA opponents. Take the I-A teams that scheduled I-AA competition this year, force them to schedule one another, and I bet 90-95% will end up with a better opponent than they have now.

As for the 5% that may get a weaker opponent than their now scheduled I-AA opponent, so what? My opposition to I-AA games does not equal an endorsement of teams pursuing games with weak I-A competition. Under the rules I favor, consistently weak I-A teams would not be desirable opponents either. Teams that would pursue such games would not be doing themselves any favors. That said, without an extended playoff, the regular season's purpose is to narrow 119 teams down to 2 and there are only 12 games to do so. What sense does it make to waste one game on competition the best I-A teams never lose? If, for example, all I-A teams play one I-AA opponent and the top 40-50 teams never lose, what competitive purpose do these games serve if they do nothing to separate national title contenders? For those who like to refer to the regular season as the playoff, this is not unlike giving everyone a first round bye. What's the point if you have done nothing to narrow the field down?

Ultimately, I think all I-A teams playing 12 games versus I-A competition only while governed by rules that reward teams for playing winners would make for a far better competition. It would also do a much better job of narrowing 119 teams down to 2. Like everything else wrong with this great sport, I know money is the reason I-AA games exist, but that doesn't mean they serve a competitive purpose.

[Blue Hen]

You're talking common sense ( as always ), CJH.
If only these pollsters would somehow penalize teams for scheduling these 'rent-a-win' games rather than rewarding them, we'd surely see much less of this stuff. For example, after Georgia clobbers Western Carolina 48-3, slide 'em down a few notches in the polls.
Good idea - take the 1A teams that chose to schedule 1AA opponents and make 'em play each other.
Custom scheduling your way to the top is one reason that big time CF remains more of an exhibition sport than a championship sport.

[buckeyejim]

I'm not crazy that Ohio State is going to play Youngstown State. That being said, this will be the biggest payday in the history of Youngstown State athletics. This one game will net Youngstown State more money than their athletic department made in all of 2006. You must remember, that even though we see this as a negative, it's a positive for the "rent-a-win" victim. If there were no Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) vs Division I Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) match-ups, we might see a few of the FCS schools dropping football all together and that's not good.

[GatorGrad]

I don't like I-A teams playing I-AA teams either. I wish that there was a rule against it. But there is not, and there are financial reasons for that. There are reasons, legit or not, for why I-A teams are allowed to schedule I-AA teams and reasons for why they do. Again, it is well documented that OOC games and bowl games are centered around money - if you're concerned about "true competition" then focus on the conference races only!

Regardless, for a true MNC contender, the difference between playing a I-AA team and a bad I-A team from the Sunbelt Conference is nothing. Both are games that the MNC contender should and will win. Forcing teams to replace a I-AA team with the 15th best Conference USA team is not going to change anything from a competitive standpoint. It is not going to help reduce 119 teams down to 2 for the BCS Title Game. It's just not that big of a deal IMO.

[CJHawkeyes]

I don't like I-A teams playing I-AA teams either. I wish that there was a rule against it. But there is not, and there are financial reasons for that. There are reasons, legit or not, for why I-A teams are allowed to schedule I-AA teams and reasons for why they do. Again, it is well documented that OOC games and bowl games are centered around money - if you're concerned about "true competition" then focus on the conference races only!

Regardless, for a true MNC contender, the difference between playing a I-AA team and a bad I-A team from the Sunbelt Conference is nothing. Both are games that the MNC contender should and will win. Forcing teams to replace a I-AA team with the 15th best Conference USA team is not going to change anything from a competitive standpoint. It is not going to help reduce 119 teams down to 2 for the BCS Title Game. It's just not that big of a deal IMO.

There are circumstances in which I could live with these games, but the difference between a good I-AA team and a bad I-A team is beside the point. There are only so many bad I-A teams. As stated, many of the teams playing these games would end up playing much better opponents due to a smaller pool of weak competition. Also, as stated, the upside for bad I-A teams is much greater. Teams purposely pursuing a weak I-A opponent such as the "15th best Conference USA team" have a much better chance of getting more than they bargained for than if they were guaranteed to play the I-AA champion. Finally, I'm not advocating replacing good I-AA opponents with bad I-A opponents. I'm in favor of rules that eliminate I-AA competition and encourage, if not force, teams to pursue good I-A competition.

[CJHawkeyes]

Listed below are the I-A teams that played I-AA games last year. Imagine these teams have to replace their I-AA opponent with another team on this list motivated by rules that encourage scheduling winners.

1 -Florida
2 -Boise State
3 -Wisconsin
4 -West Virginia
5 -Rutgers
6 -Virginia Tech
7 -Arkansas
8 -Texas
9 -Wake Forest
10 -Boston College
11 -California
12 -Oregon State
13 -Texas Christian
14 -Houston
15 -Texas A&M
16 -Nebraska
17 -Hawaii
18 -Georgia Tech
19 -Penn State
20 -Maryland
21 -Missouri
22 -Tulsa
23 -Cincinnati
24 -Georgia
25 -South Carolina
26 -Kentucky
27 -Ohio
28 -Oregon
29 -South Florida
30 -Navy
31 -Southern Mississippi
32 -Purdue
33 -Texas Tech
34 -Arizona State
35 -Minnesota
36 -Arizona
37 -Oklahoma State
38 -Middle Tennessee State
39 -Kansas State
40 -Utah
41 -San Jose State
42 -Indiana
43 -Iowa
44 -Northern Illinois
45 -New Mexico
46 -Pittsburgh
47 -Miami-Florida
48 -Troy
49 -Ball State
50 -Southern Methodist
51 -Kansas
52 -Louisiana-Lafayette
53 -Northwestern
54 -Connecticut
55 -Marshall
56 -Mississippi
57 -Florida Atlantic
58 -Vanderbilt
59 -San Diego State
60 -Toledo
61 -Iowa State
62 -Central Florida
63 -Mississippi State
64 -North Carolina
65 -Idaho
66 -Colorado State
67 -North Carolina State
68 -Louisiana-Monroe
69 -New Mexico State
70 -Army
71 -Colorado
72 -Illinois
73 -Louisiana Tech
74 -UNLV
75 -Memphis
76 -Duke

