Why it's a bad idea to further expand college football's playoff field

[big dog cowboy]

Why it's a bad idea to further expand college football's playoff field
By Eric Adelson
Yahoo Sports

For so long there's been steady clamor for a fairer way to crown a college football champion. The BCS arrived in 1998 and soon there was a movement for an expanded playoff. Now we are months into a four-team playoff system and it's already a source of aggravation. The weekly polls from the new selection committee have brought nebulous decisions based on "game control" and "eye tests." So of course it would seem the easy remedy is an eight-team playoff.

ACC commissioner John Swofford said recently that moving to eight would be "ideal," and 44 percent of coaches polled by ESPN agree. Another 17 percent want a 16-team playoff, and there were even votes for a 32-team playoff and a 64-team playoff.

This is all trending in an irresponsible direction. The desire to make things fairer has overlooked something quite unfair: adding games to an already burdensome and risky situation for players. Coaches, commissioners, pundits and fans all love the idea of more games, but those people don't have to go out there and get hit. The people with the most at stake have absolutely no voice in the matter. That's a problem.

The last year without any form of a title game was in 1997, when Michigan and Nebraska each went unbeaten and claimed a national championship. The Cornhuskers played 13 games; Michigan played 12. This season, it's likely that the national champion will play 15 games. That's a 25 percent increase, from 12 to 15, and yet another game would make it 16. So the potential is there for an extra season of games over four years for those who play for contending teams. Over the last decade, we've learned much more about the dangers of hits to the head, both in the short- and long-term. There has been much in the way of research, worry and hand wringing. Yet when talk of expanding the playoffs has come up, that concern for player welfare seems to vanish.

Read more: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-it...football-s-playoff-field-231933058-ncaaf.html

 

[hairic]

Yet, in lower levels of football, they can already play 14 games (or more, I haven't checked) every season with their playoffs. If arguing safety, better to work towards stopping a current danger than prevent a potential one later.

 

[Rogah]

The last year without any form of a title game was in 1997, when Michigan and Nebraska each went unbeaten and claimed a national championship. The Cornhuskers played 13 games; Michigan played 12. This season, it's likely that the national champion will play 15 games. That's a 25 percent increase, from 12 to 15, and yet another game would make it 16. So the potential is there for an extra season of games over four years for those who play for contending teams. Over the last decade, we've learned much more about the dangers of hits to the head, both in the short- and long-term. There has been much in the way of research, worry and hand wringing. Yet when talk of expanding the playoffs has come up, that concern for player welfare seems to vanish.

Well according to this logic, why play football at all? If 12 is better than 15, then 9 is better than 12 and 6 is better than 9. Heck, let's just give them all flags and play flag football instead.

 

[RonSpringsdaman20]

Well according to this logic, why play football at all? If 12 is better than 15, then 9 is better than 12 and 6 is better than 9. Heck, let's just give them all flags and play flag football instead.

patience, coming soon....

 

[Nova]

Yet, in lower levels of football, they can already play 14 games (or more, I haven't checked) every season with their playoffs. If arguing safety, better to work towards stopping a current danger than prevent a potential one later.

Yup. HS playoffs in TX have 6 rounds en route to the state championship.

 

[jterrell]

This argument is left over from about 1980.
And it's just as patently silly now as it was then.

If collegiate players suffer undue burden from playing 13+ games then it it is worth studying means to keep them at such a total time played.
BUT, there are far more reasonable and effective ways then capping a playoff total that might effect 2-4 teams.
Thinking 2-4 teams game total is an issue is well, stupid.
It is 100 teams playing 12 games that last 3 hours that matter. Not 2 teams playing 14 instead of 12 or 13 from a previous decade.

You could EASILY shorten games via rules changes that allow the clock to run unhindered until 5 mins left. OR reduce quarters a couple minutes.

But while we are talking good ole days perhaps it helps to study how much LESS practice time and team commitment time the current players put in.
All the rules to limit practice time that were non-existent previously.
Are these current players really spending more time playing football?
Doubtful.

 

[Biggems]

This is my feelings on college football, and it would shake the pillars of hell, as jack burton would say.

Make it 128 D-1 schools
Divide the teams up into 8 conferences
Each conference has 16 teams, divided into two 8 team divisions.
These conferences are divided regionally (all the Florida schools would be in the same conference, as would all the Texas schools).
It would kill some rivalries, but others would remain, but would also start new rivalries.

Each team plays the other 7 divisional teams, 4 teams from the other division, and 1 non-conference team
Each division winner advances to the Conference Championship
Each Champion advances to the Football Championship Tournament.
Use a lottery to pick the 4 matchups and then the 2 matchups the following week.

The two remaining teams play for the Championship.

While this is all going on, during the weeknights , the other lesser bowl games can take place.

 

[Ren]

Just have the Champions of all the major conferences play, no need for eye tests or style points