FCS/FBS Games: Introduction
Every FBS football season includes the annual FBS/FCS scheduled games throughout the college football season. These scheduled games originate from the first weeks of the season, then concludes through the 11th game scheduled for FBS programs. The facts are that these games scheduled between FBS/FCS programs provides financial assistance associated with the athletic budgets for FCS football programs. I whole heartedly support this financial support for the FCS football programs by the FBS programs. Each FCS football program receives anywhere from roughly $500-750K for the scheduling of these games.
For those who do not understand the difference in classification; FBS classification are those university or institutions that provides/supports 16 Men’s and Women’s Division Athletic Programs while abiding by the Title IX and NCAA rules. FCS classification are those university and institutions who follow the same rules by the NCAA; but limited number of scholarships offered. As well as following the Title IX rules. However, at what embarrassment of margin of victories by FBS football programs should determine a need for significant change in the scheduling of these games between FBS/FCS programs? That is the key question and what should be done to make many changes associated with the FBS/FCS relationships?
2026 FBS/FCS Data: Academic Intelligence, not Artificial Intelligence
There is nothing artificial about the data collection of the FBS/FCS final game results that indicates a significant need for change to the scheduling of these types of games. Not even ChatGPT or META can answer this data without it being spoon fed to them. That’s the problem with artificial intelligence, it only recites and verifies what has been entered into their data base without validation or efficacy. Furthermore, addressing the scheduling of all FBS football games as a whole takes human eyes, with an academic researchers mind set to determine accuracy, validation and efficacy. However, I am going to focus on the quantitative, empirical and exhaustive evidence associated with the 2026 FBS/FCS Data that has already been completed after the first week of the FBS college football season.
With the completion of Week 1 of the college football season with FBS/FCS games scheduled, there were 48 FBS/FCS games scheduled. Week 2 of the college football season possesses 36 FBS/FCS games scheduled. After the first weeks games, the FBS programs possess a (45-3) win-loss record versus FCS programs. This resulted in a win-loss percentage rate of (.9375). Of those 48 games scheduled and played, the FBS programs possess a combined total number of points of 2267 points against the FCS. This correlates to the FBS teams averaging 48.23 PPG. The FCS programs have a combined total number of 461 points against the FBS, averaging only 9.80 PPG. This indicates that FBS programs that schedule FCS football programs are not just running up the score. The FBS programs are winning games in this style, for style points to impress the subjective voters of the AP, USA Today Coaches Polls and the future CFP committee. Of the 45 wins by the FBS football programs, 43 or 91.48% were by 3+ possessions or more. The 3+ possessions or more equates to a margin of victory (MOV) of 21 points or more. Furthermore, of those 45 wins by FBS football programs, 26 or 57.77% of those MOVs were by 5+ possessions or more. The 5+ possessions or more equates to 35 points or more. Finally, the FBS football programs MOV average is 40.27 PPG, which offers to supports the 5+ possessions quantitative data results.
Below is the chart that explains each FBS conferences FBS/FCS quantitative data in relationship to the Week 1 results. The results offered are based upon conference, win-loss record, points for and against, average PPG and MOV average.
