The 2019 college football season begins in just two days, which means we are just two days away from seeing the first potentially-pivotal matchup in terms of the College Football Playoff. Eighth-ranked Florida is playing a Miami team who recently named a redshirt freshman the starter over former five star recruit and former Ohio State quarterback Tate Martell. It will make for an interesting opening FBS matchup, as the former rivals will face off for the first time since 2013.
A new college football season also means the renewal of the ongoing College Football Playoff debate. Since its birth during the 2014 college football season, there has been much debate over the entire process, including who should and should not be getting into the playoff each year. Every year we hear the same debate, and every year we get the same results - just an idea for how to change the playoff that is not going to be changed anytime soon.
One thing that people may not realize, which included myself up until a few minutes ago, is that there is an agreement until 2026 saying that the playoff will remain at four teams. That being said, the following is a hypothetical fix that could be made years down the road when they can look into expanding the playoff, but a fix nonetheless.
After taking into account the arguments that people make about the scheduling and the playoff itself, I have put together a way that the NCAA could look into fixing the College Football Playoff in the future.
11 game regular season:
One big thing that comes to mind when talking about expanding the college football playoff is the amount of games played. At the next level, people are arguing for the NFL to cut out the preseason altogether, because more games means more chance for injuries. When it comes to this topic in college football now, more players are beginning to sit out their bowl games because they feel they do not mean that much and do not want to risk getting hurt.
Removing one game from the typical schedule overall would mean that these players would have one less game to show out during the regular season, so maybe they will start to play postseason games. Also, expanding the playoff would mean more teams would be playing another extra high-level game if the schedule remained the same, so taking a game away would help in terms of rest and injury.
With all that said, here is what a potential 11-game regular season could look like:
Eight conference games
With the amount of teams that are in some conferences, some of those conferences have nine intrasquad games instead of eight. If that were the case with an 11-game schedule, that would mean teams only play two non-conference games, which could wind up removing some rivalry and inter-state games, potentially causing more commotion. Also, eight conference games across the board would make for more consistency.
One game against a major conference opponent
Another argument as of late is college football fans and even coaches feel some teams get off too easy with their non-conference schedule. Alabama Head Coach Nick Saban wants the Crimson Tide to have at least 10 power 5 opponents on their schedule each season. With an 11-game schedule, that could become more difficult because of having to still give group of 5 teams a chance to make their case, but forcing each team to play at least one power 5 opponent would help tip the scales in the strength of schedule debate.
1 game against a non-power 5 conference
Like I just mentioned, you cannot merely take any chances away from a group of 5 team to make the playoff. While we have only seen one non-power 5 conference team in independent Notre Dame make the playoff in its five years of existence, it has still happened. Also, with the way the schedule could be changed, it could make group of 5 teams more competitive and give them more of an opportunity to prove themselves.
One game against another FBS school (or a high ranked FCS opponent)
One thing that teams can focus on in terms of this is getting to keep more rivalry games, or renew old rivalries. This would give them the freedom to play anyone else that wants to play them, but having the NCAA focus on trying to get teams to bring back rivalries could be good for college football. I mean, who wouldn't want to see a rivalry like Nebraska-Oklahoma renewed?
I also mentioned how a high ranked FCS opponents could be scheduled as well, but it could be more difficult to judge this as schedules are usually made a few years in advance, therefore teams would not know how good or bad their opponents would be until that season. However, giving FCS dynasties like North Dakota State and James Madison exposure would be good for college football as a whole, as more people would get the opportunity to see how competitive FCS truly is.
This would also give group of 5 teams the opportunity to have a second game against power 5 teams as well.
Eight-team playoff:
The most consistently mentioned fix to the College Football Playoff is trying to expand to eight teams. I think this would be the best fix as well, at least in the short run. I mean, the FCS has a 24-team playoff, and the FCS is just a minor step down from FBS football.
