In college football, every game matters.
One loss can turn your season from Touchdown Jesus into a
shiftless bum on the side of a library in a split second, and one
win can carry your year from nothing to magical before you can say
“shake and bake.”
However, as you may have noticed, college basketball is nothing
like that. One loss doesn’t really matter in the long run
““ as long as it’s not your last ““ and one win is
just another notch on your belt. With over 30 games on the regular
season schedule, every game is still exciting but there’s
hardly the emotional trauma that comes with a loss on the
gridiron.
So the plan I’m prepared to offer is unheard of,
revolutionary and maybe just plain dumb.
Let’s add a few more games to the football calendar. And
by a few, I mean 20.
I really see no negatives to this course of action.
We would probably end up playing football into June but who ever
complained of too much football? Sure as hell not me.
Every team could play their conference foes three times ““
home, away and at a neutral site for good measure, and most likely,
nobody would go 32-0. And if they did, they would be the undisputed
greatest team of all time, by far.
The players would get an opportunity to break every record in
the book. Imagine a quarterback throwing for 10,000 yards in one
season. And think of how fun it would be seeing Stanford go
1-31.
There would be none of this one-loss team playing in the
championship game instead of an undefeated team nonsense because
not only would every team have a loss, but we could also play the
championship game two out of three.
Lose the first one? Oh well, you’ve got two more. It would
be great for football followers and non-fans as well. Everyone
knows the best commercials are during the big games. That means
more than double the amount of commercials and double the amount of
Terry Tate the Office Linebacker.
A 32-game season would bring in millions of dollars to the NCAA,
and in turn back to the schools. Imagine the profit UCLA would turn
on an additional 10 home games a year. We could probably afford to
keep Panda Express open later on Sundays. And until 11 p.m. during
the week. But, slightly less important, it would also prepare
athletes better for the NFL.
I’m fairly sure that nobody would argue that the new breed
of college players would not be ready for the so-called strenuous
16-game season of the pros. In fact, rookies would be so
well-seasoned that they would dominate immediately.
Some might say that players would get injured, games would not
be as meaningful and a 32-game year would be just reckless. Not to
mention all of the coaches that would get fired mid-season ““
Stanford would probably burn through a few. People might get so
bored by the end of the season that they would revert to
watching
NASCAR. That could be bad.
But you’ve got to look at the big picture. Let’s say
your team takes a close loss against a highly ranked opponent early
in the season. Wouldn’t you want a second or third crack at
them? I’m sure the players would.
Also, it would be more like basketball in that you could
directly see the effects of home-field advantage. In the current
system, you never know how good a team is when they win at home and
how much is just the fans.
If you had two teams split a season series by a small point
differential, you would easily be able to tell how much home-field
advantage actually helps.
The expanded season would provide something to do between the
Super Bowl and baseball season. This would probably lower the
national death rate and boost the economy. It would work wonders
all around.
A 32-game season as a whole would be great for everyone. Players
would welcome it. Fans would love it. And we’d all get more
Terry Tate.
E-mail Feder at jfeder@media.ucla.edu if you have any objections
to his foolproof plan.