FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[formerd3db]

I assume from your posts you are talking about the "pay for play" issue and not the stipend for some daily expenses (such as food, late night pizza snacks, laundry, some other personal expenses for ADLs,  etc., etc., that the players want).  Those are two separate issues as you know.  The argument for inequality for pay among the various sports i.e. the revenue producing and the non-revenue producing is legit and putting it further into the context that you do with regard to the "system" of professional sports is legit.  At the same time, however, with regard to the other issue i.e. the stipend for "extra living" expenses (the anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000 that they want -as has been suggest/reported in the media), IMO, should be the same for all the sports, whether non-revenue or not.  That is the only fair way to do it in regards to that particular aspect and it doesn't compare in anyway to the other aspect as to who is more valuable on a team or not concerning the skilled, non-skilled positions, etc. in the context that has been discussed. 

The concept of a stipend doesn't make any sense to me if you aren't on a full ride. You are already paying for school using a different means, whether it is other scholarships, student loans, or mom and dad. But if you are on a partial ride the school hasn't promised you a "free education" like it has for full-ride. So if you weren't promised a full-ride, you aren't in a revenue generating sport, why would you get a stipend? Wouldn't it make sense to simply increase the scholarship amount? I have a friend who's son was offered a 1/8th baseball scholarship for his athletic talent. His father is plenty wealthy that he doesn't need the scholarship to go to school, but he earned it. Why would you give him a stipend? It's a very odd notion. Now for a kid who is poverty stricken on a full ride, promised that he would get a "free degree" if he helped the school generate revenue by playing outstanding basketball, and can't afford to go home for Thanksgiving, I could easily see a school paying for that. Or a laundry service and textbooks. Pizza and entertainment money? Not sure why that is the school's responsibility. Unless of course we kill off the idea of amateurism and move to a pay for play system. I regard D1 football and basketball as essentially minor leagues, so that is my preference anyway.

It is also interesting, as a tangential part of the discussion, regarding the scholarship limits of the various sports, although you were talking about that with regards to DI.  But concerning football scholarships, I have always not understood why the limit is less for DII and FCS.  Of course, in part, that has been to try and keep costs down.  However, if a university or college that sponsors DII football wants to spend the $ regarding providing all team members a full-ride, then why not have that option.  Of course, parents will all agree, any and every little bit helps.

The scholarship limits exist to try and keep a level playing field. If one school can offer 100 scholarships for football and another 50, those teams aren't competing at the same level. The point of D1, DII and DIII is to lump together schools on a similar playing field as far as providing athletic assistance to athletes. FCS exists so that the universe of D1 basketball schools could remain large since it involves on a few scholarships while football teams could also remain within a competitive peer group. This became more important once the NCAA did away with the "split" level system. A school like Georgetown in D.C. was quite happy playing D1 basketball and D3 football. After the NCAA ended the split Georgetown and others like Davidson in N.C. had to move football teams to FCS or fold them. Since they were popular sports for attracting incoming students and, in some schools keeping up campus numbers, FCS was a palatable option without having to compete with the big boys.

Regarding the stipend, I really am not in favor of that regardless.  I agree with you regarding the full ride aspects.  My opinion has been that the NCAA should change the rules to allow the athletes to work, like any other student, for their extra money wants and earn it like all the other students have to do (including those who have to do so to put themselves through school).  That is a simple and fair solution.  However, you and both know it will never come to pass that way.

