Playoff formula was ideal this year
It’s safe to say that the 13 members of the College Football Playoff selection committee probably got a good night’s sleep Saturday.
There was no need for tossing or turning.
For the first time since 2016, the playoff committee went into Selection Sunday with little concern over which four teams it should place in the semifinals.
Sure, Ohio State made things mildly interesting after falling behind Wisconsin by double digits in the Big Ten Championship Game before scoring 27 points in the second half as the Buckeyes cruised to their third straight league title.
Otherwise, it was simply a matter of ranking LSU, Ohio State, Clemson and Oklahoma.
What I’m about to say next is going to irritate some people: the playoff committee got it right. Not only that, but they did so within the constraints of a four-team playoff model.
That’s right. There was no need for six, eight or even 16 teams when you consider Utah, Georgia and Baylor all lost in what were essentially play-in games.
We can argue about where each of the four teams should be ranked — and most likely we will — well into 2020 but, in the end, the committee picked the best four teams to play for a chance to win a national championship.
Can that be said about every season? Of course not.
Ohio State fans can still feel the sting of 2018 or Wisconsin fans in 2017.
But nothing draws more praise and criticism than the College Football Playoff. It’s become a lightning rod of debate and in return keeps people interested week in and week out from teams ranked No. 12 all the way to No. 1. That wouldn’t necessarily be the case with an expanded format.
There are more than a handful of two-loss teams outside the top four, including Georgia, Utah, Baylor, Florida, Penn State, Oregon and Alabama. Oregon is the only team with a conference championship after the Ducks dispatched Utah in the Pac-12 Championship Game Friday night.
Is it fair? Probably not. UCF athletics director Danny White has made no bones about his feelings regarding the playoff, calling it an invitational. The
Knights won 25 straight games during a run from 2017 through 2018, finishing undefeated during each of those regular seasons. UCF, however, finished no higher than No. 8 in the final playoff rankings in 2018.
White said he’s glad UCF’s plight has opened the door for more discussions about expanding the playoff.
“I’ve been pleased that more people other than just us at UCF are talking about it now,” White said Saturday. “We’re seeing other commissioners talk about it. We’re seeing athletic directors from across the country talk about it. I think that it’s probably a healthy step that it’s becoming more commonly accepted and publicly endorsed that everybody knows where this needs to go.
“I think that as leaders of this enterprise, we call college football, we got to put our heads together and figure it out.”
Expansion is imminent. How could it not be when there’s the potential for hundreds of millions of dollars in additional revenue for not only the individual schools but their media partners?
Money talks, and it’s the reason many of us believe once the current playoff TV agreement expires in 2024-25, the new one could include several additional playoff games.
But despite the increase in expansion chatter, movement toward change appears slow.
“If we know that’s what we need to do, let’s sprint to it,” White said of making those types of changes. “I think that’s what strong leaders do. If you know that there’s a better way, then we should sprint to that solution, not drag our feet.”
Change is coming, that’s for sure. But the committee can sleep easy for now knowing it’s still years away.