12-team CFP both tasty and tough to swallow
Over a meal of barbecue, Brussels sprouts and bourbon, three sports reporters discussed college football's move to a 12-team playoff in 2024. Similar to the served dishes, we agreed that some of the expansion plan is delicious, some you either love or hate and some will take time to swallow.
I was the “get off my lawn” guy in the dinner group, the old crow most willing to wallow in tradition, including making the case that the old “mythical” national championships that defined college football from 1936-97 held some merit. There was mystery back then, man. Today, we demand certainty. There is only totally right and absolutely wrong. Bah.
The second reporter agreed that previous permutations of ranking systems – primarily the Associated Press and Coaches polls – were not all bad, but the BCS that pitted No. 1 vs. No. 2 was an improvement, and the current College Football Playoff four-team playoff model was better still.
We both give expansion a thumbs-up, but think some elements of what makes college football great will be lost by going from four to 12 teams.
The third reporter, thoroughly progressive, sees nothing but positives
about a 12-team format, even dismissing the current and past methods of deciding national championships as worthless and unfair.
Even during the entertaining backand-forth, we all agreed the debate mostly was moot; that 20 years from now, when the playoff has grown to 16 teams or more, most fans will have embraced the notion that bigger is better.
Still, it's worth summarizing what went down during “Dinner in D.C.”
First, how the new 12-team format will work: first-round games will be played at home sites of seeds 5-8 (or at
another site designated by the higherseeded school; e.g. Ohio State possibly could play at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis if it wanted to compete indoors); the top four teams receive firstround byes; quarterfinals and semifinals will be played at current bowl sites, at least for the first two years of the 202525 contract; the national title game will remain at a neutral site; and the 13-member selection committee will continue to pick the teams based on rankings.
Now let's get to it.
What will be gained by a 12-team playoff?
More TV viewers means bigger network contracts and more money entering the conference coffers. A portion of that cash infusion hopefully finds its way into the hands of the athletes, whose leverage increases with additional games. Instead of sitting out bowl games simply to protect their draft status, as Ohio State receivers Chris Olave and Garrett Wilson did last year in skipping the Rose Bowl, players may band together to “boycott” playoff games if they don't receive a fair slice of the TV revenue pie. Many fans will see that as a negative, but players deserve compensation for putting their bodies on the line over what in some cases could be four playoff games. So much for the “safety-first” rhetoric coming from athletic directors and presidents.
Pre-march Madness and Cinderella stories. I'm a traditionalist, but it's hard to argue against the entertainment value of first-round games being played at home sites. How cool would it be to see Florida State play Wisconsin in late December at rockin' Camp Randall Stadium? Imagine Penn State hosting LSU in a snowstorm. A Whiteout in the white stuff? Bring it on.
More playoff teams means fans of more schools will stay interested in the regular season longer. No more seeing your season ruined in October with a second loss. Rebound strong after an early stumble, or two, and still have a shot at making the playoff.
The best of the best. The point of competition is to prove it on the field. Adding more teams to the mix creates a larger minefield, and the team that crosses it without getting blown up will have earned the title.
Now, what will be lost? And contrary to what the 100% pro-expansion crowd contends, some things will be lost.
The regular season already doubles as an unofficial playoff. Lose one game, depending on strength of opponent, and a school still might make the playoff. Lose two? Nice knowing you. To my eyes, the beauty of college football, at least in Columbus, is it is not the NFL, where parity means losing one game is not the end of the world.
Lose one game, especially the wrong game, at Ohio State? Ask Ryan Day about that.
If a 12-team playoff were in effect for the previous nine years of the CFP, the Buckeyes would have made it every season, including in 2017 and 2018 when they got bludgeoned by unranked Iowa and Purdue. No question that making it easier to make the playoff lessens the drama of each regular-season game.
You say you love The Game? How about The Game II? Game III? Though rare, the Buckeyes and Wolverines could play three times in one season. First, during the regular season the week of Thanksgiving; second, in the Big Ten Championship game a week later, when as expected the conference eliminates divisions; and third, in the playoff. Granted, meeting in the playoff could be for all the marbles, as it would be this season if Ohio State defeats Georgia and Michigan defeats TCU, setting up a historic national championship game. But generally speaking, every additional OSU-UM game diffuses the first one. The Game should never be just A Game.
College football is built on controversy. The AP poll exists today simply to stoke an argument. The CFP selection committee publicizes its initial rankings six weeks before the final one. Why? To create interest via inflamed fanbase passion. The committee could wait and release rankings at the end, but then you wouldn't get to watch Southeastern Conference fans mouth off for a full month. Expanding to 12 teams means less whining, less finger pointing, less … angst.
And what fun is that? roller@dispatch.com @rollercd