-Kyle Langston
Baylor, Iowa, Penn State, and Ohio State. What do these teams all have in common? They were each ranked number 5 on selection day by the college football playoff committee since the committee's inception, thus did not have an opportunity to play for the national championship. Every year since the NCAA expanded the CFP field in 2015, fans, coaches, and analysts alike have called for a further expansion. The most popular idea is a switch to an 8 team playoff, which most say should include 5 spots going to conference champions. The only problem is that this leaves just 3 remaining spots between power 5 non-champions, and non-power 5 schools. A better representation of the 130 competing squads would be a 10 team field.
Are Power 5 Conference Champions Guaranteed a Spot?
It is only fair that this is the case. Last year only five teams in the top 25 were not members of the power 5 conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big ten, Pac-12, SEC). Since these teams spend the majority of the season playing other teams in their conference, thus more difficult opponents, it makes sense to guarantee the conference champions a shot at winning the title. You could also make an argument reserving a place for the AAC champion, effectively inducting them into the "power 6" (but that is a topic for another time).
Do the Conference Champions Get the Top 5 Seeds?
Not necessarily, the conference champions along with the next 5 best schools should be pooled together and seeded independently by the playoff committee. To seed the ACC champion over possibly Alabama or Georgia simply because they won their conference is ridiculous.
What Would the Format be?
A classic 10 team single elimination bracket makes the most sense here. This means the first and second seed would get a first round bye. With no real way to split the teams in half and seed each side 1 through 5, it makes more sense to just seed the teams 1 through 10. It would also be smart to reseed the teams after every round. Meaning that if the 10 and 8 seed were to win their respective first round games, the 10 seed would then play the one seed regardless of the original bracket layout.
Timing
This format would expand the number of rounds from 2 to 4. This fact has been used by many as an argument against expansion, but this argument doesn't hold much merit. Last year bowl season lasted 24 days from December 16th to January 8th. A slight 4 day expansion would allow for exactly one week between each round, and what better way to kick off bowl season than with a couple playoff matches between top 10 teams. Additionally, viewership and ticket sales for playoff games will always be higher than non-playoff games, so adding more of them is always beneficial economically.
Should Non-power 5 Schools be Given Preference for the Other 5 Spots?
This shouldn't be necessary. Any team that did not win their conference championship by default has at least one loss, so a smaller school (UCF for example) that has a season worthy of championship contention, shouldn't miss out on their opportunity regardless of committee preference. When the NCAA decided to expand the playoff in 2015, they also switched from a formula based method of choosing teams to a more substantive committee approach with the goal of guaranteeing that it is the best teams competing for the championship. It would be foolish to stray from that by giving smaller schools any kind of preference.
In conclusion...
Teams, fans, and the NCAA would all benefit from an expanded playoff that pulls the best characteristics from other sports' playoff formats. While expanding the field to four teams was a step in the right direction many feel that further expansion is necessary, and a 10 team field is the best way to do just that.
Comments
Post a Comment