College Football Needs to Expand Playoffs

College Football

College Football Needs to Expand Playoffs

Every season, it seems, college football finds itself a victim to its own process. Who deserves to be in the playoffs? Who deserves to be out? The ongoing debate of which universities deserve to be in college football’s playoff system is as warranted as it is frustrating.

Since moving from the Bowl Championship System (BCS), a process in which a formula determined the championship game, the debate still continues on who is the real national champion and who deserves to be in the playoffs.

What We Have Currently

The current format, known as the plus-one system, sees four out of 130 schools make the postseason. These four schools are chosen by a ‘College Football Playoff Committee’ compromised of 13 individuals with current or past experience in the game. According to the College Football Playoff website, there are five different criteria for selecting the four playoff schools.

1. Performance on the field
2. Conference championships won
3. Strength of schedule
4. Head-to-head game results
5. Comparison of results against common opponents

Since the four short seasons the plus-one system has been in effect, the five criteria points listed above have already been jeopardized.

Already Contradictory

In 2016, the Penn State Nittany Lions won the Big Ten Conference as well as defeating the Ohio State Buckeyes one-on-one. When the playoff committee selected teams, they chose to skip over conference champion Penn State and award Ohio State the fourth and final spot.

How did Ohio State fair in the playoffs? They were shutout 31-0 by eventual champion Clemson in the first round. In 2016, it’s safe to say the committee placed the wrong team into the postseason while also contradicting criteria points that determine a playoff school. Last year, something similar happened although not to the extent of 2016.

Two Championship Teams, Again

This past season the committee decided to put another non-conference champion into the postseason, the Alabama Crimson Tide. Conference champions Georgia, Oklahoma, and Clemson all received an invitation to the playoff.

However, it was conference champions Southern California (USC) and Ohio State that were both left out. With Alabama only having one loss, and with USC and Ohio State suffering awful losses to both Iowa and Notre Dame; it was hard to argue putting either team over Alabama.

Ohio State and USC are not the concerns, however. A mid-major school from the American Conference named Central Florida (UCF) finished the season undefeated but were left out of the playoffs. Not too many were concerned with UCF’s playoff absence as Western Michigan had gone undefeated a season prior, only to lose to Wisconsin in a non-semifinal bowl game.

UCF changed that perception once they defeated Auburn in a non-semifinal bowl game, the same Auburn team that handed both Georgia and Alabama their only losses (the two schools in the national championship game).

We Are The Champions, Kind Of

As a result, UCF claimed themselves national champions and even gave all their coaches the national championship bonus that is in their contracts. To everyone outside UCF, the result is yet another season in college football where we do not have a clear-cut champion.

This isn’t the first time this has happened, as there have been many ‘co-champions’ even during the BCS days. However, the fact we are entering 2019 while still having this debate makes it clear that the college football playoffs need to adjust to the times we currently live in.

The Sport Must Evolve

There is just simply too much talent spread out throughout the country now and mid-major teams are able to compete (and sometimes defeat) against richer conference schools. This season alone we’ve seen Army take Oklahoma to overtime, Old Dominion defeat Virginia Tech, Appalachian State nearly knock off Penn State, and UCF win 19 straight games with a minimum of 30 points (and counting).

With the committee under constant attack, college football fans complaining about deserving champions on a yearly basis, and schools claiming themselves as national champions there is a solution. A simple one, really. Expand the playoffs.

Expand to Eight

Originally, a 16-team playoff to include all 10 conference champions was the idea. However, an 8-team playoff system seems to be a much more realistic and much more needed structure to avoid the ongoing problem in college football.

An 8-team playoff system would allow each of the five power conferences (ACC, Big XII, Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC) champions to receive an automatic invitation, while also giving wiggle room for undefeated mid-major conference champions or worthy non-conference champion schools with one or two losses.

Committee Protection

Having eight schools instead of four protects the committee from complaints while injecting integrity into a system that is currently flawed. Having eight teams allows the committee to enforce an automatic bid rule to the power five conference champions, while also allowing the committee to rule an automatic bid for undefeated teams (regardless of conference).

With those two rules applied to last season, an eight-team playoff would have Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia, USC, UCF and Ohio State in the playoffs. That leaves two at-large bids, which theoretically would have gone to Alabama and Wisconsin (based on final season rankings).

Yes, fans from other schools (I.E. Auburn) can still complain that they didn’t receive one of the final two spots. However, with a known rule beginning each season that states power conference champions and undefeated schools get automatic bids, the committee could simply state ‘win your conference and don’t leave it to us.’ An 8-team playoff system helps ensure protection for the committee, while also addressing any issues with ‘not allowing worthy teams in.’

Scheduling

Scheduling seems to be a big concern when the idea of expanding the playoffs is discussed. Adding four more teams to the current plus-one system would only add an extra game for eight of the 130 schools in the football bowl subdivision (FBS). Yes, the risk for injuring players increases when adding more games. The sample size is smaller than small though, at .053% of increased injuries for players.

Many suggest removing a non-conference game from each school’s schedule is the solution to expansion. That would work but is not entirely necessary if not wanted. Last season, the conference championship weekend was played on Dec. 2 with the Army vs. Navy game being played on Dec. 9.