At the same time, it is still a step down from the FBS, which means way less players are necessarily NFL-caliber, and the size of the players can be considered a step down. While they are still highly-competitive and big in the FCS, the FBS tends to have more of the best players in college football, so playing extra games could take more out of them.
Therefore, the initial solution for the College Football Playoff is expanding to an eight-team playoff, giving four more teams the opportunity to get into the playoff. This would also mean that more ground rules would need to be implemented.
Five conference champions (within the top 15)
One debate that people have had is whether a team that does not win their conference championship should be in the playoff or not. Each of the last three years a non-conference winner has made the playoff, which has caused a conference matchup in the National Championship game two years ago and one of these three non-conference winners taking home the championship. With each of the group of 5 teams getting into the playoff, as long as they are ranked within the top 15, this could help ease the commotion.
However, the reason they would need to be ranked within the top 15 is because sometimes teams do just have a better week than the better team, so there could be a four-loss conference champion who did not play consistently all year but wound up playing well to their opponent one week. Teams should not get rewarded for showing up for only half the season.
One group of 5 champion or high ranking independent (highest ranked within top 20)
Another argument within the last two years especially is whether or not a group of 5 champion (excluding independent Notre Dame) should have an equal opportunity to get into the playoff. UCF was that team back-to-back years, with undefeated seasons in the last two years and winning one of their two New Year's Six bowl games. However, group of 5 teams will still get more slack for the conference they play in, so it can be more difficult for them to have a better record AND ranking than teams from power 5 conferences.
Two at-large bids (or more if there are not enough teams that fit the previous criteria)
One issue with the first-ever College Football Playoff was the debate of whether TCU or Baylor should get into the playoff, as they shared the Big 12 Championship because they had no championship at the time, however neither team made the playoff. With two at-large bids up for grabs, they both could have potentially made the playoff.
This is where the rankings would be very key, as the highest ranked teams would grab the last couple spots in the playoff. Some teams currently may lose one week and not get the chance to play in their conference championship, but the conference champion could have two losses and get in the playoff over them. With the at-larges, it cuts these teams some slack that people would otherwise be complaining about.
Where should they play?
When people talk about where the expanded playoff should be played at, many times they talk about the higher seed hosting the first round, however I think I have a solution that could take away true homefield advantage and have people complaining again.
Playing at the six major bowl sites for the quarterfinals and semifinals, and playing at the Super Bowl location for the National Championship would be my solution. This way the six major bowl sites are all used for the playoff, but nobody is getting to play at the same location more than once. Also, playing the championship game at the same stadium as that year's Super Bowl would be a good warmup for the Super Bowl, plus it gives the athletes even more to look forward to and play for.
The other bowl games:
The original 4 (The original BCS bowl games before the CFP)
Rose Bowl: Big 10 v. Pac 12 (unless there are multiple teams from either conference playing in the playoff, then it depends on if they need to add an at-large team or if there is a third team from that conference that is deserving)
Fiesta Bowl: Big 12 v. at-large (unless there are multiple teams from the Big 12 playing in the playoff, then it depends on if they need to add an at-large team or if there is a third team from the Big 12 that is deserving)
Orange Bowl: ACC v. at-large (unless there are multiple teams from the ACC playing in the playoff, then it depends on if they need to add an at-large team or if there is a third team from the ACC that is deserving)
Sugar Bowl: SEC v. at-large (unless there are multiple teams from the SEC playing in the playoff, then it depends on if they need to add an at-large team or if there is a third team from the SEC that is deserving)
The rest
There should be no disputation as to winning and losing seasons and who is more deserving to make a bowl game. Unless there is a conference champion or runner-up that is sub-500, then there should not be any losing teams making the other bowl games. Most teams that lose a bowl game should still feel good about themselves as well, as they will still have a winning season.
Like I mentioned, this is all hypothetical, but something that the NCAA could truly consider. They would have time to implement all this, as the four-team playoff is running through at least 2026, but looking into the future for scheduling purposes would be a good idea, as teams are already creating their schedules years in advance.
Comments