Expanding on Gundy’s playoff talk can’t hurt
Mike Gundy spouts gobbledygook ideas and flimflam theories during press conferences on a regular basis.
"I like to stir up controversy," he recently joked.
But that doesn't mean he's always wrong.
A week ago, the Oklahoma State coach shared his vision for an expanded playoff system in college football.
He wants eight teams — the champions from each of the Power Five conferences, the best team from the Group of Five conferences and two at-large selections — and while all that isn't different from what many others have suggested, he had a great idea about that Group of Five team.
"Let's just say it's a Boise State," Gundy said. "In most cases, we would all agree that across the board, athletically, Boise wouldn't be in the same level as Alabama.
"So let's put them against the middle-ofthe-road playoff team. Make that a competitive game."
I love that idea. Know what else I love? People all around college football talking about expanding the playoff.
As we approach Saturday's national semifinals, folks from Stillwater to South Beach to SoCal are buzzing about the playoff.
Imagine the hubbub if the field doubled. Some people believe expanding the playoff would surely kill college football. A few argue that the fourteam playoff is already diminishing the importance of the regular season. Nonsense.
More teams in the hunt for playoff spots means more games matter during the regular season. That's simple math.
But here's some other math to consider: expanding the playoff means more teams with more games and more players with more exposure to brain injuries. I'm on record as saying kids shouldn't play tackle football until high school, so I take the scourge of concussions seriously.
Here, then, are three things that should be done when the playoff expands:
•Cut back the regular season. Return to an 11-game regular season as it last was in 2005, and you'll reduce the brain-injury exposure of every player on every college football team in the land.
I understand regularseason games make money for schools. But most lost revenue would be recouped by an expanded playoff because more dollars would be generated. Conference title games could bring in more money, too; if the winner
goes to the playoff, leagues could demand more for such must-see TV.
•Cut back the bowls. There were 25 bowls in 2000. Today, there are 40, including 13 created by ESPN.
I'm not saying the World Wide Leader needs to nix all its bowls, but it has helped create a glut of games. No one goes; have you seen the empty seats? No one watches; nearly half a dozen of the early bowls didn't even get a rating of 1.0 and a couple had less than a million viewers.
There's an argument that an expanded playoff would cheapen the bowls, but the bowls were cheapened when the slate ballooned.
Cutting that glut would not only improve the bowls but also reduce players' exposure to concussions.
•Advocate no-tackle youth football. More and more medical professionals and former players say kids shouldn't play tackle football. Flag football, sure. But young and developing brains shouldn't be exposed to repetitive blows.
College football should join the movement.
Launching a nationwide initiative to back no-tackle youth leagues and push local legislation would be a substantial and lasting legacy.
Listen, the talk about playoff expansion is only going to continue. You've got five power conferences and only four spots. The math doesn't work. But simply add to the playoff, that doesn't work either.
Making changes to reduce the overall exposure to concussions helps balance the equation.