espn.go.com/college-football/s...edule-fcs-teams

Good for them.

I'm not sure how good this really is. That conference gave 10 FCS schools and their players a chance to come into a big environment and see what its like, and the universities were able to profit from it. Its not like scheduling Akron and South Alabama is a major improvement either (it helps their SOS, but really they're both gimme games and they shouldn't be that much of a difference in terms of SOS). If all conferences stopped scheduling FCS schools how would the FCS schools make up for the loss of profit? The games were beneficial for both teams.

FBS schools got a home game to bring in revenue and they got a (typically) easy win.
FCS schools got money and the team got an experience they likely won't really forget visiting a big time program.

Michigan obviously hasn't gotten over losing to ASU and has convinced the rest of the B1G teams to go along.

The ACC needs to do the same. UNC should not be playing teams like Elon.

Right of refusal is something I firmly believe in, but for some reason I don't really agree with this decision.

Now, if we're talking about scheduling those teams after the first two games of the season, then that makes more sense to me, but overall? It just seems petty somehow.

Funny. Wisconsin typically has one of the weakest if not the weakest nonconference sked in the league. Especially when Alvarez was the coach.

Well, we probably wouldn't. But when you have teams from the mighty SEC, (tennessee) who drop us because they're too scared to play us, you are often forced to go to the FCS ranks to fill the gap in your schedule.

---------------------------------------------
--- inblueheaven wrote:

The ACC needs to do the same. UNC should not be playing teams like Elon.

---------------------------------------------

This is all about the B10 network. The staple of the network's programming will be the lower-tier conference games, and they're trying to improve the quality of those games. Probably helps the ratings, but it could hurt the title chances of it's members. Big conference schools haven't been hurt in the polls or BCS by playing a cupcake non-conference schedule.

The real impact is to 1-AA. If other conferences go this route, then there won't be a I-AA division anymore. The best programs (GA Southern, App St) will step up and the rest will drop down to Div2 or lower. What percentage of Elon's athletic budget came from road games at 1-A schools?

---------------------------------------------
--- redhotchiliheel wrote:

Well, we probably wouldn't. But when you have teams from the mighty SEC, (tennessee) who drop us because they're too scared to play us, you are often forced to go to the FCS ranks to fill the gap in your schedule.

---------------------------------------------
--- inblueheaven wrote:

The ACC needs to do the same. UNC should not be playing teams like Elon.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

^This. Tennessee is an FDS team (feminine deodorant spray).


Ladies, sorry if this was offensive.

It's much easier for the Big Ten to do this than the ACC, because the Big Ten has the mid-west centered MAC that is easy for them to schedule. The MAC has 13 teams.

There is no lower-tier FBS conference with the same geographic alignment as the ACC. The Sun Belt only has 10 teams and schedules many games with the SEC. There is some overlap with Conference USA - mainly ECU - which is scheduled frequently by ACC schools.

In short, there are fewer options for ACC teams to schedule cupcakes without bobbing in the FCS barrel. The Big Ten can just use the MAC as its personal punching bag.

My thinking is the same as the original poster. Good for them.

I agree that we should do the same. I have to keep hearing from my cousin that we're afraid to play ASU. By scheduling ANY FCS schools we are like enablers for drug addicts.

This will hurt the FCS measurably if it becomes a trend.

It won't hurt the FBS at all, and might even help the lower-tier schools a bit.

---------------------------------------------
--- NatroneBomb wrote:

This is all about the B10 network. The staple of the network's programming will be the lower-tier conference games, and they're trying to improve the quality of those games. Probably helps the ratings, but it could hurt the title chances of it's members. Big conference schools haven't been hurt in the polls or BCS by playing a cupcake non-conference schedule.

The real impact is to 1-AA. If other conferences go this route, then there won't be a I-AA division anymore. The best programs (GA Southern, App St) will step up and the rest will drop down to Div2 or lower. What percentage of Elon's athletic budget came from road games at 1-A schools?

---------------------------------------------

I agree with this assessment of why the BTN is doing this, however, I would argue that the difference between Akron and Appalachian is meaningless. The content of those lower tier games is only improved significantly if the B1G begins only playing BCS opponents OOC. This is good news for the MAC by the way. They are going to be in demand like never before!!!

