FBS teams should continue to play FCS teams

First, allow me to preface my comments with the fact that I believe in free-enterprise capitalism, the growth of football being good for the sport (and for its players) and I believe that stability in the coaching ranks is a key contributor to the success of a program.

Now, with all that said, I came across comments from West Virginia head coach Dana Holgorsen earlier today where, in summary, he said it's time for FBS teams to stop playing FCS teams. [Insert: See note below, ESPN took much of Holgorsen's comments out of context]Holgorsen added, "If we are scheduling two Power 5 schools and a non-Power 5 school, then I wish everyone else would, too, as opposed to what some of the other schools are doing by scheduling an FCS school or two FCS schools and two other non-Power 5 schools."

I hear what Dana is saying. He wants scheduling parity across Power 5 conferences. I understand what he wants; but I believe that for the good of the game, FBS teams should continue to schedule FCS teams.

First, many, many, many FCS teams rely upon the check that comes with the FBS guarantee game. Often times, that one game check covers the salaries of the entire coaching staff for the year...or seen the other way, covers all of the costs of the program, other than the coaching staff's salaries, for the full year. Without these checks, I just don't know how many FCS programs could thrive and some might not even be able to survive.

At the FBS level, forcing FBS teams to only schedule other FBS teams would lead to a lot more losses at the FBS level each year. Presumably, the increase in number of losses would lead to heightened concern about the state of the program. Heightened concern, and number of losses, logically could lead to increased coaching turnover and less stability for the program.

At the heart of Holgorsen's issue is the perceived issue of fairness when one team plays an FBS foe while another plays a team from the FCS. Coaches want the playing field to be as level as possible, for obvious reasons. But blanket policies are rarely the answer. Banning FCS foes in the interest of playing more difficult schedules ignores the reality that North Dakota State would likely thrive in the MAC or Sun Belt, whereas Georgia State might struggle in the SoCon, CAA or Missouri Valley. I'd like to see conference commissioners collaborating to work towards better schedule comparability; but I don't think sacrificing FCS teams is the best way to achieve this goal.

If anyone has an opposing view and would like to share, please let me know @FootballScoop and we'll update below.

Note: After publishing, SmartFootball and others pointed out that ESPN (and other services) took some of Dana's comments out of context, noting that he actually pointed out how important game checks are to smaller programs. So, in short, Dana seems to be aligned with my thinking above. For what it is worth, ESPN's headline is: Dana Holgorsen: Time for FBS programs to stop playing FCS teams. Their first paragraph reads: No more scheduling FCS opponents. That's the message that West Virginia coach Dana Holgorsen is sending to his fellow FBS programs.

That's complete failure by ESPN in my opinion.

For those who want to see what he said for yourself, here is the video: