Put yourself in the mind of a college football player. Imagine having an undefeated season and simply not having a shot to prove your worth as a competitor. Imagine winning a major conference title with only one loss and not having a shot to measure up for all the marbles. Every single person on this planet wants to compete for what they’ve earned. No one in their right mind can declare that a top 4 playoff system is the most effective way to find the best team in college football. Why do we settle for just four when the best team could very well be ranked subjectively at five, seven, ten or even twelve for that matter?
It is far too difficult to determine a “Top 4” without unintentionally leaving a potential championship team out.
The first three years of the new age college football playoff has made one thing abundantly clear. It is far too difficult to determine a “Top 4” without unintentionally leaving a potential championship team out. Since the inception of the playoff, there has been more than one blow out semi-final game (2014 Oregon – Florida St, 2016 Clemson – Ohio State). On one hand, the final scores indicate dominance by one team, but also begs the question that a stronger team potentially was sitting at home thinking about next season instead of lacing up. Would you rather not see two semi-final games featuring teams who have earned their way to that spot? The college football playoff committee has not yet gotten this new system completely right, meaning a potential championship team was wronged.
I am not here to place blame on the committee or bash the work that they have done. I am simply stating that expanding the post-season field to twelve teams will not only make things a bit easier on the committee, but will also make the process more efficient. Human error is part of human nature and is observed commonly in our day-to-day activities. The college football playoff committee is no different. Only allowing four teams into the picture makes the committee prone to more mistakes. Expansion will finally liberate the committee and allow for them to truly get the best teams into the dance. The only way to truly find the best team is to play the games on the field. In every sport, no matter the level, athletes get a shot at a postseason formatted in such a way that the best team is in fact determined on the field.
At-large teams will have to build a resume that is worthy of a spot much like we see in college basketball. The result of this will be less “cupcake” type games that fans often see the top-level FBS teams playing year in and year out.
Is a 12-team playoff expansion realistically achievable? When reviewing the current system, it becomes crystal clear that this is not only realistic but would also be an upgrade to the current format.
You start by implementing an 11-game season as standard practice for all division one FBS schools. The shortening of the season ensures that these student-athletes are not missing too much class and being overworked. An argument can be made that expanding into a deeper playoff system would be taxing on the players. This is a valid argument, but in the new proposed system, scheduling is very similar to the current system. After the regular season concludes, a team under 500. will have played 11 games. A team over 500. but not voted into the playoffs will play 12 games. Then, a small minority of playoff teams will have the chance to play in multiple bowl games while playing somewhere between 12-14 games which is common practice by those at the top today.
This 11-game proposal can be kept quite simple as eight conference games including the conference championship will be required for the automatic qualifying conferences. This eight game challenge will be rewarded as the college football tournament will have six automatic bids which include the conference winners from the SEC, ACC, PAC-12, Big 12, AAC & the Big Ten. The reality is that these 6 conferences play the highest level of division 1 FBS football. A postseason system must reward these top teams for completing their respective conference slates as champions. Scheduling leaves three remaining games that can be scheduled at the coach’s discretion as “out of conference” games. This is where the remaining “at-large” six bids come to the forefront.
Those teams not lucky enough to win the elusive conference title will have other ways to get into the tourney. At-large teams will have to build a resume that is worthy of a spot much like we see in college basketball. The result of this will be less “cupcake” type games that fans often see the top-level FBS teams playing year in and year out. The thought here is that if Clemson wins the ACC and FSU is hoping to get into the dance, they better not have played Delaware State as one of their 3 non-conference games. After the 12 teams have been determined and ranked by the College Football Playoff Committee, the top 4 seeds will receive a bye week while the other eight teams are forced into an early December playoff game.
This postseason tournament can directly coincide with the start and end dates of the current bowl season. 4 weeks will be needed to complete the postseason as well as the bowl season that will run as usual for that same time period. Each year, a total of 11 bowl games will fight for exclusive rights of a “playoff” bowl game. The remaining 30 bowls will match up with theremaining teams who do not make the playoffs. With the new scheduling format, all teams over 500. will be eligible for bowl competition. This creates healthy incentives for all parties involved as the players will fight to make the dance and have the chance to participate in multiple bowl games. The bowls and coinciding corporate sponsorships will also have more primetime opportunities in this playoff-like atmosphere, and the fans have a better, more entertaining solution to the age-old college football problem.