The real impact is to FBS for sure. I don't know Elon's athletic budget but UNC paid them 350,000 for the game. But, keep in mind it cost $800,000 to schedule Idaho and beating Idaho was just as meaningless as beating Elon. Also, won't most teams similar to Idaho expect a home game in return?

---------------------------------------------
--- NatroneBomb wrote:

This is all about the B10 network. The staple of the network's programming will be the lower-tier conference games, and they're trying to improve the quality of those games. Probably helps the ratings, but it could hurt the title chances of it's members. Big conference schools haven't been hurt in the polls or BCS by playing a cupcake non-conference schedule.

The real impact is to 1-AA. If other conferences go this route, then there won't be a I-AA division anymore. The best programs (GA Southern, App St) will step up and the rest will drop down to Div2 or lower. What percentage of Elon's athletic budget came from road games at 1-A schools?

---------------------------------------------

This is one of the benefits of a free market economy-- competition drives improvement. The B1G needs eyes on the TV so that the package is sold, and the best way to do that is to improve the schedule. Honestly, who really wants to see 4 hrs of "practice" which is the case MOST of the time when major programs play lower division programs? I would like to see this schedule change with all of the major conferences.

IMO, its just a bunch of grandstanding hogwash on the part of the Big 10 and Alvarez. Is Michigan going to have a noticeably smaller home crowd for somebody like North Texas, vs somebody like Northern Iowa? Would Ohio State or Penn State? I bet not.

Does anybody really think that playing a FBS weakling like Eastern Michigan is any better than playing an FCS power like App State or Georgia Southern? In a word, no.

---------------------------------------------
--- bartholemew wrote:

Michigan obviously hasn't gotten over losing to ASU and has convinced the rest of the B1G teams to go along.

---------------------------------------------

^this

This is all about the Big Ten going to a 9 or 10 game conference schedule. I think it is a great move. Wonder if the SEC would have the nerve to do the same? Doubt it!

Conference USA is strengthening its conference by adding teams like ODU. We have a game scheduled with ODU this fall - Nov. 23. My oldest grandson is a "first-year student" at ODU and his dad tells me they all will be in attendance at that game. BTW, they are facing a problem as to which side to buy tickets for, because every one of my son's family of five are rabid TH fans - if they weren't I would disown them!

---------------------------------------------
--- FlintTC wrote:

This is all about the Big Ten going to a 9 or 10 game conference schedule. I think it is a great move. Wonder if the SEC would have the nerve to do the same? Doubt it!

---------------------------------------------

The Big Ten going to 9 or 10 conference football games doesn't improve content IMO. They would get more bang for their buck by scheduling more quality OOC games.

---------------------------------------------
--- CornbreadandCollards wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- FlintTC wrote:

This is all about the Big Ten going to a 9 or 10 game conference schedule. I think it is a great move. Wonder if the SEC would have the nerve to do the same? Doubt it!

---------------------------------------------

The Big Ten going to 9 or 10 conference football games doesn't improve content IMO. They would get more bang for their buck by scheduling more quality OOC games.

---------------------------------------------

I'd get more bang for bucks with my 7 mm. rifle if they extended NC deer season.

---------------------------------------------
--- CornbreadandCollards wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- FlintTC wrote:

This is all about the Big Ten going to a 9 or 10 game conference schedule. I think it is a great move. Wonder if the SEC would have the nerve to do the same? Doubt it!

---------------------------------------------

The Big Ten going to 9 or 10 conference football games doesn't improve content IMO. They would get more bang for their buck by scheduling more quality OOC games.

---------------------------------------------

So you think the Big Ten going to 9 or 10 conference games, which actually DECREASES the content, doesn't give them higher quality content in terms of ratings? I doubt they'd be pushing more conference games if it didn't make them more money.

Gene Smith stated that Ohio State will still schedule the big home and home series. So every other year, they will have the coveted 7 home games. So my guess is they will open with a MAC level team and continue with the Oklahomas and VaTechs that are currently on the future schedule. I think NC may be on a future schedule as well.

---------------------------------------------
--- 18SBC wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- CornbreadandCollards wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- FlintTC wrote:

This is all about the Big Ten going to a 9 or 10 game conference schedule. I think it is a great move. Wonder if the SEC would have the nerve to do the same? Doubt it!

---------------------------------------------

The Big Ten going to 9 or 10 conference football games doesn't improve content IMO. They would get more bang for their buck by scheduling more quality OOC games.

