December 11, 2023
The end of this 2023 college football season, where a champion is crowned during the four-game "College Football Playoff (CFP)," was supposed to generate fan interest and drive TV ratings. However, a wrench was thrown into the process after the Florida State Seminoles, who went undefeated (13-0) and won their conference championship for the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), were not one of the four teams that qualified for the playoff: Michigan, Washington, Texas, and Alabama. It has caused somewhat of an uproar amongst Seminole fans, and a certain segment of overall college football fans, potentially ruining a slew of anticipated matchups among the four chosen teams.
________________________________
College football for many years was a simple process, in that schools played the teams in their conference, along with three out-of-conference games. At the end of the season, sports columnists from around the country would determine which teams were "national champions." This was done primarily through a ranking of teams in the Associated Press (AP) Top 25, along with a United Press International (UPI) Coaches Poll, which was voted by active Division 1 coaches. These rankings were highly subjective in my opinion. In a few cases, teams that were crowned national champions had in some cases lost to teams ranked lower than them but were judged on the season, instead of head-to-head matchups (USC and Alabama in 1978 shared that title: the AP chose Alabama, and the UPI Coaches Poll selected USC). Additionally, fans of the game were upset that in 1984 Brigham Young University (BYU), which played in the less prestigious Western Athletic Conference (WAC) was crowned national champion that year. Observers felt their schedule was not competitive and did not have a signature win to justify their title.
There were other split champions spread out over the years, so the major conferences got together and created the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) which was another progressive attempt by conferences to unify the champion of college football between 1998 and 2013. Previous endeavors included the Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition. The four major bowls that were, over time, to be the bowls that rotated semifinal games were the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar Bowl, and Orange Bowls. The bowl games that were not selected as semifinal hosts were given teams that were ranked within a certain bracket.
A quirk in the selection of title game participants was the use of a computer algorithm, which was not transparent in its methodology and proprietary to the creators of those models. Like Florida State this year, in previous years Southern California (USC) in 2003 and Auburn University in 2004 were left out which resulted in anger and consternation amongst fans of the sport and the respective universities. Tweaks were implemented in the following years to correct an evolving model to select two worthy teams to play for the national title.
The sport, despite all the corrections and tweaks, is still really a subjective beauty pageant. Rankings for teams are selected based on the aggregate opinions of sports writers, whom I am sure get "suggestions" and are encouraged to rank certain teams higher than their merit. Some of this is probably done by conference executives to grease the wheels for their teams. I am not a fan of this process.
You would need to have a simple, easy-to-follow format so that teams and their players know what is needed to make the playoffs more legitimate and free from any manipulation from television partners, conference commissioners, and other interested parties. The system must be immune to pressure from outside forces.
This is what I propose (which might have saved the Pacific 12 Conference (PAC-12), which recently imploded with the defections of USC, UCLA, Washington, and Oregon over the past two years):
The PAC-12 was part of a group of conferences known as the "Power 5," which comprised the PAC-12, the Big-10, the Southeastern Conference (SEC), the ACC, and the Big-12. These conferences controlled the dialogue regarding bowl games and national championships, with minimal influence from the National Collegiate Athletic Administration (NCAA), and set the agenda for the sport. This group also includes the University of Notre Dame because they are a wealthy and influential independent brand name (in 2013 Notre Dame agreed to partially join the ACC, with an agreement to play at least 5 ACC schools every year).
The playoff format I think would work best is an eight-team format. Each conference champion gets an automatic berth, along with three at-large teams from any conference or independent Notre Dame. The at-large teams would be based on non-conference victories that must be ranked in the Top 15 with an impressive strength of schedule (to be determined by a CFP committee, and metrics must include road wins against Top 10 teams, along with schedules that include strong non-conference games, which are chosen by the school years in advance).
Once all eight teams have been selected, they are seeded based on the overall strength of the schedule. This means just because you are a conference champion, you do not get a home game in the first round of the playoffs. An at-large team with a better non-conference and Top 10 road wins should get a home game. This rewards schools that schedule tougher opponents.
There would be three rounds to determine a champion. In round 1, all eight teams play. In the next round, the remaining four teams would be re-seeded by the committee and the two semifinal games are played between the rotating group of four major bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange). The final round would be played in one of the two remaining "Big Four" bowls.
This format shares some similarities with the format being used now, notably the shared hosting duties for the semifinals of the "Big Four" bowl games. The main difference is that you are protecting and rewarding winning your conference, but not providing a sense of entitlement that a conference winner will get a home game in the first round of the playoffs.
I think this format would be a better option than the current CFP model the sport is using now. My proposal protects winning your conference, while not shutting the door on great teams that are not able to play for their respective conferences. I think my idea has merit, and the powers that be should use it, instead of the 12-team playoff that will come into effect next year (that's too many teams!).
I welcome any feedback and am open to a better proposal for how college football can crown a true national champion in the future.
