As college football continues to tinker with its postseason, some solutions seem much more promising than others
The only inevitability in college football is change. Over the sport’s illustrious history, there have been endless transformations on and off the field, but certainly one of the biggest has been the arrival of the College Football Playoff. The creation of a National Championship Game took over 100 years, but just 16 seasons later, it was determined that the field needed to be expanded to four teams.
We all know what happened next. 10 years later, four became 12, and all signs point to that 12 becoming 16 after just a couple more seasons. Given that change is indeed inevitable, 16 might not last long either, but it does feel like this is the latest landing point until we see another big wave of realignment. Is this good for the sport? Is college football completely broken? It all depends on how the expansion is executed.
The more the merrier
The obvious benefit to an expanded playoff is involving more teams. Even in the four-team landscape, it felt like only six to eight programs had a chance before the season ever started. The Florida State debacle was an extreme case, but this was clearly set up to benefit the sport’s elite. Now, with NIL in full flight and the transfer portal alive and well, talent is distributed much more broadly, giving many teams the ability to fight for a championship, should they be given a chance.
16 teams might feel like a lot, but that is still barely over 10 percent of the entire sport. Smaller conference teams have an actual path into the CFP and so many schools remain in contention heading into November. No longer does a September loss or even a couple defeats in the first half of the season completely ruin one’s playoff hopes before the final month even arrives. A bigger playoff means more meaningful games down the stretch, and that is a good thing — we like more football!
Purists will lament that regular season games will mean slightly less because of this expansion, and that cannot be denied. What felt like do-or-die games in October will now have slightly lower stakes, but will teams actually try less now? Will fans no longer care about the outcomes of these games? Of course not. To me, this is a small price to pay to get more games with tangible stakes in November instead of two 8-2 teams playing for an eventual spot in the Citrus Bowl.
5 + 11 = meh
Should the CFP expand to 16 teams, there are essentially two main models being considered. The first is the most straightforward: five conference champions and 11 at-larges (with both models using straight seeding, as voted upon last month). This is the most familiar structure and clearly the easiest to understand, following that of many other sports.
I strongly dislike this model for three reasons. For one, it continues to give the CFP Committee a ton of authority. Is anyone ever happy with that group? Then why keep letting them run the show! At-larges require human decision-making, which only breeds controversy and bias. Secondly, it maintains the concept of trying to minimize losses. While three-loss teams can (and will) make the 16-team playoff, the final few spots are almost certainly going to be decided by the better record by said flawed committee, incentivizing teams to play it safe.
Finally, the reason why this model has supporters compared to the second option below is because it ostensibly keeps the sport equally open to all conferences. This is the most short-sighted argument I have ever heard. Would anyone really be surprised to see the Big Ten and SEC take seven, eight, nine these at-large spots some day? Even with talent spreading out more throughout the sport, history has shown us exactly how this will play out. The committee favors the big-name programs, and now over two-thirds of the spots would be made available to them.
Do not automatically disqualify this model
The alternative model sounds slightly dirty, but is completely reasonable to anyone willing to objectively view the current state of the sport. Most commonly called the 4-4-2-2-1-3, this structure gives the Big Ten and SEC four spots automatically, gives two to the ACC and Big XII, and one to the next best conference champion, leaving just three at-larges. It does sound like an invitational, but hear me out.
The biggest benefit here is that it can bring new life to the regular season. Teams will no longer need to schedule a bunch of non-conference cupcakes, as automatic berths come through conference play, being actually earned through records instead of selected by the committee. Marquee non-conference wins will provide important seeding boosts, but a loss is far less detrimental than in the 5+11 model.
This format also leads to some sort of conference play-in event. For example, the Big Ten could have the No. 3 and No. 6 seeds play for a spot, with No. 4 and No. 5 doing the same. This would be absolutely riveting television, with a playoff berth on the line against a conference foe. Each game of the regular season would mean a ton, with potential home field advantage at stake for these play-in games. Sign me up!
Finally, yes it does favor the Big Ten and SEC, but as discussed above, these conferences are ahead of the rest anyway. Limiting their berths to a finite quantity —- while ensuring the other major conferences get in multiple teams themselves — is a perfectly acceptable middle ground for the sport. It might feel a little yucky at first to gift these conferences this format, but it is highly likely the 5+11 model would turn out this way anyway…with the regular season feeling less important.