| CONF | W/L RECORD | POINTS FOR | PTS FOR AVE | PTS AGAINST | PTS AGST AV | MOV AVE |
| AAC | (5-1) | 256 | 42.67 | 94 | 15.67 | 33.20 |
| ACC | (2-0) | 139 | 65.50 | 6 | 3.00 | 66.50 |
| BIG 10 | (4-0) | 199 | 49.75 | 44 | 11.00 | 38.75 |
| BIG 12 | (9-0) | 500 | 55.56 | 70 | 7.78 | 47.78 |
| CUSA | (5-0) | 227 | 45.40 | 42 | 8.40 | 37.00 |
| MAC | (2-1) | 86 | 28.67 | 37 | 12.33 | 28.00 |
| MWC | (2-0) | 72 | 36.00 | 0 | 0 | 36.00 |
| PAC 12 | (1-1) | 70 | 35.00 | 49 | 24.50 | 33.00 |
| SBC | (8-0) | 382 | 47.75 | 53 | 6.63 | 41.13 |
| SEC | (5-0) | 280 | 46.60 | 59 | 9.80 | 35.33 |
There are a total of 127 FBS/FCS games scheduled this 2026 college football season. With 82 FBS/FCS games remaining, the results will be collected, but more than importantly prove that the FBS programs will still dominate the inferior opponent of FCS programs. The MOV average is more than likely to significantly increase and maintain. This also indicates that the variable associated with MOV and the 3+ possession variable is consistent with historical prevalence. The significance of running up the scores by FBS football programs against FCS football programs are significant to the historical, longitudinal and quantitative data that has already been collected since 1996. Moreover, by the Power 4 Conference members, and more specifically the SEC. The historical quantitative and longitudinal data will support that variable claim.
The CFP 12 Era Data (2024-2025): FBS vs. FCS
To clarify the CFP12 Era is associated with the 12-Team College Football Playoff. The combined collected quantitative data for the FBS/FCS scheduled games during the CFP12 Era, resulted in the FBS possessing a more than SIGNIFICANT advantage in the win-loss column and percentage rates. The FBS possesses a (237-10) overall record in games scheduled with the FCS football programs during this era. That results in a win-loss percentage rate of (.959) for the FBS football programs. The 2024 FBS season resulted in a (115-6) overall record for the FBS football programs. This result returns a win-loss percentage rate of (.950) for the FBS football programs. During the 2025 college football season, the FBS/FCS games resulted in a (122-4) overall record. This result returns a win-loss percentage rate of (.968) for FBS football programs. During the 2024 FBS season, the FBS football programs average MOV over FCS football programs was 35.80 PPG. This indicates that during the 2024 FBS season, that FBS football programs were outscoring FCS programs by at least 5 possessions or more. During the 2025 FBS season, the FBS programs average MOV over FCS football programs was 34.86 PPG. This equates to almost 5 possessions during the 2025 FBS season, and consistent with the relevancy of MOV historical quantitative data. The 2026 FBS/FCS game result data is starting to consistently meet or exceed the same quantitative final results for the end of the 2026 regular season.
Published/Copyright/Intellectual Property Idea for FCS Scheduling
As an independent researcher since (2008), who possesses and earned a CITI/IRB research certification, I am well versed, knowledgeable and astute on this subject matter. This certification allows me to perform, collect, write and publish research associated with human and non-human subjects without possessing a bias. I have been studying, reading, collecting college football quantitative data since (2007). Examining and solving the variables associated with this multi-variate problem using empirical, exhaustive, historical, longitudinal, quantitative, qualitative, systemic data starting with the 1996 FBS season. Upon examining and collecting this data, I have been evaluating the purpose, reasoning and problem solving abilities on why FBS football teams schedule FCS football teams. Research data supports my claim with consistency that FBS teams will outscore the FCS teams the majority of the time, with embarrassing results or MOVs.
Upon further review of my 30-plus years of data collection, I have determined that there needs to be a change to the FBS/FCS relationship associated with scheduling and financial contributions all for the greater good of supporting the FCS programs. In both of my publications which are cited below at the end of this posting in the reference section, I can significantly determine without bias that there is a significant need for change in the scheduling of these annual games with FBS/FCS teams. In both publications, Chapter 6; Page 46-57 of the first publication and Chapter 14; Page 76-91; both chapters titled “Non-Conference Scheduling and the FCS”. Both chapters of each publication examined the scheduling practices of FBS/FCS during the BCS era. Since the most recent publication was published and copyright protected in (2016), I also collected the CFP4 Era data in the same investigative manner as the BCS Era. This indicates that I possess a very strong, confident and thorough knowledge of this variable associated with college football. Allowing me to make an academic suggestion to improve scheduling between FBS/FCS programs. Furthermore, suggesting an academics point of view that would be financially beneficial to the FBS and FCS relationship.
