The first college football champions were named in 1869, as Princeton and Rutgers shared the crown for the inaugural season. Since that season, college football has undergone three distinct eras for deciding the national champion.
The first era was the National Championship Foundation (NCF) which started in 1869 and ended after the 1997 season. During this period, the national champions were selected based on their national ranking without even playing a championship game. Since the champion was chosen solely on their ranking, there were numerous co-champions throughout this era.
Starting in the 1998 season, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) replaced the NCF and instituted a championship game to be played between the first and second-ranked teams. The BCS also added a computer ranking system to assist the human ranking system, which purportedly guaranteed the two best teams were picked to play each other. While this system was an upgrade from the NCF, controversies about deservedness continued to surround the national title conversation.
The 2011 college football season is an egregious example. LSU beat Alabama in the regular season, but Alabama was able to play in a rematch against them for the national title. Alabama did not play in the SEC Conference Championship game, and they were still given a chance to play in the national championship game at the expense of a deserving Oklahoma State team. Most of the computer rankings had Oklahoma State ranked at #2, but the consensus swayed toward Alabama staying at #2 and Oklahoma State sitting at #3.
After numerous arguments about which teams deserved a chance at the title, people began talking about expanding the format to a college football playoff model. These discussions led to the beginning of the College Football Playoff (CFP) era, which started following the 2013 college football season.
The CFP was formed so that a clear champion could be named and leave little room for any controversy over which teams did not get a fair chance at a title. However, the current CFP format only allows four teams to compete for the championship, which has still left out numerous teams that people argue deserve a chance at a championship.
Some examples of deserving teams are the undefeated UCF Knights on two separate occasions, the undefeated 2020 Cincinnati Bearcats, and the undefeated 2020 Coastal Carolina Chanticleers. UCF beat a very good #7 Auburn team in the 2018 Peach Bowl, Cincinnati almost defeated #9 Georgia in the 2020 Peach Bowl and Coastal Carolina defeated #16 BYU in the 2020 regular season. The lack of consideration for these teams sparked discussions about expanding the four-team playoff to eight or sixteen teams.
Multitudinous reasons exist to expand the CFP, but there is considerable debate about how many teams should be added. Fox Sports college football commentator and analyst Joel Klatt has stated that expansion would help increase the revenue in college football, which programs need due to the amount of income lost because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
An increase in the number of games played would definitively improve the revenue of everyone involved in the CFP. Since there would be a larger amount of important postseason games to watch, the ratings will also be favorable compared to the current bowl game system.
Another reason for expansion is the decreased importance of bowl games due to the increased importance placed on the CFP. Since the bowl games are continually decreasing in importance, many players opt out of playing in them. When players opt out of bowl games, then the anticipation wanes for the games and ratings tank. Increasing the playoff would get rid of the bowl game issues, while simultaneously increasing the ratings for the CFP.
There is also a major discrepancy in recruiting. Since most of the same teams make the playoffs every year, all the high-level recruits opt to join the teams that participate in the CFP. The top 6 recruiting classes of 2021 are all teams that have won a game in the CFP: Alabama, Ohio State, LSU, Georgia, Clemson, and Oregon. The skill gap between the higher echelon of teams continues to increase from every other team.
Finally, the most obvious reason for expansion is the need to include teams from the smaller conferences and give them a chance to play for the title. Many teams from these conferences (Group of Five) seem to be able to compete with higher quality teams, but they do not get a chance due to their poorer strength of schedule. However, why should they be punished for a weaker schedule if their conference is not as strong as the more prominent conferences (Power Five)?
Numerous Group of Five teams have been undefeated, yet they were still ranked lower than Power Five teams with multiple losses. Since the rankings skew this favorably toward Power Five teams, the only way to include smaller teams would be to expand the playoff to at least eight teams.
These arguments in favor of expanding the CFP are valid, but there are numerous concerns with expanding it.
One major predicament is the extended number of games that college athletes would be forced to play each season. Since these athletes are not given paychecks, it would be unfair to force them to possibly jeopardize their NFL chances with extra collegiate games.
Another idea to take into consideration is the location of where the games are going to be played. The game locations depend on how much the CFP expands but raises an important point that needs to be sorted out before thoughts of expansion can be entertained.
The regular season will become even more devalued if the playoffs are expanded. As the number of teams allowed into the CFP increases, the importance of the regular season decreases.