The first bowl game began on Dec. 16, which is two weeks AFTER championship weekend. The first semifinal playoff game was played on Jan. 1, with the national championship scheduled for Jan. 8. An 8-team playoff system can be scheduled in many different ways, working around last year’s schedule as an example.

Schedule Breakdown

The first round of the 8-team playoff could’ve been held on the Dec. 9 weekend, when Navy faces Army and one week AFTER conference championship games. This is also one week before the bowl games started, meaning the first round of the playoffs would not be part of the bowl game schedule.

The first round of an 8-team playoff could’ve also started on Dec. 16, when the first bowl game is played but still not part of the bowl game schedule. You could have even set the first round of an 8-team playoff to begin on the weekend of Dec. 23 and still not have it part of the bowl game schedule.

The Six Bowl Games

Why would the first round of an 8-team playoff system not be included in the bowl game schedule? There are currently six bowl games that rotate yearly as semifinal playoff games. Those six games include the Cotton, Peach, Fiesta, Orange, Sugar & Rose Bowls (this past season the semifinal games were the Rose & Sugar Bowls).

When four of the six bowl games are not semifinal playoff games, they are considered ‘non-semifinal big bowl games’. With an 8-team playoff system, it would be ideal to keep the current bowl game schedule. This would require to have the playoff’s first two rounds remain off the bowl schedule. Losing schools in the first two rounds of an 8-team playoff would then be placed into ‘non-semifinal’ bowl games.

Payouts

Keeping the current bowl game schedule while placing first and second round losers into non-semifinal big bowl games would allow the payout system to remain the same. Currently, the power five conferences split an average of $250 million ($50 million per conference) per season.

The remaining five conferences (AAC, MAC, MWest, Sun Belt & CUSA) receive an average of $90 million ($18 million per conference) per season. Notre Dame gets about $3.5 million while Massachusetts, Brigham Young, New Mexico State, Liberty, and Army receive less than that.

If a conference gets a school into the current plus-one system (meaning they make a semifinal game), then that conference receives an extra $6 million. If a conference gets a school into one of the four non-semifinal big bowl games, then they receive an extra $4 million. Adding an 8-team playoff system can still allow this payout formula to work. This is especially true if the first two rounds are not part of the bowl game schedule.

First Two Rounds (Round 1 and Quarterfinals)

The first two rounds could theoretically be hosted by the higher seeded school. Payouts would be split between the two conferences represented in that game (parking, food, merchandise, ticket sales, endorsements, etc…). If that doesn’t appease, then perhaps having the first two rounds in neutral cities (like March Madness’ First Four games in Dayton, Ohio) over the course of those weekends would work?

It also costs money to send schools around the country to play in games, but having games in just a few locations would be cost effective. Speaking of money, adding four more teams to the postseason would make the playoff a bigger spectacle, much like March Madness.

A Big Time Event

According to WalletHub, an average of 70 million brackets for March Madness are filled out each year. Due to the spectacle of a big tournament, many non-basketball fans still participate which expands the college basketball audience during it’s most important time of the year.

Traveling has been an issue for many college football fans. A good example from this past season is Central Michigan in the Potato Bowl. It is very difficult to get Central Michigan fans to attend these type of bowl games. It’s very burdensome convincing a Central Michigan fan to attend a consolation game in Idaho over the holidays. They could be at home with their family watching on a high definition television (HDTV).

Having the first two rounds of the playoffs at either…

1. a home stadium from one of the participating schools or
2. central locations

…would make traveling easy for both team’s fan base.

Economy Boost

March Madness has many central locations throughout the tournament, which sees an increase in economic revenue yearly. Phoenix, a city that hosted the Final Four, saw an economic impact of $150 million. They also saw 125,000 fans visit (90% of which were from a different state).

Dayton, a city that hosts the First Four games, sees an average of $66 million in economic revenue. Visitors pay an average of $2,100 on food, hotel, and transportation while attending a March Madness game.

In 2016, March Madness saw 703,854 fans attend 36 different sessions. Part of the reason you see these numbers (despite them being down) is that these games have meaning. All of the sessions potentially lead schools to a national championship game.

Money To Be Made

With the tournament potentially becoming a bigger spectacle with more teams added, that means more money could be asked for from TV networks to advertisements. According to WalletHub, March Madness is responsible for CBS paying $19.6 billion to broadcast the rights.

Imagine what ESPN or other networks would pay if the college football playoff became bigger? Since 1986, the average increase in March Madness’ overall value has gone up 4,535%! This is mainly because college basketball has expanded the number of teams allowed into the tournament. They adapt to changing times through the decades. Allowing more teams into the postseason also puts smaller schools on a bigger map. This essentially creates a new team/brand for fans to support and route for.

March Madness also gets about $1.19 billion in TV advertisement revenues. They also get an average of $213.3 million from corporate sponsors such as Capital One. It’s easy to see that expanding the playoffs helped increase the value of the event as the years progressed. With scheduling and payouts not being too much of a concern, moving to an 8-team playoff system is the only logical move for college football moving forward.

In Conclusion

Moving to an 8-team playoff system ensures:

1. protection of the committee
2. all 130 schools receiving a fair shot to make the playoffs beginning each season
3. an economic boost/savings for cities/traveling
4. an overall value increase for the event on a yearly basis

Follow us on Twitter and YouTube

Follow the author here

Photo Credit: Michael Li via Flickr