Understanding the quantitative data, analysis and concrete evidence within those chapters of my publications, I made a scientific, academic and athletic director type of assessment. The suggestion I authored within my publications was to eliminate FBS/FCS scheduling all together. The additional suggestion I authored within those publications was that FBS football programs develop a financial relationship with a local or regional FCS football programs. That means, rather than schedule the FCS game, provide the $500-750K to the FCS football programs. That indicates that each FBS football program aligns themselves with an FCS football program. This scheduling move will free up an opening in the FBS schedule every year. This will allow these FBS football programs to schedule another FBS football program to enhance their non conference schedule. These FBS scheduled games against other FBS football programs will exponentially generate more than enough financial revenue to make the financial contribution to a FCS football program. Furthermore, this eliminates the “guaranteed” win by FBS programs for the scheduling of FCS programs. By scheduling the additional FBS game, that game will draw more fans, financial revenue, television revenue, ticket sales, and taxed based dollars to your local economy when and FBS/FBS scheduled game occurs.
The one caveat for the “NEED TO” scheduling of an FCS football program, is when any specific FCS football program has made the commitment to playing at the FBS level in year X. By making the commitment to moving up in classification for football, then local and regional FBS programs would have the option to schedule this FCS program. The advantage of this option becomes two fold in a positive aspect; financially and exposure. The financial contributions becomes exponential, by either scheduling this future FBS program at home or at their facility. Which would in turn increase taxed based revenue dollars for the FCS local economy.
Affects of the Subjective Ranking Process
The primary question related to the scheduled games between FBS/FCS programs is; do these scheduled games possess a positive or negative subjective ranking position from the USA Today/AFCA Coaches Polls and the AP Poll. These subjective polls by “qualified”, “confident”, and, “experienced”; AP media personalities and credibly named head coaches who rank college football programs week to week, should have their subjective evaluation and ranking process questioned. Both the 66 AFCA FBS coaches and the 69 AP media voters, rank FBS programs in rank order from 1 to 25 each week. Once all votes are collected, then the total number of votes per each FBS team is compiled based upon ranking position, then ranked in rank order based upon total number of votes or points received. Furthermore, both of these subjective rankings are published publicly amongst their own personal World Wide Web sites and ESPN to name a media company which possesses vested interests in the results.
To challenge these “subjective” ranking systems, there needs to be a determination amongst the group of voters within each poll group, provides a positive, negative or no change ranked position after the scheduled FBS/FCS games. There is evidence that dates back to the 1996 FBS season, where those who subjectively rank FBS programs in both of these ranking polls; voters as a whole group and as an individual have provided both positive increased ranked positions and no change in ranked positions after the results of these games in the following weeks rankings. Published research supports and proves that FBS programs on average receive a 1 ranked positive position change in the following weeks polls. The publication in which this evidence is retrieved from is titled; “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Facts Evidence and Solution” (Siggelow, 2016). This quantitative, historical, longitudinal, and qualitative data can be found in Chapter 11: Analyzing the USA Today Coaches Poll, pages 147-199; Chapter 12: Analyzing Both Human Polls, pages 200- 243; and Chapter 13: Confidence, Credibility, Accuracy and Validity of Both Polls, pages 244-250. Each of these published, copyright protected and intellectual property right protected thoughts support that there is a “CONSCIOUS” subjective ranking bias in the ranking of FBS teams weekly after the scheduled FBS/FCS game results.
