Paycheck or Punishment? College Football’s FBS-FCS Games Renew Debate Over Money, Safety and Competition

As another college football season gets underway, familiar mismatches are returning to stadiums across the country: nationally prominent programs with enormous budgets, deep rosters and superior facilities facing smaller schools searching for revenue, recognition and an opportunity to compete on a larger stage.

They are commonly described as Division I schools playing lower-division opponents. Technically, however, both groups are members of NCAA Division I. The difference is that Football Bowl Subdivision programs generally have more scholarships, greater financial resources and access to bowl games, while Football Championship Subdivision teams compete in a playoff system for their national championship.

The debate is not whether the schools belong in Division I. It is whether the financial benefits of these games justify the physical and emotional risks created by severe competitive imbalances.

The money behind the matchup

Many of these contests are “guarantee games.” A major FBS program pays an FCS school—sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars or more than $1 million—to play at the FBS school’s stadium.

For smaller athletic departments, that single payment can help finance football operations and support non-revenue sports. The host school benefits from another home game, including ticket sales, concessions, parking, television inventory and donor activity.

The financial pressure can make the offer difficult to reject.

In 2012, Savannah State received $385,000 to visit Oklahoma State. The result was an 84-0 defeat in which Oklahoma State led 35-0 after the first quarter and finished with 682 yards of offense. Savannah State coach Steve Davenport openly questioned afterward whether the payment made the experience worthwhile. Oklahoma State Athletics

That question remains relevant today: At what point does a needed paycheck become too costly for the players responsible for earning it?

When a game becomes a public humiliation

The competitive gap can produce scores that attract national attention for all the wrong reasons.

Among the most striking examples:

• Oklahoma State defeated Savannah State 84-0 in 2012.
• Miami defeated Savannah State 77-0 in 2018, outgaining the Tigers 494-78. Miami Athletics
• Ohio State defeated Florida A&M 76-0 in 2013.
• Ohio State shut out Grambling State 70-0 in 2025 while producing 651 yards of offense against Grambling’s 166. Ohio State Athletics

For the winning team, such a game can provide live repetitions for young players, allow coaches to test formations and help starters build confidence before conference competition begins.

But there is a point at which the educational value becomes questionable. Once the outcome is decided, the game may offer little preparation for the FBS team’s more competitive schedule. Starters often leave early, while the remaining quarters become extended practice for reserves.

For the losing team, the damage may extend beyond the scoreboard. Players must return to campus, review the film and prepare for their next opponent after being physically overwhelmed and publicly embarrassed.

A disciplined coaching staff can turn the experience into motivation, but there is no guarantee. A severe loss can weaken confidence, create doubt inside the locker room and make players less aggressive in subsequent games. Injuries suffered in the mismatch can also affect an FCS team’s conference schedule—the portion of the season that determines its championship and playoff hopes.

The injury question

All football games carry physical risk. The concern in an FBS-FCS matchup is whether differences in roster depth, size, speed and strength increase that risk.

An exploratory study involving eight FCS athletic trainers found that seven reported increased soreness and in-game injuries among their players following guarantee games against FBS opponents. The study did not establish that every matchup is unsafe, but its findings support closer examination of how schools select opponents. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education

The consequences can be especially serious for an FCS program with limited depth. An FBS powerhouse may replace an injured starter with another highly recruited scholarship athlete. A smaller program may not have comparable reserves available.

A payday that helps an athletic department’s annual budget may look less attractive if several starters are unavailable when conference play begins.

The other side of the argument

These games are not automatically meaningless, and FCS teams are not guaranteed to lose.

They offer FCS athletes the opportunity to compete at a higher level, perform before larger crowds and test themselves against players who may be headed to the NFL. The exposure can help a player’s professional prospects and elevate an entire program.

The 2007 Appalachian State victory over No. 5 Michigan remains the most famous example. Appalachian State entered Michigan Stadium as a heavy underdog and left with a 34-32 victory that changed the national perception of FCS football.

Upsets continue to happen. During the opening week of the 2026 season, Tarleton State defeated Bowling Green 20-13, The Citadel beat Charlotte 43-41 in triple overtime and Idaho State defeated Utah State 29-17. NCAA.com

Those victories demonstrate why the games should not be eliminated completely. A competitive FCS program can gain national recognition, recruiting momentum and financial support in a single afternoon.

The arrangement also carries a risk for the FBS team. A loss can damage its national ranking, bowl position or College Football Playoff hopes. Even an unimpressive victory can raise questions about whether the program is prepared for stronger competition.

Better scheduling, not a complete ban

The strongest solution may be improved matchmaking rather than ending FBS-FCS games altogether.

Athletic directors should consider recent performance, roster depth, scholarship numbers and program stability before signing an agreement. A nationally ranked FBS contender playing a struggling FCS program rarely creates a meaningful competitive test. A mid-level FBS school facing a strong FCS opponent, however, can produce an entertaining and beneficial game.

Contracts could also include stronger medical protections, travel accommodations and financial provisions for injuries connected to the contest. Schools should schedule these games early enough for recovery and avoid placing an FCS team in multiple major mismatches within a short period.

Most importantly, the athletes must be treated as more than instruments used to balance an athletic department’s budget.

FBS-FCS games can provide revenue, exposure and unforgettable upsets. They can also produce injuries, shattered confidence and humiliating scores that serve neither team particularly well.

The question is not simply whether smaller programs should be permitted to play the giants. It is whether schools can arrange those games responsibly—so the opportunity remains real, the competition remains credible and the players are not asked to pay the highest price for everyone else’s payday.