---------------------------------------------

So you think the Big Ten going to 9 or 10 conference games, which actually DECREASES the content, doesn't give them higher quality content in terms of ratings? I doubt they'd be pushing more conference games if it didn't make them more money.

---------------------------------------------

They are all still going to have 7 home games regardless of how many are B1G games. An OOC series with someone like a VT or a Oklahoma would get better ratings than the extra BTN game, yes. Their logic is that the extra B1G game will be at a B1G site so it will remain their property. But they aren't going to stop scheduling cream puff opponents, just not cream puff opponents who are also FCS.

This is a bit of a Jedi mind trick to make it look like they are now scheduling tougher. As I mentioned previously, there isn't much difference between Akron with Appalachian, if any. If they stop with the FCS, they still are going to fill that spot with an opponent that doesn't require a return trip. If they fill 1-2 of the remaining spots with B1G opponents, it just means that they will have even less flexibility with their remaining schedule for quality OOC series because the seven home games will always be a goal.

i dont know cornbreads, the b10 doesnt play alot of fcs teams and usually does have a good occ game on the sched...we'll see, I'd much rather play 10 conference games, and a tuneup and a good ooc team....but we'll see how it shakes out....OSU has some good ooc games lined up...I hope vatech doesnt end up sucking when we play them like cal has.

---------------------------------------------
--- CornbreadandCollards wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- 18SBC wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- CornbreadandCollards wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- FlintTC wrote:

This is all about the Big Ten going to a 9 or 10 game conference schedule. I think it is a great move. Wonder if the SEC would have the nerve to do the same? Doubt it!

---------------------------------------------

The Big Ten going to 9 or 10 conference football games doesn't improve content IMO. They would get more bang for their buck by scheduling more quality OOC games.

---------------------------------------------

So you think the Big Ten going to 9 or 10 conference games, which actually DECREASES the content, doesn't give them higher quality content in terms of ratings? I doubt they'd be pushing more conference games if it didn't make them more money.

---------------------------------------------

They are all still going to have 7 home games regardless of how many are B1G games. An OOC series with someone like a VT or a Oklahoma would get better ratings than the extra BTN game, yes. Their logic is that the extra B1G game will be at a B1G site so it will remain their property. But they aren't going to stop scheduling cream puff opponents, just not cream puff opponents who are also FCS.

This is a bit of a Jedi mind trick to make it look like they are now scheduling tougher. As I mentioned previously, there isn't much difference between Akron with Appalachian, if any. If they stop with the FCS, they still are going to fill that spot with an opponent that doesn't require a return trip. If they fill 1-2 of the remaining spots with B1G opponents, it just means that they will have even less flexibility with their remaining schedule for quality OOC series because the seven home games will always be a goal.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- WhatheBuck wrote:

Gene Smith stated that Ohio State will still schedule the big home and home series. So every other year, they will have the coveted 7 home games. So my guess is they will open with a MAC level team and continue with the Oklahomas and VaTechs that are currently on the future schedule. I think NC may be on a future schedule as well.

---------------------------------------------

If the Big Ten only goes to 9 conference games, there is still a chance to have 7 home games every season and these bigtime OOC opponents if the home and home series are scheduled such that the opponent is hosting in the years that the B1G school has five home conference games. The ACC flirted with this idea prior to adding Notre Dame and luckily decided against is since GT, Clemson and FSU would either have to give up having 7 home games each season, never play anyone of quality out of conference (other than their rivalry game), or cancel their annual rivalry game with Georgia, SCar, and Florida, respectively--all of which would be inherently BAD for content.

However, with 10 conference games, it's a mathematical impossibility to achieve both goals for anyone. With five conference games on the road every year, obviously the remaining two games will need to be home games. It may seem a little counter-intuitive at first that fewer conference games would mean that content would be better, but in the ACC's case, the value of the FSU/Florida game every other year is absolutely more valuable than an extra FSU/UVa type game every season.

---------------------------------------------
--- CornbreadandCollards wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- 18SBC wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- CornbreadandCollards wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- FlintTC wrote:

This is all about the Big Ten going to a 9 or 10 game conference schedule. I think it is a great move. Wonder if the SEC would have the nerve to do the same? Doubt it!

