Very good writeup on the scheduling fiasco much discussed last fall, and the issues in "fixing" such problem this year, in the limited time remaining. Particularly found the detail on alternatives available at this time to be very informative.
Observations (without perusing any potential opponent's schedule as it currently stands):
1. There are several "attractive" potential foes (at least from a national prestige standpoint) which would readily kill the BS we faced last yr about a "weak schedule", particularly if we no longer have 2 FCS opponents on schedule. Certainly if we replaced either JMU or Citadel with Boise St, AFA, EZU or Navy, the FCS selection committee would have little in our schedule to point to, compared to last yr.
2. Our existing schedule, other than the continuation of having 2 FCS programs thereon, is already significantly tougher than last yrs as AJ pointed out in his article.
3. There are other potential opponents shown who are in FBS non-power conferences, who theoretically would be no more difficult (if as difficult) than our existing FCS opponents, such as UNCC. While I would hate to give up a quality FCS opponent to play the 49ers, it would technically silence the BS about having scheduled 2 FCS school, but probably not the overall schedule as a whole (and might highlight that other Power 5 schools such as Bama and tOSU do exactly the same thing).
4. One potential swap that struck me as "funny" would be if Colorado State swapped their opponent on such date for our opponent, they would be giving up a game with UNC to play UNC (the existing school scheduled is U. of Northern Colorado).
5. As far as "how much" we should be willing to pay, without question, there is a limit, although I have no idea what it might be. Certainly, most of these prospective schools would expect to be underdogs against UNC, so they may be looking at a probable loss, vs a very possible "W" with their scheduled opponent, so there has to be some significant additional financial incentive for them to jump through the necessary hoops to get it done. And from our perspective, just what are the expectations that we go undefeated as it now stands, vs after replacing one of our 2 FCS opponents with a specific FBS opponent. And. both of our existing FCS games are in Kenan - are we insistent on the replacement being a fill-in on our home schedule? I suspect we're not willing to give up a home date (as we only have 6 this yr to begin with), regardless of opponent.
Given all the above, I believe we need to make the switch, even if the opponent is formidable, as long as we still play in Chapel Hill, and as long as it doesn't place a ridiculous cost premium on making it happen. I believe that the change likely would have little, if any, consequence on our ultimate prospects for making the "Final Four", which likely hinge on having an undefeated year and winning the ACCCG to begin with - but should that be accomplished, the indicated schedule change would likely remove the last obstacle to an invite to the Final Four. And, I expect that Charlotte, or some other newly minted "FBS Program" would jump at the chance to play the Heels, especially if the money is "right".
Observations (without perusing any potential opponent's schedule as it currently stands):
1. There are several "attractive" potential foes (at least from a national prestige standpoint) which would readily kill the BS we faced last yr about a "weak schedule", particularly if we no longer have 2 FCS opponents on schedule. Certainly if we replaced either JMU or Citadel with Boise St, AFA, EZU or Navy, the FCS selection committee would have little in our schedule to point to, compared to last yr.
2. Our existing schedule, other than the continuation of having 2 FCS programs thereon, is already significantly tougher than last yrs as AJ pointed out in his article.
3. There are other potential opponents shown who are in FBS non-power conferences, who theoretically would be no more difficult (if as difficult) than our existing FCS opponents, such as UNCC. While I would hate to give up a quality FCS opponent to play the 49ers, it would technically silence the BS about having scheduled 2 FCS school, but probably not the overall schedule as a whole (and might highlight that other Power 5 schools such as Bama and tOSU do exactly the same thing).
4. One potential swap that struck me as "funny" would be if Colorado State swapped their opponent on such date for our opponent, they would be giving up a game with UNC to play UNC (the existing school scheduled is U. of Northern Colorado).
5. As far as "how much" we should be willing to pay, without question, there is a limit, although I have no idea what it might be. Certainly, most of these prospective schools would expect to be underdogs against UNC, so they may be looking at a probable loss, vs a very possible "W" with their scheduled opponent, so there has to be some significant additional financial incentive for them to jump through the necessary hoops to get it done. And from our perspective, just what are the expectations that we go undefeated as it now stands, vs after replacing one of our 2 FCS opponents with a specific FBS opponent. And. both of our existing FCS games are in Kenan - are we insistent on the replacement being a fill-in on our home schedule? I suspect we're not willing to give up a home date (as we only have 6 this yr to begin with), regardless of opponent.
Given all the above, I believe we need to make the switch, even if the opponent is formidable, as long as we still play in Chapel Hill, and as long as it doesn't place a ridiculous cost premium on making it happen. I believe that the change likely would have little, if any, consequence on our ultimate prospects for making the "Final Four", which likely hinge on having an undefeated year and winning the ACCCG to begin with - but should that be accomplished, the indicated schedule change would likely remove the last obstacle to an invite to the Final Four. And, I expect that Charlotte, or some other newly minted "FBS Program" would jump at the chance to play the Heels, especially if the money is "right".
