ADVERTISEMENT

Would more parity in college football be a good thing?

OhioIllini

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
22,338
9,470
113
The fourth quarter last night, maybe more specifically the second half of the fourth quarter, demonstrated how both teams' defenses can become tired to the point of ineffectiveness. It made for an exciting finish, no doubt. Is this good for college football?

Clemson and Alabama are at the pinnacle of the sport. They can recruit like few teams can and have more depth than all but a small handful of schools such as tOSU, OU, ND, etc. (we all know the list). If Clemson and Alabama don't have enough depth to play high-level defense at the end of a game, how can all of the other teams even hope to finish a game strongly? In some respects, college football has become a game of who can recruit the most players who can play effectively.

I think shortening the games will help parity. Teams that now need eight guys to rotate on the DL wouldn't have such an advantage over those who only have, say, six. By my count, there were 165 plays from scrimmage in last night's game, 99 of those by Clemson. We don't, IMHO, need games as short as ones in the NFL but maybe a few rule changes would keep games from becoming such wars of attrition that only the deepest, most established, teams can survive and win.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Member-Only Message Boards

  • Exclusive coverage of Rivals Camp Series

  • Exclusive Highlights and Recruiting Interviews

  • Breaking Recruiting News

Log in or subscribe today