PONTIFICATING FROM THE SUNSHINE STATE – JANUARY 13
By Leo Haggerty

CALLING AN AUDIBLE

We’re doing a little switching this week with our lineup because the Buccaneers are still alive in the playoffs.  Because of that, Senior Writer Rob Kriete has been swamped with interview requests while I covered the Lightning.

With that being said, we’re moving his Game On column till Thursday and my Pontificating post up to today.  I hope that hasn’t caused you, or loyal readers, too much consternation.

After Alabama trashed Ohio State to the tune of 52-24, there have been some rumblings by the media that cover college football about a lack of parity.  Well, let’s take a look at that statement in depth.

So, let’s start with a little history.  With the inception of the College Football Playoffs system seven seasons ago, four teams are chosen each year by the Selection Committee.  Those teams are ranked with #1 playing #4 and #2 playing #3 with the winners meeting in the CFP Championship game.

If we do the math, which I always strongly encourage, there have been a possible 28 slots in the CFP.  Still, only 11 programs have been invited to the dance.

The parade is led by Alabama and Clemson.  Both the Crimson Tide, who have won three times, and the Tigers, who have taken home the hardware twice, have participated in six of the seven tournaments.

There are only three other teams that have been in the CFP multiple times.  Ohio State, winners of the first playoff, and Oklahoma have been selected four times along with Notre Dame who have punched their ticket twice.

Only one of the six squads that have only made a singular appearance have ended up taking home the trophy.  That happened last season when LSU emerged victorious.

As you can plainly see, the complaint isn’t about parity.  It’s more about Clemson and Alabama being almost perennial participants.

Some well known scribes have pushed the idea that the four teams that do go the CFP should be penalized.  They have even suggested that each of the four schools have their scholarships reduced by five, or even ten, for the upcoming year.

To even suggest that is ludicrous.  The punish a team for winning just isn’t right but they are correct in their assumption that the NCAA needs to do something.  Let me suggest a resolution to this dilemma.

I would propose what I believe would be a better solution.  Any program that is not rewarded for a successful season with a bowl game will be permitted to have five extra days of spring practice plus five extra days in the fall.

Under this format, it doesn’t stop he rich from continuing to get richer.  What it does do is give the teams at the bottom a realistic chance to move up.

As Mr. Spock would say, this plan sounds logical.  Should I take it to the NCAA?  How does it sound to you folks?