[Editor's note: This is part of a series examining the real world constraints on any proposed postseason design. For the previous entries is is best to start at the introduction of the series. This is derived from pages 84 and 85 of my plan to fix the BCS]

This is one of the key arguments used by the BCS proponents to defend the current system. Football is a violent sport that risks serious injury. Added games between the top teams will increase to number of injuries as the injury rate will be similar or exceed normal games and more exposures generates more injuries on average.

Fans and TV executives would certainly consume as many games as the NCAA would allow, thus this constraint is a negative for them. This is often a source of departure from the postseason realities that populist designs intentionally make.

This issue was what lead to the formation of the NCAA, originally commissioned to implement rule changes to promote the safety of players, especially in the sport of football. The NCAA has done a tremendous job of increasing the safety of the players, as exemplified by the recent focus on reducing concussions. I will discuss how I feel the NCAA has overstepped their bounds by running tournaments next week.

The participants in the FCS championship game currently participate in up to sixteen games. The NCAA is unlikely to expand the number of allowed games beyond this limit.

A standard regular season consists of twelve regular season games. Additional games can be added if a team travels to or is Hawaii or if they qualify for a conference championship game. This allows thirteen games for many
championship teams and fourteen for some.

This limits the number of rounds to three and the number of teams to eight. Each additional round would require one more week (or conference championship games) to be removed from the regular season while doubling the number of potential participants.

Comparisons to NFL schedules are unfounded due to the fact that student athletes are not millionaire professionals and collegiate injury rates are comparable and often medical expenses are less funded than for NFL players.

A look at several prominent alternative designs next:

Old Bowl System

There was no change in the number of games between the old bowl system and the establishment of the BCS. The NCAA has recently expanded the regular season by a game, indicating these are not currently an issue.

BCS

The BCS inherits its athlete friendly season length from the old bowl system that it spawned from.

A Tier Based Plus-One

Adding a game would remain within (and usually be a game shorter than) the season lengths of FCS champions. Any plus one design is well within this criteria

A Flexible Championship System

This design restricts the maximum number of games to exactly that of the FCS championship participants, particularly in its allowance of 14-0 teams to be directly seeded into the semifinals.

MWC Proposal

This design mostly stays within the sixteen game constraints except for cases where a teams plays an extra game for traveling to (or being from) Hawaii and then earning a trip to a conference championship game, when a team would play seventeen games if they won the first two rounds.

This is a possibility most designs fail to consider.

Enhanced Bowl Season

With the claim that only sixteen games total would be played, this design maximizes the number of games that are likely to be allowed.

This plan does not specify how it addresses conference championships or extra games for trips to Hawaii.

The Wetzel Plan

Dan Wetzel admits to allowing up to seventeen games in his design. This ignores the possibility of gaining an extra two games for a team playing at Hawaii and in a conference championship game, which would create eighteen game schedules.