Regarding the football scholarships, I have always been glad that teams such as you mention, Georgetown, Davidson, Dayton, etc. (the Pioneer League original and current concept) chose not to discontinue their football programs for all the varied reasons they had (including the financial aspects you mention and also tradition, etc.). And we all remember why/how the "Dayton Rule" came into being as you also mention.  At the same time, however, while I see your point regarding the equal playing field, particularly for DII in regards to football scholarships, I still believe that at the DI level for football, regardless if it is FCS or FBS, the former should be able to have the same scholarship limits as FBS in football.  Those FCS teams would still be competitive on their own level and adding the few more scholarships to bring it to the 85 mark is not going to break those FCS schools (of course, we are now seeing that many of the FBS schools are moving away from playing FCS schools, of which, I am sad to see).  Yet, an FCS school maintained that having those additional football scholarships as the FBS level or any football scholarships at all, they still have the option of going the FCS non-scholarship route as the Pioneer League (and others), which now gets to compete in the FCS playoffs (and can be competitive against the upper level teams on occasion as has been seen).  It could work-it's just would come down to a school making a choice as to what they want to do.  But, the system is in place and is not going to change.  I am glad, however, that at least there has been the playoff system for the levels.  Now, if we can only get the FBS to eventually oversee their playoff system like the others...but, that's unlikely and wishful thinking.

Thanks for your follow-up reply.     

[ExTartanPlayer]

I still believe that at the DI level for football, regardless if it is FCS or FBS, the former should be able to have the same scholarship limits as FBS in football.  Those FCS teams would still be competitive on their own level and adding the few more scholarships to bring it to the 85 mark is not going to break those FCS schools (of course, we are now seeing that many of the FBS schools are moving away from playing FCS schools, of which, I am sad to see).  Yet, an FCS school maintained that having those additional football scholarships as the FBS level or any football scholarships at all, they still have the option of going the FCS non-scholarship route as the Pioneer League (and others), which now gets to compete in the FCS playoffs (and can be competitive against the upper level teams on occasion as has been seen).  It could work-it's just would come down to a school making a choice as to what they want to do.  But, the system is in place and is not going to change.  I am glad, however, that at least there has been the playoff system for the levels.  Now, if we can only get the FBS to eventually oversee their playoff system like the others...but, that's unlikely and wishful thinking.

A tangentially related point: I think a few schools may have gotten the shaft here as they transitioned from FCS to FBS amid all of this hullabaloo.  I suspect that most of the recent additions to the FBS level (either longstanding FCS programs like Appalachian State and UMass, or startup programs like Charlotte and UT-San Antonio) made the big jump with the hope that 1) they'd be able to play guarantee games for big bucks against Power Five opponents and 2) they'd be able to reap some TV and bowl money at the FBS level.  Now I wonder if they wish they'd have just stayed where they were.  Is Appalachian State going to be happier in the Sun Belt conference than they were in FCS?  I don't know.  Maybe they will.  I think the Power Five autonomy is eventually going to lead to even further sub-classes within Division I (whether they are officially designated as such or not).  Are the football programs at, say, Akron and Central Michigan really more like the programs at Ohio State and Michigan, or are they more like Villanova and James Madison?  Randomly chosen examples, read nothing into the specific schools, but my point stands...autonomy for the Power Five in the FBS is going to give us more of a three-tiered system where I wonder if the lower FBS schools would be better off lumping themselves together with FCS and basically re-forming a much bigger FCS. Plus, I think that would be fun to follow as a fan.

[wally_wabash]

I still believe that at the DI level for football, regardless if it is FCS or FBS, the former should be able to have the same scholarship limits as FBS in football.  Those FCS teams would still be competitive on their own level and adding the few more scholarships to bring it to the 85 mark is not going to break those FCS schools (of course, we are now seeing that many of the FBS schools are moving away from playing FCS schools, of which, I am sad to see).  Yet, an FCS school maintained that having those additional football scholarships as the FBS level or any football scholarships at all, they still have the option of going the FCS non-scholarship route as the Pioneer League (and others), which now gets to compete in the FCS playoffs (and can be competitive against the upper level teams on occasion as has been seen).  It could work-it's just would come down to a school making a choice as to what they want to do.  But, the system is in place and is not going to change.  I am glad, however, that at least there has been the playoff system for the levels.  Now, if we can only get the FBS to eventually oversee their playoff system like the others...but, that's unlikely and wishful thinking.