**Top 4 seeds receive a 1st round bye
The proposed 12 team playoff would not do any harm to the current bowl system. You can keep early December bowl games as is, while also providing the same primetime element to the 12-team playoff. This is comparable to how things are run today. For example, in the current 4-team playoff there are three bowls each year that get exclusive rights to “playoff” games in the semi-finals and final. The 12-team playoff allows for more versatility and expansion here as all the top-tier bowls will be placed into primetime playoff slots. Corporate-backed bowls that may not necessarily be in the upper-tier will now be eligible for a playoff slot with primetime marketing and money-making opportunities. It becomes even more of a win-win for all parties involved.
Let’s face it, the college football postseason is laughable in comparison with its hardwood counterpart’s March Madness. There are a lot of games that do not catch the casual fans attention. While this is not a huge issue, it is an issue nonetheless. Once the epic college football roller coaster regular season is over and the post-season begins, why should the industry not try to continue to reel in the casual fan? The only way to successfully do this is to institute this 12-team showdown. The casual fan will want to tune into these big games in mid-December. The increased attention will benefit the non-tournament bowl games as well. More eyes equal out to more marketing opportunities for each individual bowl. This, in turn, benefits the big-money machine that we know as FBS college football.
Viewership, revenues, talent, and marketability are at all-time highs in the sport, yet those in charge are dinosaur-like in their ability to change and make the proper adjustments.
The fans will finally have a true and exciting way to find the best team in college football every year. This can result in the sought after “March Madness” type feel to the postseason that has been forever lacking. Imagine accomplishing an undefeated season and going 13-0 for the first time in school history and champions of the legitimate American Athletic Conference. Not only are you champions of the American, you are a part of the nation’s most prolific offense to go along with a swarming defense. This team, since only winning the American Conference, is left out in today’s “Top 4” format. But, this same Cinderella team goes onto beat an SEC power who beat the two teams we currently see in the national championship (UGA and Alabama). It is a travesty that the University of Central Florida does not get at least a shot to compete for a championship. These types of teams and match-ups are what fans get to see in every other postseason. In the proposed 12-team expansion, the Knights would have had a legitimate shot to show the world their talents while also seeing if anyone could truly knock them off. Why not give this team that chance?
College football has never had this type of feel to its postseason. Sure, a couple games here and there will be incredibly hyped up. Some will live up to this hype, some will not. This is business as usual. Prior to the BCS era, the associated press voted on the best team. Let that sink in. Champions were purely subjective. Not only was the national champion determined by this, but some of these titles were also considered “shared.”
For many reasons, crowning the best team in college football has been a slow developing process that for many years was simply voted on. Up until 1998, the National Championship was voted on by both the associated press and the coaches. For over 100 years (1869-1998), college football has had no official postseason to crown a national champion. This sport is beloved by many and is entrenched in American tradition, but it cannot be stated that the sport is fair and open to all championship-caliber teams. Viewership, revenues, talent, and marketability are at all-time highs in the sport, yet those in charge are dinosaur-like in their ability to change and make the proper adjustments. This historically slow pace to legitimize a true champion in this level of football is hard to wrap one’s head around. The harsh reality faced by the college football community is that their process works. This 4-team playoff along with the other 39 bowls bring in money like you would not believe. Why should the presidents of these schools fix something that they deem as not broken? Why change around scheduling when the current format works? It cannot be denied that the recently instituted 4-team playoff is a large step forward.
However, the answer here lies in effectiveness and efficiency. What the presidents do not realize is that there is more money that can be made with expansion. While the fans do not care about the money that can be made on the backs of these athletes, the brutal truth is that the people who can implement this sort of change care deeply about money. They also are scared to change up a format that works now and has worked in various ways for over 100 years. But, this change is possible and as a fan I ask those in charge to seek this 12-team solution. The NCAA cannot continue to trudge on with a mediocre excuse for a postseason. It cannot take another century to expand from the current format.