Movie quote of the day:
“What about my prime, Mick? At least you had a prime! I had no prime, I had nothin’!”
– Rocky Balboa, “Rocky” (1976)
It’s been in the works for a little over a year, but it’s now official that the College Football Playoff will expand to 12 teams starting in 2024.
Under the new format, the first round of the Playoff will be held at either the home field of the higher-seeded team or at another site designated by the higher-seeded team. The quarterfinal and semifinal games will be played in bowls (Cotton Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Orange Bowl, Peach Bowl, Rose Bowl, and Sugar Bowl) on a rotating basis. Cities around the country will continue to bid to host the national championship.
The top four seeds, and the teams that will get first-round bye weeks, will be determined by the highest ranked conference champions in the selection committee’s rankings. The other eight spots will be determined by the next highest ranked teams, including a guaranteed spot for a Group of 5 representative.
If the new format was implemented this year, this is what the Playoff seeding/matchups would look like:
Top four teams:
No. 1 Georgia (13-0)
No. 2 Michigan (13-0)
No. 3 Clemson (11-2)
No. 4 Utah (10-3)
First round matchups:
No. 9 Kansas State (10-3) at No. 8 Tennessee (10-2)
No. 12 Tulane (11-2) at No. 5 TCU (12-1)
No. 11 Penn State (10-2) at No. 6 Ohio State (11-1)
No. 10 USC (11-2) at No. 7 Alabama (10-2)
College football fans have been pounding the table for changes to the postseason for decades. It started with a simple structured format, which is how we got the BCS. Then, we wanted more of the pro model, which is how we got the Playoff. Unlike most college football fans, though, I haven’t been one to argue for an expanded playoff. It’s not because I don’t want the chance to watch more football (I do), nor that I’m worried that it might lessen the regular season (I’m not convinced that it will), nor that I’m against making money (I’m a capitalist).
So, what’s my issue with an expanded postseason? It comes down to the lack of parity in college football.
We’ve had a four-team playoff since 2014. During that time, we’ve had only 14 schools make an appearance. For context, there are currently 131 schools at the FBS level, which includes the Power 5 and Group of 5 conferences, and 65 of those schools (including Notre Dame) are members of Power 5 conferences. Thirteen of the 14 schools that have appeared in the Playoff have come from the Power 5 conferences and one from a Group of 5 conference (until next year).
That’s a mere 20% of Power 5 schools and 10.6% of FBS schools have made an appearance in the Playoff, which obviously isn’t a high percentage. Plus, five of those 13 Power 5 schools have made at least three appearances in nine years. So, close to 40% of the teams that have made the Playoff have been there more than once.
I realize that having a four-team playoff means fewer teams getting opportunities. However, when you factor in that five schools have used up 25 of the 36 playoff spots, the list of schools actually competing to win the national championship is very exclusive.
On top of that, the Playoff games haven’t been that competitive. The winning teams in the semifinal games have outscored the losing teams 617-280. Only three of the 16 semifinal games have been decided by one possession. The losing team in nine of those 16 games has been held to 20 or fewer points.
Yes, you’re reading those numbers right. Just take a look:
| Year | Winner | Points | Loser | Points |
| 2014 | No. 2 Oregon | 59 | No. 3 Florida State | 20 |
| No. 4 Ohio State | 42 | No. 1 Alabama | 35 | |
| 2015 | No. 1 Clemson | 37 | No. 4 Oklahoma | 17 |
| No. 2 Alabama | 38 | No. 3 Michigan State | 0 | |
| 2016 | No. 1 Alabama | 24 | No. 4 Washington | 7 |
| No. 2 Clemson | 31 | No. 3 Ohio State | 0 | |
| 2017 | No. 3 Georgia | 54 (OT) | No. 2 Oklahoma | 48 (OT) |
| No. 4 Alabama | 24 | No. 1 Clemson | 6 | |
| 2018 | No. 1 Alabama | 45 | No. 4 Oklahoma | 34 |
| No. 2 Clemson | 30 | No. 3 Notre Dame | 3 | |
| 2019 | No. 1 LSU | 63 | No. 4 Oklahoma | 28 |
| No. 3 Clemson | 29 | No. 2 Ohio State | 23 | |
| 2020 | No. 1 Alabama | 31 | No. 4 Notre Dame | 14 |
| No. 3 Ohio State | 49 | No. 2 Clemson | 28 | |
| 2021 | No. 1 Alabama | 27 | No. 4 Cincinnati | 6 |
| No. 3 Georgia | 34 | No. 2 Michigan | 11 | |
| Point total | 617 | 280 |
The national championships haven’t been that competitive either:
| Year | Winner | Points | Loser | Points |
| 2014 | No. 4 Ohio State | 42 | No. 2 Oregon | 20 |
| 2015 | No. 2 Alabama | 45 | No. 1 Clemson | 40 |
| 2016 | No. 2 Clemson | 35 | No. 1 Alabama | 31 |
| 2017 | No. 4 Alabama | 26 (OT) | No. 3 Georgia | 23 (OT) |
| 2018 | No. 2 Clemson | 44 | No. 1 Alabama | 16 |
