(12-06-2017 12:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 11:31 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 11:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 09:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 08:35 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  health concerns issue is totally bogus. 4 of the 8 play just one game just like now. 4 play 2 games like 2 do now. Only 2 teams play 1 extra game. Bottom line is nothing changes for 126 of the 130 BCS schools.

I guess there should be data on whether there are more injuries in FBS or FCS? If, because FBS athletes are bigger/faster/stronger than FCS athletes, injuries are more frequent in FBS, then that would support the notion that a 16 or 24 team playoff isn't a good idea from a health POV for FBS.

If not, then not.

There is. The three service academies have done their own homework and have concluded that playing against the larger players in the P5 and top G5 schools is not sustainable for their athletes if those schools comprise the majority of their annual schedules. The average 80lbs of weight they give up across the O & D lines has significantly raised their number of injuries.

Then they should drop to FCS, or sit out the playoffs.

I think they will be in the FCS some day. But it's probably a point of contention with the old guys and new commandants. The younger leadership sees it as counterproductive to the mission of the school to play in the G5/P5 in as much as they are heavily invested in the cadets who play and when they suffer a "career" ending injury that investment is lost. The objective remains producing career military officers. They see sports, especially football as being good for the development of character under pressure and leadership. But their height and weight restrictions put them at a severe disadvantage in the days of 6'7'' 350lb defensive ends.