A tangentially related point: I think a few schools may have gotten the shaft here as they transitioned from FCS to FBS amid all of this hullabaloo.  I suspect that most of the recent additions to the FBS level (either longstanding FCS programs like Appalachian State and UMass, or startup programs like Charlotte and UT-San Antonio) made the big jump with the hope that 1) they'd be able to play guarantee games for big bucks against Power Five opponents and 2) they'd be able to reap some TV and bowl money at the FBS level.  Now I wonder if they wish they'd have just stayed where they were.  Is Appalachian State going to be happier in the Sun Belt conference than they were in FCS?  I don't know.  Maybe they will.  I think the Power Five autonomy is eventually going to lead to even further sub-classes within Division I (whether they are officially designated as such or not).  Are the football programs at, say, Akron and Central Michigan really more like the programs at Ohio State and Michigan, or are they more like Villanova and James Madison?  Randomly chosen examples, read nothing into the specific schools, but my point stands...autonomy for the Power Five in the FBS is going to give us more of a three-tiered system where I wonder if the lower FBS schools would be better off lumping themselves together with FCS and basically re-forming a much bigger FCS. Plus, I think that would be fun to follow as a fan.

I think the reason you saw an overwhelming 16-2 vote in favor of the autonomy is that everybody, even the little guys as it were, doesn't want the Power 5 to slip off.  Maybe there are fewer body bag games available going forward, but they'll still be available.  I think if you are the rest of D-I (and the rest of the NCAA membership really) you don't want to dig in too hard against those guys because right now, if they wanted to split, they could split.  They all have their own TV networks, they are all printing money faster than they can spend it (as was addressed in the O'Bannon trial).  The rest of the FBS schools want to rub elbows with those schools for as often and for as long as they can. 

[Li'l Giant]

I still believe that at the DI level for football, regardless if it is FCS or FBS, the former should be able to have the same scholarship limits as FBS in football.  Those FCS teams would still be competitive on their own level and adding the few more scholarships to bring it to the 85 mark is not going to break those FCS schools (of course, we are now seeing that many of the FBS schools are moving away from playing FCS schools, of which, I am sad to see).  Yet, an FCS school maintained that having those additional football scholarships as the FBS level or any football scholarships at all, they still have the option of going the FCS non-scholarship route as the Pioneer League (and others), which now gets to compete in the FCS playoffs (and can be competitive against the upper level teams on occasion as has been seen).  It could work-it's just would come down to a school making a choice as to what they want to do.  But, the system is in place and is not going to change.  I am glad, however, that at least there has been the playoff system for the levels.  Now, if we can only get the FBS to eventually oversee their playoff system like the others...but, that's unlikely and wishful thinking.

A tangentially related point: I think a few schools may have gotten the shaft here as they transitioned from FCS to FBS amid all of this hullabaloo.  I suspect that most of the recent additions to the FBS level (either longstanding FCS programs like Appalachian State and UMass, or startup programs like Charlotte and UT-San Antonio) made the big jump with the hope that 1) they'd be able to play guarantee games for big bucks against Power Five opponents and 2) they'd be able to reap some TV and bowl money at the FBS level.  Now I wonder if they wish they'd have just stayed where they were.  Is Appalachian State going to be happier in the Sun Belt conference than they were in FCS?  I don't know.  Maybe they will.  I think the Power Five autonomy is eventually going to lead to even further sub-classes within Division I (whether they are officially designated as such or not).  Are the football programs at, say, Akron and Central Michigan really more like the programs at Ohio State and Michigan, or are they more like Villanova and James Madison?  Randomly chosen examples, read nothing into the specific schools, but my point stands...autonomy for the Power Five in the FBS is going to give us more of a three-tiered system where I wonder if the lower FBS schools would be better off lumping themselves together with FCS and basically re-forming a much bigger FCS. Plus, I think that would be fun to follow as a fan.

