Honestly, I’m surprised in this age of conference expansion and networks that this question isn’t being asked more often.
I bet it will be, though.
Filed under College Football
Makes economic sense but, at what point do we do we get serious about investigating the effects of the additional wear and tear on the (student) athletes? Maybe someone has some data and that should be a factor in the decision, not assumption and supposition. I love college football and probably experience the same off season withdrawal as a lot of other fans but, I sometines wonder if we show sufficient concern for the players.
This kind of defeats the purpose of the Big 10 not playing 1AA schools. Could a major conference team fill a 13 game schedule with only Div 1 schools? In the case of the usual SEC school, that means we would be playing not one but two 1AA schools on a yearly basis. Is that what the masses want?
Although, if conferences turned into super conferences with 16-20 teams, you could see an eventual 13 game schedule with a 10 game conference schedule. Each team would play 13 reg. season games – then there would be 1 conference championship game – then a possible national championship game to make 15 possible games. Sorry for my rambling…just sitting here sipping on a cold one on a Saturday night…
“We’re always looking for the aggregate of marginal gains.” — Kirby Smart, The Athletic, 7/16/19
Subscribe in a reader