[GatorGrad]

There are circumstances in which I could live with these games, but the difference between a good I-AA team and a bad I-A team is beside the point. There are only so many bad I-A teams. As stated, many of the teams playing these games would end up playing much better opponents due to a smaller pool of weak competition. Also, as stated, the upside for bad I-A teams is much greater. Teams purposely pursuing a weak I-A opponent such as the "15th best Conference USA team" have a much better chance of getting more than they bargained for than if they were guaranteed to play the I-AA champion. Finally, I'm not advocating replacing good I-AA opponents with bad I-A opponents. I'm in favor of rules that eliminate I-AA competition and encourage, if not force, teams to pursue good I-A competition.

I would love to see D-I teams forced to only play D-I teams. Unfortunately, the hypocritical 12th game being added proves what this is about. It's about getting 6-7 guaranteed home games to guarantee more money. With conference schedules, most schools have 3 to 5 games a year to fill OOC. This means that you can only do a home and home with a legit team once or twice a year. And the BCS emphasis on going unbeaten doesn't help either.

There will always be a need for cupcakes willing to trade a loss for money. And if the pool was limited to only D-I, then the supply for such teams would not meet the demand. That's why I-AA teams are brought in. They like the money, and are willing to fill the slots. Making D-I teams only play D-I teams would likely mean that teams wouldn't be able to guarantee their 7 home games. Which makes sense because not all 119 teams could play 7 games at home and only 5 on the road.

It's not about being fair, it's about the money. Again, OOC and bowl games are about the money. If you want TRUE competition with fair legit rules and real standings based on performance on the field, stick to the conference races! OOC and bowl games are just for fun, rivalries, and money. Enjoy them for what they are, but don't lose too much sleep over them.

[Hubbs]

You're talking common sense ( as always ), CJH.
If only these pollsters would somehow penalize teams for scheduling these 'rent-a-win' games rather than rewarding them, we'd surely see much less of this stuff. For example, after Georgia clobbers Western Carolina 48-3, slide 'em down a few notches in the polls.
Good idea - take the 1A teams that chose to schedule 1AA opponents and make 'em play each other.
Custom scheduling your way to the top is one reason that big time CF remains more of an exhibition sport than a championship sport.



IMO Wins vs DII schools shoudn't count. Only loses should count. That way when December rolls around and the computers start ranking teams the teams with 1 less win will be penalized. Note: That the weakness of the team will go into account when the computers do what they do.

[CJHawkeyes]

I would love to see D-I teams forced to only play D-I teams. Unfortunately, the hypocritical 12th game being added proves what this is about. It's about getting 6-7 guaranteed home games to guarantee more money. With conference schedules, most schools have 3 to 5 games a year to fill OOC. This means that you can only do a home and home with a legit team once or twice a year. And the BCS emphasis on going unbeaten doesn't help either.

There will always be a need for cupcakes willing to trade a loss for money. And if the pool was limited to only D-I, then the supply for such teams would not meet the demand. That's why I-AA teams are brought in. They like the money, and are willing to fill the slots. Making D-I teams only play D-I teams would likely mean that teams wouldn't be able to guarantee their 7 home games. Which makes sense because not all 119 teams could play 7 games at home and only 5 on the road.


It's not about being fair, it's about the money. Again, OOC and bowl games are about the money. If you want TRUE competition with fair legit rules and real standings based on performance on the field, stick to the conference races! OOC and bowl games are just for fun, rivalries, and money. Enjoy them for what they are, but don't lose too much sleep over them.


I understand all of that, but as a fan, I want to have my cake and eat it too. I should be able to enjoy the best possible national race in addition to the conference races. If these games are absolutely necessary, then I could accept all I-A teams being required to play 11 I-A opponents and one I-AA opponent. Therefore, everyone plays a uniform schedule. Of course, with respect to the rules I favor, I wouldn't be thrilled about I-A and I-AA competition being treated equally, but if I-A teams are agreeable to it, I could tolerate it. At least, they would have to pursue a good I-AA opponent.

[GatorGrad]

CJ - I agree it would be nice and perfect to have legit rules concerning OOC games and bowls. But I guess I gave up long ago on this and just chose to focus on the SEC race. To me, I actually got more joy and satisfaction out of winning our SEC Championship over Arkansas than I did winning the BCS Title Game over Ohio State. I attended both games. Don't get me wrong, it's better to win the MNC game than to lose it, but when you realize how flawed college football is from a national perspective, it really takes away from it IMO. To me, the OOC games and Bowl games are just for fun. We use them to play non conference rivalry games against FSU and sometimes Miami, and then the bowls, unless you're playing in the MNC Game, are really meaningless to me...just some holiday fun. To me, it's all about the exciting SEC race. Judging by your recent posts CJ, I bet if the Big Ten added a 12th team with a CCG, you would love following the divisional races and title game format. Seems like your cup of tea: objective rules with standings to determine the title game participants and champion.