As a UTSA booster from the beginning of the program I can say the consensus is we're still in a better place now than we would have been in FCS.

I don't see how the P5 greater autonomy will make them less likely to schedule CUSA and Sun Belt teams for money games as long as only one FCS win counts toward bowl eligibility.

The myriad of bowl games aren't going anywhere as long as ESPN is broadcasting them. C-USA has nine (!!) bowl game tie ins (total) between 2014 and 2019. Yeah, they're mostly playing other G5 schools but they're still bowl games.

FBS still matters even as a G5 school. I promise you UTSA would not have sold more season tickets last year than the San Antonio Spurs did if they were playing in the Southland.

[HSCTiger fan]

I still believe that at the DI level for football, regardless if it is FCS or FBS, the former should be able to have the same scholarship limits as FBS in football.  Those FCS teams would still be competitive on their own level and adding the few more scholarships to bring it to the 85 mark is not going to break those FCS schools (of course, we are now seeing that many of the FBS schools are moving away from playing FCS schools, of which, I am sad to see).  Yet, an FCS school maintained that having those additional football scholarships as the FBS level or any football scholarships at all, they still have the option of going the FCS non-scholarship route as the Pioneer League (and others), which now gets to compete in the FCS playoffs (and can be competitive against the upper level teams on occasion as has been seen).  It could work-it's just would come down to a school making a choice as to what they want to do.  But, the system is in place and is not going to change.  I am glad, however, that at least there has been the playoff system for the levels.  Now, if we can only get the FBS to eventually oversee their playoff system like the others...but, that's unlikely and wishful thinking.

A tangentially related point: I think a few schools may have gotten the shaft here as they transitioned from FCS to FBS amid all of this hullabaloo.  I suspect that most of the recent additions to the FBS level (either longstanding FCS programs like Appalachian State and UMass, or startup programs like Charlotte and UT-San Antonio) made the big jump with the hope that 1) they'd be able to play guarantee games for big bucks against Power Five opponents and 2) they'd be able to reap some TV and bowl money at the FBS level.  Now I wonder if they wish they'd have just stayed where they were.  Is Appalachian State going to be happier in the Sun Belt conference than they were in FCS?  I don't know.  Maybe they will.  I think the Power Five autonomy is eventually going to lead to even further sub-classes within Division I (whether they are officially designated as such or not).  Are the football programs at, say, Akron and Central Michigan really more like the programs at Ohio State and Michigan, or are they more like Villanova and James Madison?  Randomly chosen examples, read nothing into the specific schools, but my point stands...autonomy for the Power Five in the FBS is going to give us more of a three-tiered system where I wonder if the lower FBS schools would be better off lumping themselves together with FCS and basically re-forming a much bigger FCS. Plus, I think that would be fun to follow as a fan.

As a UTSA booster from the beginning of the program I can say the consensus is we're still in a better place now than we would have been in FCS.

I don't see how the P5 greater autonomy will make them less likely to schedule CUSA and Sun Belt teams for money games as long as only one FCS win counts toward bowl eligibility.

The myriad of bowl games aren't going anywhere as long as ESPN is broadcasting them. C-USA has nine (!!) bowl game tie ins (total) between 2014 and 2019. Yeah, they're mostly playing other G5 schools but they're still bowl games.

FBS still matters even as a G5 school. I promise you UTSA would not have sold more season tickets last year than the San Antonio Spurs did if they were playing in the Southland.

Here's an article from Forbes that addresses why the P5 are less likely to schedule non P5 schools - http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogergroves/2014/08/07/the-winners-and-losers-with-new-ncaa-rules/

[wally_wabash]

When has a P5 team ever been left out a national championship game because they played a poor schedule?  What the P5 teams enjoy is the luxury that the name brand of their leagues give them enough capital to do whatever they want with the rest of their schedule...winning the Big Ten or the SEC is accomplishment enough for basically any undefeated P5 team to play in the championship game (or the semifinals now).  I know the coaches all say they'd prefer to play other big, competitive teams- but that's what they're supposed to say.  Way deep down, I don't know that most of the coaches that say they don't want to schedule FCS or lower tier FBS teams for guarantees are telling the truth. 

