Having written four articles about soccer topics, I’m turning to college football. And no, I don’t mean soccer. I mean the kind where the players slam into each other like barbarians. Today, we look at an idea for reforming the College Football Playoff.
Since its implementation in 2014-15, the College Football Playoff has, in a sense, doubled fans’ fun over the BCS regime. Actually, forget doubling the fun. It’s trebled the fun, increasing the number of games in the title chase from one to three. Even top teams that can’t make the CFP can still make a lucrative New Year’s Six bowl. With no restrictions on how many teams a conference can send, the best can truly show themselves as such. Until the New Year’s Six era, the system had limited conferences to two bids apiece. This had kept many worthy programs from Bowl Alliance (1995-98) or BCS (1998-2014) access.
Dissent from Day One
But just because the CFP has made college football more fun doesn’t mean it’s perfect. In the very first year of the new format, ESPN conducted a poll that found 44-percent of FBS head coaches preferred an eight-team setup. Another 17-percent desired 16 teams. By contrast, only 29-percent favored the playoff as it stood. At the time of the poll, the inaugural playoff was still six weeks away!
Even more impressively, a majority of Power-Five coaches at the time (53-percent) opted for the eight-team model. Naturally, the Group of Five coaches who had responded even more believed that the playoff should include at least eight teams. One-quarter insisted that it should have 16 teams.
Six years later, the CFP has completed half its initial 12-year contract. Bill Hancock, CFP executive director, insists that his committee will honor the contract’s provisions. Among these is one that prohibits changing the format of the New Year’s Six or the playoff until the contract expires in 2026. In this year of COVID-19, though, the need exists to reconsider this provision.
A Case Study for CFP Reform
Iowa State, which lost to Louisiana-Lafayette earlier this year, stands seventh in the CFP rankings. This is one spot ahead of unbeaten (and perfectly legit) Cincinnati and 12 clear of the Ragin’ Cajuns who humiliated ISU at Trice Stadium. Nor is the Sun Belt a pushover as in years past. Coastal Carolina not only ravaged Kansas but stopped BYU at the one-yard line, effectively ending the Cougars’ New Year’s Six hopes. The Big 12, by contrast, is a total joke.
The Cyclones could win December 19th’s Big 12 title game and get in despite the weakness of the conference. Only the Pac-12 sucks harder among Power-Five leagues. Basically, ISU would hook up with Alabama, Notre Dame, and former conference rival Texas A&M.
It’s not farfetched. Alabama would need an expected win over Florida, Ohio State would have to slip in the poop against Northwestern, and Notre Dame would need to prove its earlier win over Clemson as no fluke. Meanwhile, Cincinnati could decimate Tulsa in the American championship game, and it would still fall short.
Existing Ideas for Reform
The obvious solution is to expand the CFP. Some would argue that expansion would water down the playoff. After all, if the fifth- or sixth-ranked team at regular season’s end sees fit to complain about exclusion, what of the ninth- or tenth-ranked side under an eight-team format? An eight-team playoff, though, would include enough power-conference teams and usually the best mid-major in the land.
With the first concern, field size, out of the way, I now present two selection ideas. The typical procedure would choose every Power-Five conference champion, the top Group of Five conference champion, and two at-large teams. This, however, would tend to exclude some good-to-great teams, so I would rather stick with the top eight teams, regardless of conference (if any).
To implement the top-eight selection, the committee would utilize an impartial mathematical formula like the RPI. They would use this along with other factors like quality wins, bad losses, and situational strength of schedule. With objective criteria, one problem with the status quo, which is a lack of concrete guidelines, would diminish. Urban Meyer, who had won big-time bowls with Utah, Florida, and Ohio State, noted this on Fox as an analyst in 2019:
“When I hear someone say, ‘look test’ or ‘I think,’ that’s not fair.”@CoachUrbanMeyer addresses the CFP’s selection criteria and breaks down how he would change the system. pic.twitter.com/1kMwILsfdj
— FOX College Football (@CFBONFOX) October 20, 2019
My Addition to the Reform Conversation
Once the committee has selected its eight teams and seeded them, it would address the third and final issue: where those teams would play. Campus sites, though certainly used in the lower levels of college football, may not work in the major-college playoff. What if a given site lacks the capacity or facilities for such a high-profile event as a playoff quarterfinal? The last thing CFP organizers would want is to overcrowd infrastructure on or near university campuses. On the other hand, a predetermined neutral site for each quarterfinal might not be the best idea, either. What if both teams must travel long distances to reach the city where they will face each other?
To address both concerns, I propose what I consider the most original part of my plan. It partly derives from the British Open’s practice of a predetermined “rota” of seaside links courses that can host the event each year. The other part stems from the observance in English soccer’s FA Cup (yes, I know) of neutral semifinal matches. Until 2008, these took place roughly equidistant from both participating teams’ home grounds.
The point I’m making is to have a periodically revised list of suitable neutral sites for all CFP quarterfinals. The committee would select a stadium from the list based on roughly equal distance from each pair of campuses. This would ensure a bowl-like atmosphere for each quarterfinal while allowing both teams’ fan bases to attend en masse. This, of course, depends on COVID-19 recurrences and the like.
Which stadiums would qualify? If possible, teams would travel to warmer cities to play their first-round matchups. But if a northern city makes the most logistical sense, just make sure there’s a roof of some sort, whether fixed or retractable. Not that I hold anything against Ice Bowls. The stadiums chosen would also need a large capacity. After all, the College Football Playoff is a big event, even in what would become its first round. Nothing smaller than 65,000 seats would suffice, even if admission costs an arm and a leg.
If nothing else, Hancock should appreciate my logistical ideas, even if they don’t happen until 2026. But when they do, he will faint and weep with joy.
Remember to check out other articles on Belly Up Sports, with special attention to the college football content. Also, feel free to reach out to me on Twitter @Edwardthescop.
