Watching Monday Night Football last night, with Colin Kaepernick starting for Alex Smith. The announcers were quick to stat the HE (Kaepernick) was the only NCAA quarterback to pass for 10,000 yards and to rush for 4,000 yards – and how amazing that stat was. That Harbaugh “knew what he was getting” when he they drafted him. If Kae[ernick is this amazing…… and destined for greatness – why is it that Armni is over looked? He was over 10,000 in passing and over 4,000 in rushing???

Colin is a good 5 inches taller than AE. Size matters in the NFL, so they say. Russell Wilson is the exception and he was a surprise to the Seahawks.

As I flipped through towards the end of the game, appeared that Kilgore was playing at center, they could have noticed something there.

That burned me up listening to it as well. Yes AE also has 10,000 and 4,000 and yes he did it a year earlier than Kaepernick. I guess for ESPN those stats only apply to big boy ball at places like Nevada-Reno.

It's the same with the Manziel kid at Texas A&M passing for 2,000 and rushing for 1,000 as a freshman and ESPN showing only the FBS players who have accomplished the feat. Even used it as a trivia question. No AE mention at all.

pkasu wrote:Watching Monday Night Football last night, with Colin Kaepernick starting for Alex Smith. The announcers were quick to stat the HE (Kaepernick) was the only NCAA quarterback to pass for 10,000 yards and to rush for 4,000 yards – and how amazing that stat was. That Harbaugh “knew what he was getting” when he they drafted him. If Kae[ernick is this amazing…… and destined for greatness – why is it that Armni is over looked? He was over 10,000 in passing and over 4,000 in rushing???

I have two thoughts about this:

1) my wife asked me the same thing--which made me fall even more in love with her that she knew that (not bad for a UNCG grad)
2) they often refer to only FBS stats, especially on ESPN

I think this is just a situation FCS teams have to live with. Most average viewers/fans are not familiar with FCS football. So, it's easier for the announcers to just mention FBS stats instead of having to explain that an FCS school is an FCS school and what that means. Doesn't make it right, but it's something I have come to accept.

I don't like it, but FCS is treated about the same way they treat JV sports in High School.

" FBS schools have a record of 1838-396-18 (.820) vs. FCS schools.

In 1982, I-A (FBS) schools recorded 96 victories over I-AA (FCS) opponents; the most ever. Followed by 2011 (91 victories) and 2008 (88 victories).

In 2008, FBS schools were 85-2 (.977) vs. FCS opponents; the best win percentage ever. Followed by 2005 (.963) and 2009 (.947).

In 2008, Arkansas St. defeated Texas Southern 83-10. It’s the largest margin of victory a FBS school has over a FCS school.

FBS schools have an all-time average point margin of +18.5 points vs. FCS opponents. But since 2000, FBS schools have an average point margin of +25.9 points over FCS schools.


On three occasions a school ranked in the AP Poll has lost to a FCS opponent. In 1983, temporary I-AA (FCS) member Cincinnati defeated No. 20 Penn St. In 2007, Appalachian St. defeated No. 5 Michigan. And in 2010, James Madison defeated No. 13 Virginia Tech."

http://footballgeography.com/wp-content ... vsfcs3.png


http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entr ... 2/26321379

"As a relatively objective college football fan (if there is such a thing) I think the FBS vs. FCS matchups are horrible for the spirit of competition. ESPN and CBSSports would have us believe that the gap between FBS and FCS has narrowed over the last few years. They use games like App St vs. Michigan and JMU vs. Virginia Tech to illustrate their point. But if they were to step back and look at the bigger picture they would clearly see that if anything the gap has become progressively larger over the past 15 years.

FBS vs. FCS (Source: Stats Inc)

Number of Games:
1996-2000: 236
2001-2005: 303
2006-2010*: 407

FBS W-L %
1996-2000: 82.6%
2001-2005: 88.8%
2006-2010*: 93.0%

FBS Average Point Differential
1996-2000: +20.1
2001-2005: +23.3
2006-2010*: +27.6

*Through Sep 2010

The numbers tell the story. For the most part the games are non-competitive "scheduled wins". Look at how each conference has faired against FCS since 1996. Consider that the 3 traditional powers in the Pac-10 (USC, UCLA, and Washington) haven't played FCS teams and the Pac-10's 95% winning percentage is probably artificially low.

SEC 78-2 .975
Big 12 87-3 .967
WAC 74-3 .961
Pac-10 37-2 .949
Mtn West 48-3 .941
Big East 64-4 .941
C-USA 68-5 .932
ACC 82-7 .921
Big Ten 52-5 .912
Ind. 93-16 .853
MAC 95-27 .779
Big West 32-10 .762
Sun Belt 32-17 .653"



They look at the FCS as a lower division because it is a lower division. I've always enjoyed our team and have pulled for them all the way, but I also understand the reality of the matter. FCS is not FBS. They don't count stats like AE's because they came against lesser competition. When they start rambling on about stats this and that with fbs another name you don't hear because he played at an FCS school is one Steve McNair. 14,496 passing yards and 2327 rushing yards. Also a Walter Peyton award winner. If it really is the same competition level then why does the FBS hold a winning percentage of 82%? The stats do not lie. You can argue til your blue in the face. The competition level is different. Yes some good athletes slip through to the FCS level and succeed. Denard Robinson who is easily compared to Armanti in athletic ability and almost in size has no where close to 10k/4k. He is in his senior season now and he is sitting at 6,250 passing yards and 4,273 rushing yards. He plays for this little team called Michigan. He ran a 4.3 40, a smidgen faster than Armanti. HE picked up 26 wins in the 3 seasons hes started and only 5 losses in the past 2 seasons and those numbers are as high as he has managed to get with basically the same skill set as Armanti and with a Michigan O-line in front of him. FBS and FCS are not the same guys, they aren't now and they never will be. If Armanti would good enough at QB to shine on the NFL level the way he did at the college level then he would have stepped right in every one of the opportunities that he has gotten (few as they seem to us) and dominated in the same way, except that now everyone is a world class athlete, not just him. They can give it whatever name they want, FCS, div 1AA, whatever they want to, it doesn't matter, it is still a lower level division. The gap is growing wider, not getting smaller. Just my opinion on the matter.

The real problem is that FCS is not labeled what it really is. FCS = D2. D2 = D3, then on down to the rest.

TheMoody1 wrote:I don't like it, but FCS is treated about the same way they treat JV sports in High School.

If you haven't read one of my rants on this subject, please do so,

My thesis is that the "FCS and below are the bastards of the football world, no love, no respect, and damn sure no money" and kept so by the cartel of the networks and BCS all for the Yankee dollar.

While driving I'll listen to various football shows on sirius, FCS gets no respect, ever at times. The media and the big football are geared to self promote and aren't sharing the spoils. Their feet will always keep us down.