Not just Tech, ou also. Whether the current BCS or the new Championship Series, credit for a game played but not won or tied should have been/should be applied to any game with a FCS team. This would have killed the SEC in the BCS formula and will effectively kill them in the RPI calculation for the Championship Series.
If KSU had been following this formula once they finally renewed the program in the 1990s, they'd be seen as a perennial contender like the SEC teams. No one has ever respected Snyder for pulling in two FCS games per year.
I would not be surprised if the Big 12 followed. But shocked if the Mighty SEC did that. Here's why: with the padded schedule they risk only losing to each other, at most 2 games. That way they all stay in top rankings through Sept and Oct -- top tier and bottom tier teams -- and none fall very far. Hence each game played -- won or lost -- is favorable because the opponent always has an almost unblemished record, as does the SEC team in question. It's high-ranked against high-ranked. If there's a loss, well it was to the 'other high-ranked' SEC team, so not a big dent in the rankings for the loss. And so on. The SEC might as well have just cancelled all their NC games entirely. But once they play outside the SEC for NC games, such that their subsequent SEC OPPONENTS show up in late Oct / early Nov with a loss or two counting NC games-- there go the glamor rmatchups based on current rankings. That extra loss in an NC game will have dented the glitter and lowered the ranking. Imagine Florida losing early, as they did in their bowl game. Same for LSU. Instead of waiting for bowl season for maybe half the SEC to lose a bowl game, just lose them in Sept and deal with it. This is how 6 SEC teams last year had no fewer than 2 losses. They didn't play anybody but each other -- AND when they did play, both teams had held on to pre-season rankings without damage. Make them play ACC and Big 12 in Sept and early Oct and see how they fare. Yeah, they'll win some, maybe more than half, but they'll bump their chin, too. And it will alter perceptions.
^ Exactly. I'd love to see the SEC take a hit in perception if every BCS conference except them declared they weren't going to schedule FCS teams. People will eventually begin to see what a cop-out it is. I'm glad Texas doesn't schedule FCS teams. If you win, it doesn't feel like a "real" win, and if you lose, you're embarrassed forever (see: #5 Michigan at home vs. Appalachian State). Texas has only done it one that I can remember--'06 vs. Sam Houston State--and that was only because Utah backed out of their game with Texas that year at the last minute.
I know this is a no win situation for the higher power here but these games truly help these smaller athletic departments with funding. If all confrences follow suit allot of these smaller schools will fall by the waist side.
The simple fix would be to require 6 wins (or more) against FBS schools in order to qualify for post season. If SEC and other conference teams pad their schedules with FCS wins that don't count toward the total, more would end up not being bowl eligible and that would cost the conference. In 2012, Ole Miss was bowl eligible with an 6-6 record, but if you take off the win against Central Arkansas, they don't play in the BBVA Compass Bowl and the SEC loses money. Similarly, Iowa St. wouldn't have been bowl eligible if you took away the win against W. Illinois.
Equally important is to require each conference to play 9 conf opponents. SEC and B1G that play 8 avoid playing dificult schedules by reducing 1 conf game and adding FCS teams. By playing 6 games in a single div plus only 2 from the other division it takes 4 season to play every team in the conference. This allows the conf to schedule a lighter cross division schedule of the heavyweights. Add in FCS teams and an easier route to higher rankings.
I'm not pretending anything. Start a thread about it and I will respond. Just as soon as you respond to my original post.