| 2019 | No. 1 LSU | 42 | No. 3 Clemson | 25 |
| 2020 | No. 1 Alabama | 52 | No. 3 Ohio State | 24 |
| 2021 | No. 3 Georgia | 33 | No. 1 Alabama | 18 |
| Point total | 319 | 197 |
Remember back in the days of the BCS when we thought there were plenty of teams good enough to win the national championship? That’s why the four-team playoff was created, so that the schools that we thought weren’t getting a fair shake from the computer would get an opportunity. The four-team playoff format was designed to include the best of the best teams in college football on a yearly basis. However, I think the four-team playoff format has demonstrated is that there is a clear gap between the top programs with the rest of the country. That’s why only six of the 24 semifinal games/national championships that have been played have been decided by one possession.
Is the selection committee to blame for the lopsided results in the Playoff and national championships? Is it not getting the right four teams on a yearly basis? Possibly. I’ve had my issues with the committee over the years, but I actually think it’s been right more times than it’s been wrong when it comes to choosing the top four teams. My criticism of the committee has usually come from how it’s ranked teams outside of the top four spots.
Now, I want to be clear that I think some good can come from expanding the Playoff to 12 teams:
- More opportunities for schools: As a lifelong fan and alumnus of a Tier 2 school, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t want to see it have a better chance to compete in the Playoff every season.
- It should all but guarantee that the committee will get the teams right on a yearly basis: The argument every year is if the committee got the top four teams right and if the fifth- or sixth-best team in the rankings were snubbed. With 12 teams now getting in, that argument should be put to rest. However, there will still be the argument if the teams outside the top 10 were snubbed.
- No more punishing teams for playing in a conference championship: One of the dumbest customs that we’ve accepted over the years is to punish schools for losing a conference championship. One of the best examples of this came in 2017. That year, Auburn beat Alabama in the Iron Bowl, rose to No. 2 in the committee’s rankings, and represented the SEC West division in the conference championship. Auburn went on to lose to Georgia – a team it beat in the regular season – in the SEC Championship. The committee dropped Auburn five spots the following week and put Alabama in the Playoff. Auburn then had to compete in the Peach Bowl and watch Alabama go on to win the national championship. I’ve always hated that custom because it makes zero sense. A team shouldn’t be punished for playing in a 13th game, and another team shouldn’t be rewarded because it didn’t have to play a 13th game. With the committee keeping TCU in the Playoff this year despite losing its conference championship, I think we might be seeing the end to that custom. That’s especially going to be true with an expanded playoff.
I’ll wrap this post up by saying that there isn’t enough talent spread out to justify expanding the Playoff. There’s a parity problem in college football right now. The lopsided results of the semifinal games/national championships prove that. Do you think the lower seeded teams have a realistic chance of knocking off the No. 1 or No. 2 team in the quarterfinal round on a yearly basis? The evidence shows that the answer to that question is no.
With college football being so top heavy, why would the powers that be choose to expand the Playoff? We all know the answer to that is money. Adding more schools means more games, which means more money lining everyone’s pockets.
Yes, an expanded playoff will lead to more opportunities for the Tier 2 and Tier 3 schools to crack the Playoff. However, it’s also going to lead to more opportunities for the Tier 1 schools that haven’t been able to crack the four-team playoff so far. Let’s not kid ourselves, those are the schools that have the most to gain from this decision. The committee is much more likely to choose Tier 1 schools with large alumni bases that can move the needle, which will lead to even more money, over the Tier 2 or Tier 3 that don’t have the same amount of resources.
My thought process has always been that, if you want to expand the Playoff, add two more teams and give bye weeks to the two highest-ranked teams. Instead, we’re diving headfirst into the deep end by adding eight schools. I’m not convinced that that’s necessary and will only lead to more lopsided results.
Like everyone else, though, I’ll still tune in to watch.
All Things Sports from a Millennial 