By William Qualkinbush.

By William Qualkinbush.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know about the new autonomy granted last week to the members of the so-called “Power 5” conferences. You also know about the different issues being raised, including things like stipends and allowable practice time.

One of the aspects of this new world order currently causing a stir is scheduling—specifically, if the Power 5 will only play against each other or stoop down to compete against schools with lower stature.

For many fans, this is music to your ears. You have longed for the day when every single football Saturday is filled with marquee games on every single channel, when every game matters because there is a little pride at stake, when it feels like a championship game in every stadium once a week.

Coaches probably feel the same way, but they have to go a step further. It’s a job for them, a job fans will hold them accountable for doing. Those games against the patsies of college football are secure victories in an era of the game where nothing, it seems, is ever totally secure.

Given that reality, it was a little bit stunning to see the results of this poll conducted by ESPN.com and released last week. In it, 30 coaches said they would be in favor of playing exclusively Power 5 schools. 23 coaches opposed such a move, while 12 coaches hadn’t made a decision on that yet.

The ACC was the only conference whose coaches favored maintaining the current structure, and it makes sense when you consider geography. This conversation has happened in the past—the FBS-only argument—and geography was telling then also.

Certain parts of the country are more heavily populated with bigger schools. The Midwest and Southwest have a ton of mid-major FBS universities. Therefore, it would make sense for conferences with a footprint in those areas (Big Ten, SEC, Big 12) to favor this proposal, but it wouldn’t make sense for the ACC because of the close proximity of many conference schools to a plethora of FCS options

The same is true for this new model of facing only opposition from the Power 5 leagues. Certain schools will find it easier than others on the financial side of things.

Interestingly, Dabo Swinney voted in favor of this idea. He probably had the SEC in mind, which change the discussion entirely from the original idea where Clemson would be inconvenienced to a great degree if it couldn’t schedule cost-efficient games against FCS opponents.

Should this system be enacted, FBS coaches and administrators would count on single-game revenues to justify this philosophy. It would also take an understood contract with fans who will have to adjust expectations according to the difficulty of the schedule.

Think about this: Right now, for fans, each win total generally means a certain kind of season has occurred. 10 wins is considered a very good campaign, 11 wins is elite, 12 wins means a national title appearance, and so forth. Eight wins is decent, six wins is average, and we all know what those things mean in our minds.

In 2014, the Power 5 schools will each play an average of 9.4 games against other Power 5 schools, including conference games. A further breakdown shows that the most aggressive conference in scheduling out-of-conference Power 5 games is the Big Ten, with 1.2 Power 5 matchups per team. The ACC (1.1), Big 12 (1.0), Pac 12 (0.9), and SEC (0.8) weren’t far away from that number.

This means there are an average of 2.6 games per school against non-Power 5 opponents on the list of 2014 schedules. Those might be considered “easy wins” or “free wins” for some fans, and generally speaking, that’s correct.

Often times, strength of schedule is the impetus behind expectations. Teams with question marks and easy schedules are often given the benefit of the doubt, while more complete teams with tougher slates are doubted. That’s in this world, where free wins are a part of the process.

Now, imagine those “free wins” are gone. We’re looking at a whole different ballgame because there aren’t enough “free wins” in the Power 5 for every contending team to play all of them at the same time.

Those 10-2 seasons will be much, much harder to come by with such a dramatically tougher schedule. Even assuming a 50-50 split in those new Power 5 games, fans can expect an average of 1.3 more losses per season—a game-changer when it comes to expectations.

That’s why decision-makers and fans have to come to an understanding on this before it gets done. Fans will have to sacrifice a little bit and become less demanding in general, knowing full well a great season will sometimes mean an 8-4 record at a place where championships are currently the norm.

I’m not sure this ever happens for that very reason. Feasibility will be a problem, particularly with 65 teams (including Notre Dame) trying to play either three or four OOC games per season. Plus, there are too many quality matchups to be had with mid-major schools, who currently reside in college football purgatory.

The individual games would be great, but the change might be too drastic for this to ever take place in college football. Only time will tell what the Power 5 schools do with this longer leash.

God Bless!

WQ