---------------------------------------------

The Big Ten going to 9 or 10 conference football games doesn't improve content IMO. They would get more bang for their buck by scheduling more quality OOC games.

---------------------------------------------

So you think the Big Ten going to 9 or 10 conference games, which actually DECREASES the content, doesn't give them higher quality content in terms of ratings? I doubt they'd be pushing more conference games if it didn't make them more money.

---------------------------------------------

They are all still going to have 7 home games regardless of how many are B1G games. An OOC series with someone like a VT or a Oklahoma would get better ratings than the extra BTN game, yes. Their logic is that the extra B1G game will be at a B1G site so it will remain their property. But they aren't going to stop scheduling cream puff opponents, just not cream puff opponents who are also FCS.

This is a bit of a Jedi mind trick to make it look like they are now scheduling tougher. As I mentioned previously, there isn't much difference between Akron with Appalachian, if any. If they stop with the FCS, they still are going to fill that spot with an opponent that doesn't require a return trip. If they fill 1-2 of the remaining spots with B1G opponents, it just means that they will have even less flexibility with their remaining schedule for quality OOC series because the seven home games will always be a goal.

---------------------------------------------

There is actually a huge difference between your average FCS team and your average MAC team. Appalachian State, which is the best example you can find of an FCS program having success against a major D-1 opponent, has their one win from 5-6 years ago but there have been countless examples of MAC teams beating and scaring Big Ten teams over the years. The MAC title game this past year was for a BCS bowl.

Also, having Big Ten teams play each other instead of FCS teams DOES decrease the inventory because all the games vs FCS squads are at home and will be available for television. Obviously, when you take those 2 FCS games and have those teams play one another instead, you take away the two games and have one. The only way that wouldn't decrease game inventory is if all schools dropped all major opponents and scheduled only MAC-like opponents for their OOC games. I don't think you'll see that at every school. 3 schools play Notre Dame annually and while all 3 may not maintain that series concurrently, there will probably be 2 games with ND every year going forward. OSU still plans to maintain some good OOC games and I think Nebraska has planned a series against Oklahoma already. Some schools may opt to schedule games against Akron and Temple as their OOC games w/o return trips but it won't be the case for most. If I have time I'll go back and look at the OOC schedules over the past 4-5 years and see what % of OOC games were played at home. My guess is that it was close to 75% across the conference and obviously that number will be 50% when adding extra conference games.

---------------------------------------------
--- 18SBC wrote:

There is actually a huge difference between your average FCS team and your average MAC team. Appalachian State, which is the best example you can find of an FCS program having success against a major D-1 opponent, has their one win from 5-6 years ago but there have been countless examples of MAC teams beating and scaring Big Ten teams over the years. The MAC title game this past year was for a BCS bowl.

Also, having Big Ten teams play each other instead of FCS teams DOES decrease the inventory because all the games vs FCS squads are at home and will be available for television. Obviously, when you take those 2 FCS games and have those teams play one another instead, you take away the two games and have one. The only way that wouldn't decrease game inventory is if all schools dropped all major opponents and scheduled only MAC-like opponents for their OOC games. I don't think you'll see that at every school. 3 schools play Notre Dame annually and while all 3 may not maintain that series concurrently, there will probably be 2 games with ND every year going forward. OSU still plans to maintain some good OOC games and I think Nebraska has planned a series against Oklahoma already. Some schools may opt to schedule games against Akron and Temple as their OOC games w/o return trips but it won't be the case for most. If I have time I'll go back and look at the OOC schedules over the past 4-5 years and see what % of OOC games were played at home. My guess is that it was close to 75% across the conference and obviously that number will be 50% when adding extra conference games.

---------------------------------------------

It's not just Appalachian by a long stretch. There are plenty of FCS programs who beat GOOD BCS programs every season. Last year, ten FCS teams beat FBS teams. And it's not just crappy teams that the FCS division beats. They've beaten VT, Pitt, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Michigan, Colorado, Oregon State. I don't know what the Big Ten's record is against FCS teams, but I know that Minnesota lost to ND State in 2011 and South Dakota in 2010. They aren't great but still, that's two losses in two years.