To support my claim of “CONSCIOUS” subjective ranking bias evidence from the 2026 FBS rankings after Week 1 of the FBS season, associated with FBS/FCS scheduled game results with ranked FBS teams in both human polls. The grid below are the ranked results of the 6 Top 25 FBS ranked programs who played FCS teams this past weekend from September 5, 2026. The quantitative data that was retrieved were, FBS ranked teams position in both human polls prior to the scheduled game, the final game result, the FBS ranked position in both human polls after the scheduled game and other important data such as conference affiliation and FCS Opponent:
| RANKED FBS TEAM | CONFERENCE | FCS OPPONENT | RESULT | AP WEEK 2 RANKING | AFCA WEEK 2 RANKING |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 GEORGIA | SEC | TENNESSEE ST | GA W (63-6) | 2 (+1) | 2 (+1) |
| 12 TEXAS TECH | BIG 12 | ABLEN CHRST | TT W (33-10) | 13 (-1) | 13 (-1) |
| 14 BYU | BIG 12 | UTAH TECH | BYU W (63-7) | 15 (-1) | 14 (NO CHNG) |
| 20 TENNESSEE | SEC | FURMAN | TN W (56-9) | 18 (+2) | 18 (NO CHNG) |
| 21 UTAH | BIG 12 | IDAHO STATE | UT W (66-14) | 20 (+1) | 20 (+1) |
| 25 MISSOURI | SEC | ARK PINE BLUF | MZ W (54-14) | 23 (+2) | 23 (+2) |
What this proves and indicates is that FBS teams receive a positive subjective ranking position change from both human polls after scheduled FBS/FCS games. The primary significance of this first weeks FBS/FCS scheduled game results, correlates with already published research. The results determined that FBS programs from the SEC receive a more than significant positive ranking position change after the scheduled FBS/FCS game. The review of SEC programs of Georgia, Tennessee and Missouri; each receiving the positive ranking position of change of at least 2 spots after playing the annual FBS/FCS opening week scheduled game. This indicates that both human polls are only reviewing the final game results associated with the FBS team. Not even realizing that their opponent is a lower classification from the FCS. This also proves that each human poll should adopt a rule that when FBS/FCS games are scheduled, that no matter what the result; the ranked FBS team within the human polls should not receive any positive subjective ranking position change in the following weeks rankings. Furthermore, as an independent certified researcher, I am not the only one who has examined the subjective ranking systems when FBS football programs schedule inferior opponents.
There is only one published research peer review article that examined the scheduling of inferior opponents within college football at the FBS level. That research was performed by Daniel Simundza in 2017 titled, “Cream Puffs: Why Do Elite College Football Programs Schedule Games Against Vastly Inferior Opponents?” Simundza (2017) questioned why the most powerful FBS programs schedule these “so-called” cream-puffs. Simundza, classifies cream-puffs as scheduled regular season games from other conference as out-of-conference games (Simundza, 2017). More importantly within Simundza’s research there was a direct correlation between these FBS teams scheduling inferior opponents and the effect these games possess on the USA Today’s Coaches and Sagarin rating system (Simundza, 2017). Simundza’s research proves that these games versus inferior opponents penalizes ranked teams for playing vastly inferior opponents. Within the research, Simundza (2017) determined that within the Sagarin ratings, that FBS teams are penalized for playing cream puffs most severely in the first part of the season. “This is a potential problem because the estimated cream puff effect is obtained by controlling the teams’ abilities using the Sagarin ratings.
The primary focus on the second method used by Simundza (2017) was to focus only on games variously classified as late in the season (Simundza, 2017). This aspect of the research established enough outcomes, while acquiring enough information to generate more accurate ratings. The results comparing early season and late season rating changes associated with the Sagarin rating, determined that there are more negative rating changes early in the season. When comparing the rest of the data throughout the course of the season, the ratings changes leveled off. However, primarily the overall average ratings change associated with the Sagarin rating system with the Simundza (2017) results, 10 of the 15 weeks of data collected were negative rating changes. With an overall ratings average change of (-2.52) (Simundza, 2017).
