(Editor’s note: This article was originally published at Medium in December 2017, entitled “A Modest Proposal To Make College Football Better”.)
I love college football. You, person who’s reading this that I don’t know, may not. So imagine this.
Imagine that your best friend (we’ll call him Tim) has only one shirt. Tim loves his shirt very much. Only problem is, the shirt has a giant mustard stain on the front. Worse still, Tim is completely oblivious to this problem. When you tactfully point it out, he doesn’t see it at first, and says you must be seeing things. Then someone else comments on the mustard stain, much less nicely this time. Instead of washing the shirt or buying a new one, Tim declares that “the mustard stain makes the shirt better,” and continues to wear it. In fact, Tim now loudly yells “MY SHIRT HAS A MUSTARD STAIN” whenever he enters any room.
Well, college football has a giant mustard stain on its shirt that it’s very proud of too. No, I’m not talking about amateurism, or (allegedly) paying players, or the dumpster fire that was Tennessee’s latest coaching search. (Editor’s note: Three years later, the dumpster fire has now spread to the entire Vols program.)
I’m talking about the fact that the College Football Playoff has four spots, and there are five major conferences.
Inevitably, this means that at least one conference champion will not make it into the Playoff, despite their very best efforts. It also means that no team outside the major five conferences will probably make the Playoff, ever. (Editor’s note: Cincy did, four years later, due to a completely unexpected development. You are free to do with this information what you will.)
In my opinion, the best college football games are (1) stunning upsets and (2) duels between powerhouses. The current College Football Playoff system goes out of its way to lessen the likelihood of both.
I modestly propose that college football can do better than this. The way I see it, there are two possible fixes. One is easier, but the other is more fun.
THE EASY WAY: An Eight-Team Playoff
It’s become trendy nowadays to make the case for an expanded Playoff. Sports pundits and personalities from all over are treating it like a novel, new idea. Me, I’m a Playoff expansion hipster: as a Baylor fan, I was calling for an eight-team playoff all the way back in 2014. (I fully admit that I was doing so for self-interested reasons at the time, but that doesn’t make the idea any less valid.)
An eight-team playoff would allow conference championships and division titles to have actual national title stakes. The system I envision would have automatic bids for all five major conference champions. The remaining three teams would be selected by the College Football Playoff committee, who would also determine the Playoff’s seeding.
This system would maintain both the basic structure of the Playoff and the “human element” of a committee looking for the “best teams.” Currently, conference championships are at best a data point for Playoff contention; expanding to eight teams would make them meaningful, give them purpose.
Oh, and one more thing. My eight-team system would mandate that one of the three teams selected by the Playoff committee must come from a non-Power-5 conference.
In 2017, based on the committee’s final rankings and conference championship results, an eight-team Playoff would probably include Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama, Ohio State, USC, Wisconsin, and UCF. (Editor’s note: This year, the Playoff would probably include Alabama, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Iowa State, USC, Clemson, either Oklahoma or Texas A&M, and Cincinnati.)
Frankly, the ratings and revenue produced by Playoff expansion, not to mention the excitement and increased competition, should be reason alone for the NCAA to consider it. If they won’t, there’s always my second option…
THE FUN WAY: Superconferences
I’m not the first person to suggest the idea of four larger conferences of sixteen teams each. Superconferences would enable the Playoff to stay in its current form, while placing Playoff contention within every program’s reach. A massive realignment like this wouldn’t be easy, and would take years of hard negotiations, but it would create a truly level playing field and add an exciting new dimension to college football.
As noted genius Bill Connelly has pointed out elsewhere, in theory, to create these superconferences we only need to break up one major conference: the Big 12. I agree, but I have slightly different ideas about which teams from the Big 12 should go where. I want to preserve existing rivalries as much as possible, because those games have storied traditions important to their schools.
The ACC, now renamed the Heartland Conference because of their regional footprint, would welcome Kansas State and Kansas into its midst.
The Big 10, whose name already makes no sense, would be renamed the Big North Conference. Iowa State and West Virginia would enter their ranks.
To the SEC (whose name would not change because it already works) would go Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Divisions would be reshuffled, with Auburn moving from the SEC West to the SEC East. (Never fear, Alabamans; the Iron Bowl would continue as a yearly cross-divisional game.)
That leaves Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, and TCU. They would all enter the PAC 12, now called the Southwest Conference.
The superconference champions would receive automatic Playoff bids, making the superconference championships de facto Playoff games.
In addition, every year the worst team in every superconference division would be relegated to a minor conference in their region. That team would be automatically replaced for the following season by the most highly ranked team from a minor conference in the superconference’s region. The teams would exchange conference schedules, but would keep the non-conference slates they had negotiated previously.
This system of relegation and promotion (which, yes, is borrowed wholesale from the Premier League) would give non-Power-5 teams the ability to recruit more competitively and eventually compete for a national championship — something they simply cannot do under the current system.
Over its brief existence, the College Football Playoff has produced excellent championship matchups. Its semifinal matchups have mostly been blowouts, though. The selection of the Playoff teams has been mired in controversy. Now in consecutive years, the Playoff committee has excluded conference champions from participation in favor of teams it subjectively thinks are better. This selection method devalues play on the field, especially in conference championships.
We can do better. We must either expand the Playoff to eight teams, or keep the Playoff as is and reshuffle the conference landscape. Delaying further will only lead to more pointless controversy and stagnation. No matter the option we choose, college football will be better off than it is right now.