Here is a link to the records of FBS teams against FCS teams including the MAC teams which illustrates the relative strengths of the MAC relative to FCS competition:

www.footballgeography.com/?p=1174

Buffalo 3-4
Akron 13-11-2
Eastern Michigan 16-12
Kent State 16-8
Ohio 15-7
Northern Illinois 28-8
Central Michigan 23-6-1
Western Michigan 19-3
Bowling Green 9-1
Toledo 25-4
Miami, OH 3-0

Obviously, there is a difference--I am not arguing otherwise. But I would not call it huge. 170-64-3 is a strong record, but I would think most would think it would be better, and my guess is that this is the weakest record of any FBS conference against FCS competition. But the record is beside the point that we were discussing which is that if the Big Ten truly wanted to improve content significantly, switching games against FCS opponents for MAC teams is NOT going to accomplish much. I'll concede that it will improve content marginally, but most fans are not going to appreciate the differences given that an FCS team beats a MAC team more than once out of every four chances (27% of the time).

In terms of inventory of games for the BTN, I am not following the math apparently. The way I see it, if each program in the Big Ten continues to have 7 home games, it's not going to matter how many conference games they schedule. They still will have 98 total games for the season (14 schools X 7 games) whether those games are against Iowa, Virginia Tech, Toledo, or Sacramento State. The opponents for those seven games is the only way to improve content. Most would argue that playing good opponents from other BCS conferences would be the best way to improve that content. Again, I'll stick by the claim that if the Big Ten really wants to improve the content of their 98 games, the best way to do that is NOT by switching a half dozen games against FCS opponents like Youngstown State, VMI, and Northeastern for Eastern Michigan, Northern Iowa, and Buffalo. And it's not by increasing the number of conference games. It would be to play more series against the best OOC opponents available... There are incremental improvements by disallowing games against FCS teams and requiring games be against FBS competition, but let's not pretend it's more than it really is.

I wish the ACC would go to a 9 game conference schedule, and drop the FCS teams. Plenty of C-USA, MAC, and Sun Belt teams to go around for 3 games. Also, bigger OOC opponents from the other 4 big conferences.

But as a fan who has had UNC season FBall tickets for over 20 years I do not like playing FCS teams. And all you have to do is read this board over the summer and there will be many threads critical of our non-conf schedule, with the number 1 criticism being the FCS team. In my opinion the fans come first, helping out our little brothers, though nice, comes second.

---------------------------------------------
--- uncfan103 wrote:

I'm not sure how good this really is. That conference gave 10 FCS schools and their players a chance to come into a big environment and see what its like, and the universities were able to profit from it. Its not like scheduling Akron and South Alabama is a major improvement either (it helps their SOS, but really they're both gimme games and they shouldn't be that much of a difference in terms of SOS). If all conferences stopped scheduling FCS schools how would the FCS schools make up for the loss of profit? The games were beneficial for both teams.

FBS schools got a home game to bring in revenue and they got a (typically) easy win.
FCS schools got money and the team got an experience they likely won't really forget visiting a big time program.

---------------------------------------------

The upcoming playoff will keep strength of schedule in mind. If there are two teams on the bubble with one loss and only one of those teams played an FCS team and beat them handily. Which team do you think will get the nod?

For the record, I think the B1G will go to a 10 game conference schedule. There seems to be a lot of support for it. But I don't see it happening until 2017 or 18 after the new TV contract is signed with FOX.

"This will hurt the FCS measurably if it becomes a trend."


Yes, yes it will.

Many of these school are willing to to take an annual ass whipping or two in order to put a nice paycheck into the athletic department, especially in these financially tight times.

---------------------------------------------
--- Heeldoggy wrote:

But as a fan who has had UNC season FBall tickets for over 20 years I do not like playing FCS teams. And all you have to do is read this board over the summer and there will be many threads critical of our non-conf schedule, with the number 1 criticism being the FCS team. In my opinion the fans come first, helping out our little brothers, though nice, comes second.

---------------------------------------------
--- uncfan103 wrote:

I'm not sure how good this really is. That conference gave 10 FCS schools and their players a chance to come into a big environment and see what its like, and the universities were able to profit from it. Its not like scheduling Akron and South Alabama is a major improvement either (it helps their SOS, but really they're both gimme games and they shouldn't be that much of a difference in terms of SOS). If all conferences stopped scheduling FCS schools how would the FCS schools make up for the loss of profit? The games were beneficial for both teams.

