[stupac2]

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

I've never understood the "too many games" argument. FCS teams play a 24-team playoff, which means the winner could end up playing as many as 5 playoff games, which is how many you'd get in the FBS with conference championships and a 16-game playoff (which, incidentally, I think is an unnecessary number of games given that every conference will have a championship game soon). It looks like FCS teams play fewer regular-season games, but from what I'm seeing 11 is the norm. So they're already playing the same number of games that we'd see with an 8-team playoff. Why is it acceptable for them but not for FBS? The only argument I can see is that the injury risk per game is lower in FCS because of the lower average athletic ability, but I'm not sure that actually makes sense and if it were true then it's definitely a reason to ban FBS-FCS games.

Anyway, we've been over this enough so I don't see the need to hash it out any further. But I will say that if you honestly think that the first round of a hypothetical 8-team playoff would've been boring this year or last, you need to have your head examined. Guaranteeing that the top teams play each other is awesome! And it's not something we always get.

[stupac2]

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

I've never understood the "too many games" argument. FCS teams play a 24-team playoff, which means the winner could end up playing as many as 5 playoff games, which is how many you'd get in the FBS with conference championships and a 16-game playoff (which, incidentally, I think is an unnecessary number of games given that every conference will have a championship game soon). It looks like FCS teams play fewer regular-season games, but from what I'm seeing 11 is the norm. So they're already playing the same number of games that we'd see with an 8-team playoff. Why is it acceptable for them but not for FBS? The only argument I can see is that the injury risk per game is lower in FCS because of the lower average athletic ability, but I'm not sure that actually makes sense and if it were true then it's definitely a reason to ban FBS-FCS games.

Anyway, we've been over this enough so I don't see the need to hash it out any further. But I will say that if you honestly think that the first round of a hypothetical 8-team playoff would've been boring this year or last, you need to have your head examined. Guaranteeing that the top teams play each other is awesome! And it's not something we always get.