Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

This link suggests that G5 beats P5 anywhere between 17% and 22% of the time, depending on how you slice it. (All time vs shorter more recent time durations). 22% is all time and includes WAC as G5 and Big East as P5, whereas if you go last 20, last 10, or last 5 years, including or not including WAC/BEast, it's pretty much always somewhere between 16.8% and 19%.

This link suggests that in all FCS vs FBS (all FBS, not just P5) matchups since 2006, the FCS team has a 7.9% win percentage. I'm assuming that win percentage is higher against G5 and lower against P5, but I can't find a clear delineation of that data. Admittedly, 2006 is chosen because that's when I-AA became FCS, and that's when FCS started scheduling 12 games, so there are a lot more matchups past that point. I'd be remiss not to mention that from 1978-2005, the win percentages were higher.

So I would argue that the odds of a P5 team losing to a G5 team are SIGNIFICANTLY higher than losing to an FCS team. At least double, because the G5 win percentages against P5 is always higher than 16.8% any way you slice it, which is more than double the 7.9% win percentage FCS has against ALL FBS. But probably even significantly beyond double, because P5 likely has better results against FCS than G5 has against FCS.

Who the conversation is aimed at is important.  I assume we're talking about playoff contender type teams, because no one is interested in whether or not Vanderbilt's schedule is harder or easier for scheduling G5 vs. FCS.  That becomes an entirely different dataset.

The Ohio States and Georgia's of the world aren't going to have that variation in losing % to G5 vs. FCS.  I mean, there's going to be a variation, probably, but it will be negligible.  

i.e., UGA could've replaced Samford last year with Toledo, and it wouldn't have mattered at all.  This will be true most years for any upper tier P5 team.  

The typical argument I see is the SEC pads or protects itself by scheduling FCS teams, and when they put those teams on the schedule.  In reality, I don't believe it makes any difference as far as championships or playoff participation goes.  Alabama would get exactly where they got in years past even scheduling the way other teams do.  It probably makes a non-negligible difference to Vanderbilt.  

Who the conversation is aimed at is important.  I assume we're talking about playoff contender type teams, because no one is interested in whether or not Vanderbilt's schedule is harder or easier for scheduling G5 vs. FCS.  That becomes an entirely different dataset.

The Ohio States and Georgia's of the world aren't going to have that variation in losing % to G5 vs. FCS.  I mean, there's going to be a variation, probably, but it will be negligible. 

i.e., UGA could've replaced Samford last year with Toledo, and it wouldn't have mattered at all.  This will be true most years for any upper tier P5 team. 

The typical argument I see is the SEC pads or protects itself by scheduling FCS teams, and when they put those teams on the schedule.  In reality, I don't believe it makes any difference as far as championships or playoff participation goes.  Alabama would get exactly where they got in years past even scheduling the way other teams do.  It probably makes a non-negligible difference to Vanderbilt. 

But if that's the argument, then what's the harm in these helmet teams scheduling G5 instead of FCS? 

The only argument IMHO is that FCS will take a paycheck game while Toledo might want a 2-for-1 HHA series or something like that. But while the MAC is trying to force the B1G into 2-for-1 scheduling agreements, do you really think they wouldn't take the occasional paycheck game from UGA or Bama? And wouldn't the fans rather see a G5 cupcake instead of an FCS morsel? 

I appreciate the research.
But I believe we're all having the discussion with the big-boy P5 programs in mind, right?
Whether NIU sneaks up and bites (no offense) a Purdue or Missouri drops a game to Tulsa, but not to UT-Martin....that's not really germane to the conversation.
A Michigan, a Florida, a UCLA, a Penn St....they're not dropping games to Troy or San Jose State or Buffalo more often than to an FCS school when they're having a good season.

Maybe it's just me, but that's the condition I've had in mind during this discussion.  Maybe that's unfair or I'm alone on an island, but I guess it needs to be put out there.  But I don't think anyone is suggesting a 9-3 BYU beating a 4-8 CU is a representative sample of what I mean.

Same reply as above... If there's no risk for the helmet teams, why not schedule a better opponent for your fans? 

 If there's no risk for the helmet teams, why not schedule a better opponent for your fans?

real world answer, as a fan of one of those schools, there are few g5 teams that differentiate themselves enough for most fans to even know if it's g5 or fcs. the average fan aren't going to know or care that mtsu and chattanooga are in different leagues entirely. it's just cannon fodder for them. there are a few, usf, boise, utah and tcu used to be, but outside of those handful, most don't know/don't care. we are the exception (we being us idiots on this website).

fwiw, i wish we didn't play fcs. outside of the real problem of where will their (fcs and g5) funding come from. but from a competitive standpoint, i would rather play all p5 tbh.

But if that's the argument, then what's the harm in these helmet teams scheduling G5 instead of FCS?

The only argument IMHO is that FCS will take a paycheck game while Toledo might want a 2-for-1 HHA series or something like that. But while the MAC is trying to force the B1G into 2-for-1 scheduling agreements, do you really think they wouldn't take the occasional paycheck game from UGA or Bama? And wouldn't the fans rather see a G5 cupcake instead of an FCS morsel?

There is no harm.  But there's also no point in criticizing the SEC for doing exactly what it does.  It comes out the same either way.

On the second part, I can only speak for myself, but it makes no difference to me if LSU plays Southern or brings in Eastern Michigan.  Those games are never any good either way.  LSU sleepwalks and slowly grinds them into dust in forgettable yawn-fests.  As a fan, exciting games are conference games or other P5 teams, even the ones that are lopsided.  The recent bowl vs. Purdue was more exciting than the bowl against UCF a few years ago, even though UCF was a better game.  A P5 team like Purdue, simply by virtue of playing big boys provides me with a sense of where my team might fit in with another major conference.  A team like UCF can only annoy me if we were to lose it, and forget the whole thing if we win it.  Granted, bowls are not a great example of what we're talking about here because bowls are not regular season games, but the same principle applies.  Some years ago we played a home and home with a hapless Arizona team.  They weren't good either time, but I'd take a PAC game like that over a middling G5 team because it's simply more interesting.   

That's certainly possible.

As far as it making a difference, I still say it wouldn't.  If Alabama drops GSU and adds Vanderbilt or South Carolina as a 9th conference game in it's place (keeping the "better" ooc games), their record will be exactly the same.  Same goes for any team having a season good enough to sniff the playoffs.