[smedindy]

LG -

I do know that Florida Atlantic is in a not good place even though they are now D-1A. Of course that may be ham-fisted, short-sighted idiotic leadership, but hey...not many care and not many go to their games.

[jknezek]

LG -

I do know that Florida Atlantic is in a not good place even though they are now D-1A. Of course that may be ham-fisted, short-sighted idiotic leadership, but hey...not many care and not many go to their games.

I got most of my MBA from Florida Atlantic when I lived in that area. FAU has a slew of problems, mostly related to the fact that it was a commuter school. While it's been a few years since I was last there, and I know they have built new dorms and living areas on campus since then, in the mid 2000s they had dorms for a few thousand kids at a school with an enrollment many times that. There was no feeling of camaraderie among the student body as kids showed up, went to class, and left. They may have gone to FAU, but their allegiance was somewhere else.

Until that school develops an identity (and having an on-campus stadium was a big improvement, but fielding perennial losers is countering that) it will be hard to develop into a school the student body gets behind. I've seen USF and UCF both make part of that transition as students on those campuses are now both local fans and fans of FL's big 3, but FAU has failed to make that jump yet. USF and UCF need to continue the transition so their own fans lose allegiance to UF, FSU and Miami, but at least they are making good progress. FAU, as far as I can tell, remains a loser in that measure.

FAU has tried with the coaches they've hired to make a splash, but it has continually backfired. Eventually they may get it right, and there is plenty of talent in FL to make it work at a lower D1 level for them, but they still have a long way to go from both the school affiliation and athletic support angles.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Thanks to all that have chimed in.

I will admit, being fairly young and lacking in some of this experience, I don't know much about the campus experience and attitude towards football at the "small D1" schools, nor the challenges like those described by jknezek at Florida Atlantic. 

I've been to plenty of D3 games (duh), a handful of D2 games, and even a few FBS games, but never attended a MAC/C-USA/Sun Belt game, so I admit being a bit ignorant in this regard.  I was merely speculating that those small D1 schools may not garner much campus support as a D1 bottom-feeder (for the reasons jknezek alluded to with Florida Atlantic) and thus may have been better suited remaining in FCS.

My girlfriend is starting a job at Central Michigan University this fall, and I hope to coordinate my fall visits around a few Chippewas games.  I will be curious to see if Central seems to get much support from the student body (it's a much bigger school than I realized; bigger by undergrad enrollment than University of Pittsburgh), or if students keep their allegiances to UM and MSU, and really don't care about Central sports.  As jknezek said, ideally they would do "both" like UCF/USF students that grew up fans of one of the other power schools, but I'm guessing that many students are somewhat ambivalent, basically with a "We suck anyway, why would I care about Central football?" attitude.

[AUPepBand]

Thanks to all that have chimed in.

I will admit, being fairly young and lacking in some of this experience, I don't know much about the campus experience and attitude towards football at the "small D1" schools, nor the challenges like those described by jknezek at Florida Atlantic. 

I've been to plenty of D3 games (duh), a handful of D2 games, and even a few FBS games, but never attended a MAC/C-USA/Sun Belt game, so I admit being a bit ignorant in this regard.  I was merely speculating that those small D1 schools may not garner much campus support as a D1 bottom-feeder (for the reasons jknezek alluded to with Florida Atlantic) and thus may have been better suited remaining in FCS.

