College Football Playoff Expansion

-Image via ESPN.com

We are effectively in the dead heat of the college football offseason. All teams have now wrapped up the spring season, we have all gotten too excited watching spring games, just to realize fall camp is still over a month away for most teams. With the recent changes in a fall camp schedule, it is also going to be a different fall camp than we are used to. This just means with less information coming out of fall camp practices, we must take it upon ourselves to keep the discussion going. What a better way to do that than CFP expansion talk!

The issues

Since nearly year two of the College Football Playoff, the talks to increase the playoff field have only gotten louder. The main argument is consistent with parody as after seven years of the playoff, we have only witnessed 11 playoff teams and 4 different National Championship winners. This conversation especially ramped up after an undefeated UCF team in 2017 was snipped from the playoff and even managed to stay undefeated after defeating Auburn in the Peach Bowl. UCF certainly paved the way for further Group of 5 teams to become noticed in the rankings but to this point the committee has not offered anything more to a G5 team than a New Years Six bowl game. This is the exact type of “exclusivity” of the playoff that has analysts and fans alike clamoring for an expanded field. The Alabama, Clemson, and Oklahoma’s of the sport have seemed to create a stronghold on the Playoff which leaves many “worthy” teams to fend for one or two playoff spots. These schools, along with Ohio State, seem to have built a recruiting system that nearly builds off itself that few schools can replicate. The Group of 5 teams missing the playoff is only the tip of the iceberg of CFP issues. We cannot expect to fix them all, but we should damn sure try.

The solution

Most of these issues mentioned above are valid problems that need solutions, however expanding the playoff will not correct these issues. The parody can be tracked back nearly every year to the committee selection. We have had 5+ years of data and it does not appear there is a clear concise way to reach the playoff. While this may be due to rotating members on the committee, its clear there is human error involved. It seems each year the only consistent criterion for making the CFP is to be in the SEC conference. While many see expanding the playoff as another way to include those Group of 5 teams that have put in a good resume, I see it as another way for the committee to include as many SEC teams as possible. While having specific conference champions as auto bids is a good start, that does not leave out the possibility of one of the “best four teams” missing out due to a particularly strong conference. Let us not forget, the main reason the CFP was introduced to replace the BCS, was to consistently find the best four teams to determine the champion. Sometimes that will be a Group of 5 team, but the main goal should not be to shoot for inclusivity. The only real solution is to find a spot in the middle, which is a combination of BCS-like computers and committee-like human rankings. This won't allow for any biases to reign supreme in terms of the selections. As we see with NCAA March Madness, the national champion is not always the assumed “best” team due to the nature of a 68-team tournament. The more the playoff expands, the less important bowl games become. That is a dangerous line to toe, as the “regular season” becoming unimportant is as dangerous to the playoff as parody is. As unfortunate as it is to continue to see the same teams in the playoff each year that is the nature of the top 4. It should not be a surprise the teams who recruit the best, continue to provide the best on field results. Not to mention, these teams also have the luxury of having top coaches in the profession. The solution is not to include everybody, as it is to change up the process of selection. The committee continues to muddy the criteria and expanding the playoff will not solve these issues. The committee could configure the most respected and trustworthy members and these parody issues would continue. As the game evolves, so should the process. We have now tried two extreme sides of the spectrum and neither seem to provide what fans are looking for. Now is time to visit change, lets just make sure it is the right set of changes.