FBS schools got a home game to bring in revenue and they got a (typically) easy win.
FCS schools got money and the team got an experience they likely won't really forget visiting a big time program.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

True, helping out our little brothers, while risking our own hide, is unwise business.

This will become a scheduling nightmare for the B1G. Each year some teams have to scramble to replace a game due to another team having to withdraw. I'm pretty sure the first time a B1G team is limited to only 11 games, this rule will change.

MAybe we'll see exit fees on individual games...yeah I'm calling you out Vandy!

I think Div1A should play 1A schools, and the better the games the better for fans....Miami(OH) is a much better game that Western Illinois....and I think we'll still have BCS opponents...which is one reason I wanted a conference champion requirement....because who cares if you lost an OOC game to a good team as long as you win your conference....but to do that you would need 11 slots I believe....

---------------------------------------------
--- supergnat85 wrote:

This will become a scheduling nightmare for the B1G. Each year some teams have to scramble to replace a game due to another team having to withdraw. I'm pretty sure the first time a B1G team is limited to only 11 games, this rule will change.

---------------------------------------------

The 1-AA game in BKS makes it much easier to have a 7th home game. Those suggesting altruistic reasons or "helping out the little guy" as a primary motive for having it are way off base. There just aren't enough FBS level programs who would be willing to come to BKS for a single game and even if there were, the $800K pricetag we paid for Idaho just wouldn't make as much as sense as the $350K pricetag we paid Elon.

Of course, there IS the solution of playing the nation's toughest schedule with four annual OOC games against BCS level opponents and either adjusting the athletic budget to accomoodate for the loss of millions of dollars from the lack of the 7th home game or alternatively...raise ticket prices by whatever percentage would be necessary to make up for the difference. I actually would be willing to pay more if it meant that we had two quality OOC games each season--especially if every other school did it and there was no inherent disadvantage in scheduling such an unnecessarily difficult path.

Maybe a baby step approach is what is needed where we only schedule ONE creampuff each season and have three home and home quality games with the other OOC games? It would mean only six home games every other season, but over time that could be accomodated by increasing ticket prices by only a few percentage points (like raising them from $50 apiece to $55).... Can't have it both ways though.

The MAC is hardly a cupcake conference.

After all, Northern Illinois made it to a BCS Bowl this year.

And the likes of Toledo, Akron, Western Michigan, etc have been the breeding grounds of some of the best football coaches in the land.


Most of the Ohio State head coaches were head coaches in the MAC first. Urban Meyer being the latest, Jim Tressel before him.
---------------------------------------------
--- plus2 wrote:

It's much easier for the Big Ten to do this than the ACC, because the Big Ten has the mid-west centered MAC that is easy for them to schedule. The MAC has 13 teams.

There is no lower-tier FBS conference with the same geographic alignment as the ACC. The Sun Belt only has 10 teams and schedules many games with the SEC. There is some overlap with Conference USA - mainly ECU - which is scheduled frequently by ACC schools.

In short, there are fewer options for ACC teams to schedule cupcakes without bobbing in the FCS barrel. The Big Ten can just use the MAC as its personal punching bag.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- Termin8or wrote:

The MAC is hardly a cupcake conference.

After all, Northern Illinois made it to a BCS Bowl this year.

---------------------------------------------

Really? The fact that Northern Illinois went to a BCS Bowl is evidence that they aren't a cupcake conference? You know they lost right? And you know that this was quite the exception to the rule. I am not positive but I don't ever recall a MAC team going to a BCS bowl in the past.

I hate to assign whether a conference is a cupcake conference or a powerhouse because there are VERY few head to head matchups each season, but after a while, the data piles up and if the MAC isn't the easiest conference in FBS, it is 2nd or 3rd. I think it would be difficult to make a strong argument that there is another conference that is weaker. Saying that the MAC is stronger than the Sun Belt, for example, because Northern Illinois made it to the BCS bowl is not a strong argument...no more than saying the ACC was a stronger league in 2011 than the Pac Ten because it had two teams make BCS bowls and the Pac only had one (I don't even know if that is true about the Pac, but that's not the point).

They basically have to. Their conference schedules are basically like playing FCS opponents.

---------------------------------------------
--- inblueheaven wrote:

The ACC needs to do the same. UNC should not be playing teams like Elon.

---------------------------------------------

+10000000000000000

UNC shouldn't play any team that's not in a "BCS conference".