My girlfriend is starting a job at Central Michigan University this fall, and I hope to coordinate my fall visits around a few Chippewas games.  I will be curious to see if Central seems to get much support from the student body (it's a much bigger school than I realized; bigger by undergrad enrollment than University of Pittsburgh), or if students keep their allegiances to UM and MSU, and really don't care about Central sports.  As jknezek said, ideally they would do "both" like UCF/USF students that grew up fans of one of the other power schools, but I'm guessing that many students are somewhat ambivalent, basically with a "We suck anyway, why would I care about Central football?" attitude.

Pep has been doing some research on Central Michigan football. Long-time (legendary) Alfred University Football Coach Alex Yunevich was head coach at what was then called Central State Teachers College during the 1934, 1935 and 1936 seasons. Enrollment at Central at that time, during Depression years, was less than 1,000 and Alex had very small squads both in size and numbers. Attendance at games back then was meager at best....perhaps 1,000 at most. A quick look at the 2013 CMU home results showed around 15,000 for the Toledo game and 5,000 for the Eastern Michigan game.

One of Pep's high school classmates attended Central Michigan in the mid to late 1970s and remains a steadfast and loyal Chippewa fan. When Alex was at Mount Pleasant, the teams were called Bearcats, for what that's worth.

On Saxon Warriors!

[Li'l Giant]

Here's an article from Forbes that addresses why the P5 are less likely to schedule non P5 schools - http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogergroves/2014/08/07/the-winners-and-losers-with-new-ncaa-rules/

I personally don't buy that reasoning.

The last FIVE BCS champs have played two games against G5 schools and one FCS school during said championship season. Two of those years were Alabama winning the title with one conference loss.

I find it hard to believe that the P5 contenders would risk a non-conference loss rather than pay some G5 or FCS team to be slaughtered. They would suffer more for a loss than a monkeystomp win.

Until that school develops an identity (and having an on-campus stadium was a big improvement, but fielding perennial losers is countering that) it will be hard to develop into a school the student body gets behind.

With regard to FAU and UTSA the question is can you make your commuter school feel more like a traditional school? I can't speak for FAU but UTSA has shown it can happen. BTW I never went to UTSA but my wife and three of my four brothers have.

20 years ago when I was a senior in high school there was one dorm on UTSA's campus which housed a total of about 500 students. Now there are 3 dorms and 2 on campus apartment complexes which can house about 5000 students. The campus is in an area that wasn't developed back then and a lot of apartment complexes have been built. The university runs a shuttle that ferries students to and from those nearby complexes. The area around campus now has restaurants and bars that weren't there in the 90s.

It feels like a traditional university in a college town, even though it's surrounded San Antonio's suburbs. One thing that has helped was the school targeting traditional students more than non-traditional students, especially outside of SA. Nearly a third of UTSA's freshman class last year was from the Houston area. It also helps that it has slowly toughened its admission standards which, hate to say it, cuts out a lot of commuter/non-trad students.

There is little doubt football has contributed greatly to the increased school spirit but the bulk of this change has been the university trying to make itself something different. It was a larger cultural shift of which football has been one part.

[jknezek]

I think one of the largest reasons the P5 will start to cut out "others," whether they are FCS or FBS outsiders, is cost. Alabama is paying Southern Miss $1.4MM to come get killed this year. They are paying FAU $1MM and an FCS school $400+K. For the moment, having the extra home games is worth more money than the payouts. However, these payouts have grown exponentially over the last few years. If the payouts continue to grow, and attendance at these cupcake games tails off (which regardless of how many sell-outs teams claim, the patsy games are not full stadiums) it will become more profitable to do home and homes with teams that will actually attract a crowd and increase television rights. Alabama's event (I refuse to call it a competitive game) against UT-Chattanooga last year was shown on Pay-Per-View and in front of a 75%, at best, full stadium. The only ones who bought tickets were the season ticket holders, and they gave them away to anyone interested in going.

At some point the almighty dollar will change this aspect of college football as it has so many other things over the last 30 years. I have no doubt when the tipping point approaches, the P5 or however many conferences exist at that point, will agree to play only each other.