What Simundza (2017) states is, “optimal scheduling game, wherein teams simultaneously set their schedules to maximize some objective.” There are multiple questions that needs to be addressed when scheduling future non-conference games and the inferior opponent, for the sole purpose of wins, revenue either in ticket sales or television, but not excluding the increased chance of playing in the playoffs or national championship game. Furthermore, how does this study relate to historical scheduling of inferior opponents such as the FCS. Is there any proof that indicates that the scheduling of inferior opponent such as the scheduling of the FCS exists. There is published proof, its up to the readers and the sports media members if they want to spend the time reading something academic versus always believing what you see or hear.
Conclusion, Implementation of Ideas
What can be determine is that there is current, empirical, historical, longitudinal, quantitative, qualitative and sufficient evidential proof that an implementation of change is required associated with the future of the scheduling of FBS/FCS games. Evidential proof demonstrates not only margin of victories by FBS programs are significantly more than 5+ possessions or more, or 35 points per game. In addition to conclusive evidence that FBS teams win 95% of the games scheduled against FCs programs during the CFP12 Team playoff Era. Furthermore, academic suggestions in which I have made would significantly improve the FBS/FCS relationships.
The academic suggestions include, but not limited to the following:
- Eliminate all FBS/FCS Scheduling, unless the FCS program has made a commitment of playing up to the FBS level in a reasonable amount of time. Then and only then can local and regional FBS programs schedule that FCS program to assist in financial contributions to that FCS program.
- Each FBS program build a financial long term relationship with the nearest FCS team. Provide them yearly financial support in which the FBS/FCS game was going to provide the FCS team of $500-750K every year.
- Each FBS program that was planning to schedule an FCS program, would improve their non-conference schedule by scheduling a FBS opponent from another FBS conference. Generating exponentially more financial revenue that would help offset the annual financial contribution to the FCS program that you were going to schedule.
- Change and enforce the rules of subjective rankings for both human polls, and the CFP committee members that would require ranked FBS programs to never receive any positive subjective ranking position changes in the next published human polls.
There will be an additional publishing of updated FBS/FCS scheduled game data and information. Furthermore, there will be other publishing of thoughts, academic support of examining college football subject matter and a posting that will cause reason for concern of the thought of a 24-Team Playoff concept/idea from the BIG10 Commissioner; Tony Petitti and SEC Commissioner, Greg Sankey.
Please feel free to leave feedback or comment at the end of the posting. Furthermore, this is all ACADEMIC INTELLIGENCE not artificial intelligence. The human mind and brain is a wonderful tool. I look past the numbers to achieve an analytical point of view with higher cognitive reasoning.
IF YOU DECIDE TO USE OR VERBALLY STATE anything from this published positing, the cite is Copyright Protected and Intellectual Property Rights granted. ALWAYS follow APA/MLA citation, giving the author of this blog page and posting, academic credit. You must ask have my written consent, unless I personally post directly to you through social media outlets; providing you consent.
You can follow me on X/Twitter handle: @cfbpoexpert and I am on BlueSky: cfbpoexpert.bsky.social
Matthew J. Siggelow; MS Ed in Athletic Administration, Sports Management, Kinesiology and Sports Studies from the State University of New York at the College at Brockport (2011).
Sources/References:
Siggelow, Matthew (2013). “College Football In The BCS Era, The Untold Truth: An Analysis of Factors that Supports the 16-Team Playoff Model. Lulu.com ISBN# 978-1-4675-7163-0. Library of Congress Copyright Number: TXU001844880 1-871893461. NO LONGER AVAILABLE IN PRINT.
Siggelow, Matthew (2016). “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts, Evidence and Solution. Lulu.com. ISBN#978-1-5323-22570. Library of Congress Copyright Number: TX0008295529 1-4071316851.
Simundza, Daniel (2017). “Cream Puffs: Why Do Elite College Football Programs Schedule Games Against Vastly Inferior Opponents? Journal of Sports Economics. Volume 18 (8). Pages 787-802.
© 2026 Copyright and Intellectual Property Rights Protected