01-03-2019, 11:19 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2019, 11:48 AM by Bruce Wang.)
I used to think the traditionalists opposing the playoff system were being a bunch of pearl-clutching fuddy duddies. I was wrong; they were right. At first the playoffs were amazing, but now I feel like the kid that ate too much Halloween candy. Ruining the bowl games was an expected consequence. What I failed to anticipate was all the players skipping the bowl games. Also the bowl system either masked or prevented the concentration of talent in a small handful of schools. Using the lure of the playoffs, the Bamas of the world get to pick their entire class from the sandlot first and then it's Ohio State's turn. If it's Alabama and Clemson every year, people will lose interest. Look no further than an article from ESPN defending Alabama v Clemson as being good for college football. A classic example of the lady doth protest too much.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...ampionship
The NCAA needs to figure out ways to introduce parity. Self-serving idea #1: 4+2 format to give the non-power conference schools a chance and increase the probability that each power conference champion will get a chance. Another self-serving idea reduce the number of scholarships. This will spread the talent around with the added benefit of introducing greater incentive to keep scholar-athletes out of trouble and academically eligible.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...ampionship
The NCAA needs to figure out ways to introduce parity. Self-serving idea #1: 4+2 format to give the non-power conference schools a chance and increase the probability that each power conference champion will get a chance. Another self-serving idea reduce the number of scholarships. This will spread the talent around with the added benefit of introducing greater incentive to keep scholar-athletes out of trouble and academically eligible.
