What do we do with the College Football Playoff?

All contents of this piece are the opinions and beliefs of the author, Stephen Polacheck.

The College Football Playoff is not perfect. It never was. No matter how it works, there will always be opposition and issues. It’s better than the BCS, but it isn’t perfect. Should it be 4, 6, 8, 16, or 32 teams? The options are basically endless.

But to fix the Playoff, we must determine the problems first, but what are they?

First, a 13-person committee shouldn’t be the all-knowing group. As it’s impossible to watch every game from every team, there need to be both human and mathematical aspects of ranking the teams. A group that uses the eye test and sees games as more than just data points. But, mathematical components can “watch” all games every weekend. My thought is a 70-30 split between the committee and a series of other ranking systems, of different mathematical approaches. I believe the committee rankings are close, but can be bettered. The Power Digits exist as an unbiased way to rank teams, which *could* be one of the many algorithms, like how the BCS rankings worked. For all hypothetical scenarios mentioned, the CFP rankings are used.

Also, if the committee solely talks about football and the on-field product, why is the public not allowed to watch, or at least get transcripts?

Good teams are missing the playoffs, so we need to give MORE teams a chance! Well, there’s a lot more to that. College Football is magical. There is no better sports environment than a College Football rivalry game. As a Penn Stater and Whiteout regular, I say this with full confidence.

There is an issue with expanding the Playoff beyond the current 4 teams, as you start to lose the magic that makes the sport what it is. When the stakes are high, and the unranked small-conference team can topple a “Blue Blood” and derail their season, that’s magical. When College Gameday comes to town for the primetime battle between unbeatens, for the right to represent the division in the conference championship, that’s magical. When you check your phone from the stands to keep tabs on if your rivals are struggling, that’s magical. College Football is built on the environments and the magic. But why does the expansion bring this magic down?

It starts with teams being allowed a blemish on their records. Yes, lots of 1-loss teams have been in (and won) the Playoff, but they got the bid because everyone else (or enough) lost games too. Since the Playoffs inception in 2014, there have been seven Power 5 1-loss teams that missed the Playoff. (2014: Baylor & TCU, 2015: Iowa & Ohio State, 2017: Wisconsin, 2018: Ohio State, 2020: Texas A&M & Indiana). No undefeated Power 5 team has ever missed the Playoff. If the Playoff expands beyond four, teams with multiple losses will get bids, because they’re the next best to fill out the field.

While this doesn’t seem dramatic, think back to those magical moments. Does Purdue blowing out Ohio State matter as much? Does the LSU-Alabama College Gameday spectacle matter? They do, to a certain extent, the same amount that a Ravens-Steelers game affects the NFL Playoffs. It obviously matters a little, but seasons aren’t defined by those games anymore. They become just 1 of the 12. Expanding changes the idea that the season is on the line every game, and makes it where teams can lose and just live to see another day. Those massive games lose their importance and lose some of the magic.

This can be summed up as the argument for keeping the 4-team playoff, where every regular season game is a playoff game. To make the championship, win your games. If you lose, you better hope other teams lose too. Or better yet, ruin your rivals’ seasons by being their 1 loss.

What about the team that gets left out at number 5? Wherever you put the line, there will always be controversy about who should get the last spot, and who should be the first team to miss out. Whether it’s between 4&5, 6&7, 8&9, or 16&17, there will always be the debates. It gets blurred as you expand out, as the teams at 4&5 have more definitive means of separation, through conference championships and who their single loss is to. Expanding will never remove the controversy.

There is an argument to be made, give spots to the Power 5 champs, the Group of 5 best, and 2 at large. Only once have the 5 champs been 1-5, which was 2014 (Where Baylor/TCU were co-champs and were 5/6 respectively). Twice there was a conference champion outside of the top 8 (2020 Oregon & 2018 Washington). Only twice there were Group of 5 representatives in the top 8, (2020 Cincinnati, 2018 UCF). Yes, an 8-team playoff would look very good on paper, and fit the “top 8”, but here is where it gets dicey.

First, I touched on the loss of the magic. Second, the New Year’s Six bowl games become hogged by only 8 teams, as opposed to the 12 currently represented. Or, the playoff doesn’t use the NY6, and those legendary and historic bowl games lose their importance. Lose-Lose scenario.

