As more and more research comes out about the inherent dangers and risks to football players, the NCAA is going to need to be more proactive than they’ve been so far on the issue of player safety.
The NCAA is an organization that typically struggles to make common sense decisions, which likely stems from the fact that it’s an organization built upon irreconcilable principles. But, for once, they might have found their way to an idea that has limited downside:
D-1 council is recommending a mandatory 14-week football season. In other words, everyone will get two bye weeks.
— Dan Wolken (@DanWolken) January 18, 2017
To clarify, the 14-week season isn't a formal proposal yet. It was discussed, sounds like it will be a priority.
— Dan Wolken (@DanWolken) January 18, 2017
This change would have a few effects. The number of games played would stay unchanged, but they’d effectively be spread out across a longer calendar. For players, it means an extra week of recovery, which can go a long way for all injuries, and could perhaps even serve to aid injury prevention.
It would cut further back into the summer, but then that time was already spent practicing and scrimmaging; obviously this could have an effect on the current practice time calendar as well. There are plenty of moving parts still to be ironed down, but on the surface, it’s hard to see anything but a potential positive impact for players.
Broadcasters would likely be happier than not. It would give networks an extra week of inventory, and while it might thin out a few weekends, it could also allow for more eyes on games that otherwise might have aired at the same time. Plus, even bad college football tends to do decent business, as evidenced by each and every bowl season.
So, what we seem to have here is an NCAA proposal that makes sense for everyone, with chief benefit being the well-being of college athletes. That almost seems too good to be true. And it might be.
First, this hasn’t even been adopted yet. They could still back out, or amend the proposal in a way that ends up stripping out the beneficial aspects. But what’s perhaps more concerning is that this could just be a stepping stone to adding a game to the season.
In the current climate, outright adding a game would be public opinion suicide for the NCAA. By introducing an extra week to the season in this manner first, it’s a move that would stir up zero resistance while actually garnering positive press. Then, a few years down the road, they’d have a slightly easier path to adding another game week to the season.
You can imagine the strategy, without even trying that hard. Something like: “This move doesn’t take away from our student-athletes academic calendar, since we’re not adding any length to the season; we’re just taking advantage of time already allotted….the ratings since we moved to the new calendar have only shown that the public has an appetite for the sport…” Etc.
Now, is it possible the NCAA is not scheming this far ahead when it comes to potential future revenue streams, and actually does have the best interests of players in mind? Sure.
Anything’s possible.
But they haven’t exactly earned the benefit of the doubt.