Personally I see no reason it shouldn't happen with the increased autonomy. FBS schools should NEVER play FCS schools simply because you are playing a team that competes under different rules. Now that the autonomy schools will have different rules from the rest of FBS, they should not step on the same field either. I understand the draw for FCS and low FBS schools, but it simply shouldn't happen. You exist in YOUR classification for a reason. The NCAA rules should be that you play ONLY the schools that are competing on the same playing field. That is the whole point of having separate classifications and separate championships.

[Li'l Giant]

I think one of the largest reasons the P5 will start to cut out "others," whether they are FCS or FBS outsiders, is cost. Alabama is paying Southern Miss $1.4MM to come get killed this year. They are paying FAU $1MM and an FCS school $400+K. For the moment, having the extra home games is worth more money than the payouts. However, these payouts have grown exponentially over the last few years. If the payouts continue to grow, and attendance at these cupcake games tails off (which regardless of how many sell-outs teams claim, the patsy games are not full stadiums) it will become more profitable to do home and homes with teams that will actually attract a crowd and increase television rights. Alabama's event (I refuse to call it a competitive game) against UT-Chattanooga last year was shown on Pay-Per-View and in front of a 75%, at best, full stadium. The only ones who bought tickets were the season ticket holders, and they gave them away to anyone interested in going.

I can see this. I can also see those games end up on the SEC network and the profitability increase for them. I could see them deciding not to play FCS but then add more games against non-P5 schools. They could easily use the threat of breaking off and not playing outside the P5 as a way to negotiate those payouts downward. They won't make as much but I'm willing to bet the non P5 schools will still want those matchups if they're available.

I understand the draw for FCS and low FBS schools, but it simply shouldn't happen. You exist in YOUR classification for a reason. The NCAA rules should be that you play ONLY the schools that are competing on the same playing field. That is the whole point of having separate classifications and separate championships.

This I can agree with. I'm not a fan of D3,  D2, FCS or NAIA schools playing each other. As the gulf widens between the P5 and the non-P5 it may be the way it goes.

My guess though is if it goes that way it will be because of money rather than a rule requiring play within classifications. 

[formerd3db]

Personally I see no reason it shouldn't happen with the increased autonomy. FBS schools should NEVER play FCS schools simply because you are playing a team that competes under different rules. Now that the autonomy schools will have different rules from the rest of FBS, they should not step on the same field either. I understand the draw for FCS and low FBS schools, but it simply shouldn't happen. You exist in YOUR classification for a reason. The NCAA rules should be that you play ONLY the schools that are competing on the same playing field. That is the whole point of having separate classifications and separate championships.

This I can agree with. I'm not a fan of D3,  D2, FCS or NAIA schools playing each other. As the gulf widens between the P5 and the non-P5 it may be the way it goes.

My guess though is if it goes that way it will be because of money rather than a rule requiring play within classifications. 

Although I understand and respect your opinions on this, I am of the total opposite opinion of both of you regarding the cross-level games. There are legit reasons for this and if the respective level teams want to schedule such games (they are well aware of all the potential risks), IMO, they should be allowed to do so. 

[smedindy]

FAU's campus 'looks nice' and the football stadium is new, but it's still a commuter school by and large. I worked about 2 exits north of FAU when I was in Florida and it was a dead zone (as much as something close to 95 can be a dead zone in Boca) after 5. They joined D-1A because FIU did and they wanted to see if they could get games with the U, Florida State and Florida. But very few people down there go to any FAU sporting event. It also hurt that the year they opened their new stadium they were horrifically abysmal. I mean wretched. Maybe D-1 is right for them in other sports, but they should be 1-AA in football.

I think UTSA did it the 'right way'...

I think the P5 will try to leverage down the payouts to the non P-5. Fans want to see somewhat decent games, not watch their team clobber Savannah State. Some of the non P-5 do offer tests.