A single loss used to be backbreaking to a team’s national championship aspirations, but now teams with one loss usually have a chance with the four-team playoff. If this model were to be expanded to eight or more teams, then there could be two or three loss teams with a chance of making the CFP. While the playoffs would possibly be more exciting, the tradeoff is losing all excitement for regular season matchups.
Alongside this, the rivalry games between teams would lose most of their meaning. Even if a team pulled off an upset in a rivalry game, the team that was beaten will still have a strong possibility of making the CFP.
Much like the regular season, college bowl games have lost their meaning since the playoff was introduced to college football. The coveted history of playing and winning in the Rose Bowl is insignificant to current teams because all meaning of the sport has been pushed into the CFP. If a team does not make the playoffs, then the consolation prize is playing in a bowl game that people will forget about by next year.
Although the reasons for resisting CFP expansion are reasonable, there are solutions to most of the concerns.
The increased number of games to be played per season is a major issue, but there are ways to address it. The immediate answer would be to pay the players in addition to their scholarships, which would make playing the extra games sensible. By paying the players in college, they will not feel as much of a need to save their bodies for the NFL. Additionally, more players may decide to participate in other bowl games if they receive a paycheck throughout their college careers.
As for the location of the additional games, one solution could be to play them at the higher-seeded team’s stadium. Some college football fans would dislike this because it would emulate the model used for the NFL playoffs, but it would reward teams for playing well in the regular season. By giving teams with higher seeds a home-field advantage, the argument that the regular season is irrelevant would become flawed. Home-field advantage is a major reason given as to why teams win tough matchups, so giving the better-performing regular season team that advantage would make the regular season important again.
The regular season will be less important if the playoff expands, but the same was true as the model moved from the BCS to a four-team playoff. While the regular season will lose most of its meaning, the CFP will have more teams and games to increase its meaning. Once the change from BCS to a four-team playoff occurred, the decision was made to allow more leeway in the regular season. Rivalry games may be less meaningful when concerning the playoffs, but the competitiveness and history will remain.
When thinking about one of the NFL’s rivalries, Baltimore Ravens vs Pittsburgh Steelers, there is still extra meaning and motivation for that game over others. College teams will be more motivated and determined to defeat their rival, so those games will keep their uniqueness.
The last argument is bowl games will not be able to keep their meaning, which cannot be refuted. However, if the CFP expands to include more teams, then the major bowl games will matter just as much as they did previously. The smaller bowl games like the Birmingham Bowl, Outback Bowl, and New Mexico Bowl have already meant nothing to most college football fans. If the New Year’s Day Bowl games like the Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Sugar Bowl, etc. were all included in a 16-team playoff, then they would be more relevant than they are currently.
It took 16 years for the BCS model to transition toward the four-team playoff, so it might be many years until further expansion is explored. However, since the expansion of the CFP is feasible, many conversations are about how many teams should be included in the new model. It is likely to be expanded to just six or eight teams, but is that the optimal number of teams? As Klatt has stated recently, “We need to expand to sixteen, and we need to do that quickly. And we need to do it quickly for the long-term health of the sport.”
I completely agree with Klatt because the sport will continue to see the same teams in the CFP until expansion occurs, which is detrimental to its health and growth. If the playoff was expanded to 16 teams, then there would be a wider variety of teams every season. Multiple smaller schools from the group of five conferences will be able to participate alongside some of the top-tier teams in the Power Five conferences.
For example, the 2020 CFP would have included Cincinnati, Coastal Carolina, and BYU if the 16-team model had been implemented for this past season. Not only do the group of five teams get an opportunity to compete, but some less notable power five teams also get a chance to play. Iowa State, Indiana, Northwestern, and Iowa would be some of the lower-tier power five teams that would have been included in the playoff this past year.
The main issue with the 16-team model is the extra number of games played by each team, as they would need to play two more games than they do currently. However, they already added two games to the season since the addition of the BCS and four-team playoff. So, adding two more games may take a while, but it has been done before.
As the NCAA is expected to start paying its players relatively soon, the possibility of expansion increases. With the passing of legislation in Alabama that allows student-athletes to be paid for use of name/image and likeness, many other states with prominent college programs will follow suit so they do not fall behind in the recruiting process. Although the CFP will likely expand to eight teams first, further expansion of the playoff seems inevitable.