The third and biggest argument against the 8 teams? We seem to have our #1 complaint as being the same teams every year. So who are the new faces that get in with expansion? Under the five Power 5 champs and 3 at large format, Wisconsin shows up 3 times, Baylor and Michigan would appear twice, and Penn State, TCU, Mississippi State, Iowa, USC, Stanford, Auburn, and Florida show up once. Of the 28 spots available over 7 years, only 15/28 spots come from teams new to the playoff. Yes, that is an improvement, but remember, there are still 13 times that teams are earning yet another playoff appearance, thus resulting in more of the same matchups.

Using the G5 representative, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin (twice), USC, Notre Dame, and Michigan State lose playoff spots, replaced by Memphis, Cincinnati, UCF (twice), Western Michigan, Boise State, and Houston. These teams all played in NY6 bowls under the current format. In all, we’re cycling through roughly 2 new teams each year, where Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Georgia, and Notre Dame dominate most top-8 spots. Expanding to 8 teams doesn’t shake things up as much as we may think it does. One-off performances in NY6 bowls weren’t changing team’s fortunes forever. We’ve seen Michigan State and Florida State both get a playoff shot, and now they’re just mid-pack of their conference. One appearance does not equate long-term success.

Here is a chart explaining who makes it into the playoffs and how often, over just a 7-year window. With a 16-team playoff, we see 49 different teams, with 26 being there more than once.

If we were to expand the playoff, it should be to 16 teams. The Power 5 conference champs, the best Group of 5 get auto-bids (Only 2020 Oregon, 2019 Memphis, and 2014 Boise State would make it with automatic bids). This is where we get to see plenty of new faces with the opportunity to go beat the “blue bloods.” We build creative and new matchups in hostile and magical environments. THAT is where college football is special.

How do you do this logistically? Think of it like we switch the “week 1” out-of-conference schedule with the first round of the Playoffs. Move up the rest of the schedule and play 11 games. About 2-3 out of conference, and 8-9 in-conference games. Round 1 of the playoffs while school is still in session. Teams 1-8 host the games on their own fields, 9-16 travel. Big-time matchups, on home fields, with full crowds (obviously 2020 can’t have full crowds, but in a post pandemic-world, assume we can).

Everything on the line, with opponents that likely aren’t common to their schedules. In 2020 we would see games like Iowa @ Clemson, Indiana @ Oklahoma, and Georgia @ Cincinnati. Rather than letting teams schedule games 8 years in advance and hoping their opponents are good then, we build it directly into the schedule. We keep seeing teams miss playoff spots because “their schedule was weak.” Let’s give them a week to prove their worth and get those big games against the other best teams.

There are a few drawbacks to the 16-team playoff, and it’s 1) regular season magic is ruined. Yes, and this is why I personally prefer the 4-team playoff. We exchange the magic of the regular season for 1 week of the 8 best games of the season. 2) Would we see blowouts? Of course, but we see them in the current playoff format too, so this changes nothing. 3) Teams may get rematches. In 2020, we would see UNC get another shot at ND, and Northwestern plays Ohio State the week after their Big Ten Championship fight. We give teams redemption after losing the earlier matchup in the season, and to adjust the rankings to flex matchups ruins the integrity of “rankings.” 4) The New Year’s Six will only feature 4 different winners, with 8 competitors. We lose a little bit of the history, the Rose Bowl between the Big Ten and the Pac-12, but 1/3 of years already feature this under the current format.

All of these arguments can also be made for the 8-team playoff. Except the 16 has the “new faces” working for it, which is a solution the #1 problem.

I don’t think the primary issue is in the amount of teams that get in, I think we just need to hope to see some new teams compete at the highest level, and there is much more that goes into that than just playoff appearances. Even with 8-team expanded playoffs, all the perennial contenders winning 1 game sets up the same playoffs as we have now. If you expand it to 16, we get a greater opportunity for upsets, which means greater chance at changed contenders.

I don’t think more teams is better, because I value the regular season and conference titles, but if we’re expanding, let’s make it big. 4 or 16 teams. No more, no less. Pick one of those.

Want to see how it would work? Below is the 16 team bracket for each year of the CFP era: