12-10-2015, 04:23 PM
It wasn't long ago that most teams played 11 games, and some (bowl invitees, who were a minority of Div 1A) played 12.
Now every team plays at least twelve, more than half (there were 40 bowls, so 80 teams went, including some that were 5-7) play 13. Teams that go to their conference championship play 14, and those who play in the conference championship and the playoff final play 15. That's a 25% increase in number of games played from just a couple decades ago. As we are finding out more about the health effects of repeated blows, I have to wonder whether more games is necessarily better. I'm all for "more football", but the athletes are going to face the consequences of more football in the future.
I'd like to go back to 11 games, so that teams can schedule two bye weeks during the year. Yeah, it sucks to have a week without football, but the extra week to rest would be a good thing.
I don't necessarily want another round of playoffs. Another round of playoffs means likely a 16th game for a couple teams. At what point do you say that's too much?
The marginal benefit of including more teams in the playoffs just doesn't seem worth it. I don't think there is anything inherently unfair about having four playoff spots for 5 power-5 conferences. I don't think we were screwed out of the playoffs this year, because even though I think we might be competitive with several of the playoff teams, I don't think we can make a claim to being the best team in college football. The more playoff rounds there are, the less interesting the first few playoff rounds are, the less interesting the non-conference season is, and the less important conference games become. There was something to the fact that every game we played after Northwestern was absolutely critical.
There will always be controversy no matter what "system" you make. Someone will always feel unfairly left out. I don't think that an alternative system, say, with eight teams, would necessarily be worse, but it wouldn't be better either. Mostly, it would just change the character of college football.
BC
Now every team plays at least twelve, more than half (there were 40 bowls, so 80 teams went, including some that were 5-7) play 13. Teams that go to their conference championship play 14, and those who play in the conference championship and the playoff final play 15. That's a 25% increase in number of games played from just a couple decades ago. As we are finding out more about the health effects of repeated blows, I have to wonder whether more games is necessarily better. I'm all for "more football", but the athletes are going to face the consequences of more football in the future.
I'd like to go back to 11 games, so that teams can schedule two bye weeks during the year. Yeah, it sucks to have a week without football, but the extra week to rest would be a good thing.
I don't necessarily want another round of playoffs. Another round of playoffs means likely a 16th game for a couple teams. At what point do you say that's too much?
The marginal benefit of including more teams in the playoffs just doesn't seem worth it. I don't think there is anything inherently unfair about having four playoff spots for 5 power-5 conferences. I don't think we were screwed out of the playoffs this year, because even though I think we might be competitive with several of the playoff teams, I don't think we can make a claim to being the best team in college football. The more playoff rounds there are, the less interesting the first few playoff rounds are, the less interesting the non-conference season is, and the less important conference games become. There was something to the fact that every game we played after Northwestern was absolutely critical.
There will always be controversy no matter what "system" you make. Someone will always feel unfairly left out. I don't think that an alternative system, say, with eight teams, would necessarily be worse, but it wouldn't be better either. Mostly, it would just change the character of college football.
BC