Alternative CFP Proposal
As predicted, going from the BCS to the CFP has not ended gripes and controversy about rankings, it has only shifted them from January to mid-season. Conference races and championships are barely given mention. But with all the objections to the status quo, here's my proposal for the college football playoff structure. It's basically a "Champions Plus" format, involving 11-14 teams in all. Here's how it would work:
The P5 conference champions (however they are determined) would play in a quarter-final game in one of the traditional New Year's bowls, effectively getting a bye from the earlier rounds. More on that below.
Their opponents would be determined by one (six teams) or two (nine team) play-in rounds of three games each, consisting of G5 champions and the top four rated "at large" teams (P5 teams that didn't win their conference, independents, etc.). The top-ranked three of those nine would draw a bye in the first round and host a second round game at home or at a venue of their choosing, prior to Christmas.
The first round games would be hosted by the next three highest rated of those nine (the non-P5 champion) qualifying teams on the first or second weekend in December.*
The winner of the first and second round games would get to play in one of the quarter finals (NY6 bowls).
The quarter-finals (four of the NY6 bowls) would pit the ACC, Big 12, and SEC champs at their predetermined bowls sites against the three winners of the second round playoff; and the B1G and PAC12 champs in the Rose Bowl, just like it used to be. Semifinals and finals would follow in January (I believe ten days to two weeks apart makes more sense, for reasons I can explain later).
This would tick nearly all the desirable boxes and fix most* of the problems with the current system: retain the importance of the regular season; give conference standing and championship games real meaning; include the G5 teams and make their seasons count, too; give the major bowls* (the Rose Bowl in particular) their meaning and importance, and cover all regions of the country. It would be better for the game all around.
[For the record I was never a fan of the BCS, the CFP, super-conferences, or even conference title games. I felt college football was arguably more fun and enjoyable “back in the day” before all those. My personal preference would be for conferences small enough their champions could be decided by a round-robin regular season, and the bowl season would be competitive, entertaining intersectional contests; leave it to fans and pundits to argue for the next seven or eight months about who was better than who, and if more than one school had a claim to an NC, there's no real harm. But I realize that's never coming back]
*[notes]
- Pairings would not necessarily have to be strictly by seed. They could be arranged to avoid rematches or two teams from the same conference ending up in the New Year's Day bowls. OTOH some reseeding might take place after the NYD bowls.
- There could be a first-round bye for the top-rated G5 champion. Consider moving G5 championship games to the last weekend in November, and moving their season to start in "Week 0", or shorten the season by one or two games. (Also consider arranging teams not playing in their conference championship games and independents to have an additional cross-divisional or OOC game that weekend)
- College players are not pros, and it is not necessary (and is less desirable) that all playoff games are played on consecutive weeks. 10-14 days between games would seem more ideal, giving time to recover from injury and prepare. Restricting meetings and practice to 20 hours before each game (rather than per week) would blunt some of the criticism that will come with extending the season. One example might be to play the semi-final on MLK day, and the championship two weeks later, possibly on the weekend of the Pro Bowl.
- The teams losing in the first round and second round could stil have a bowl game scheduled for the same stadium or near the NY6 bowl in a bowl game on the same day or within a few days of the quarterfinals. This would help with travel planning for teams and plans, and address some of the economic concerns about losing bowls.
- The Rose Bowl would be fixed as a quarter-final site, and a semi-final site as well every third year. If the other bowls are the Cotton, Orange, Peach, Sugar, and Fiesta bowls, they could be fixed or rotated, with one or two of the others taking the semi-final games.
January 11th, 2022 at 7:23 PM ^
Lob up a few more teams for Bama and Georgia to ruin.
January 12th, 2022 at 8:47 AM ^
My idea is to tie in conference champs to specific bowl games that match up the same conferences every year (this creates rivalries between those two conference and generates broader interest). Then play said bowl games. After the bowl season is over, various media outlets and the coaches can vote in their own polls as to the final rankings and award a national title, which sometimes might be split if there is disagreement. Also, the bowls should be renamed with single term titles that cannot be proper nouns. For example, the Tampax-Dorrito Bowl would need to be named something like the Highway Bowl, Seaside Bowl or Fiesta Bowl.
January 12th, 2022 at 10:58 AM ^
Yeah, I like that better. But I can't see it ever happening (again).
January 11th, 2022 at 7:25 PM ^
I like the format of incorporating bowls and making sure all conference champs are a part, but to do this I think they would have to decrease the season down to 11 games (maybe even 10 like the old days). No conference champ games, just have an outright winner by wins/tiebreakers, play a round robin kind of conference schedule through the years so all teams eventually play each other. Maybe this would even lead to something like 8 power conferences instead of just 5, splitting up several of these conferences into like 8 teams so they can play true round robins. Some of the good mid-majors could join bigger conferences. These 14-16 team conferences are just dumb.
January 11th, 2022 at 9:06 PM ^
But it’s not a bowl when it’s a playoff game. The point of a bowl is 1. It’s the end of your season. 2. If you win, you end the season as the “fiesta bowl champ”.
When you win to just go onto another game, it’s meaningless to have won that bowl, because it’s all about winning the next one.
January 11th, 2022 at 9:23 PM ^
As gimmicky as it is now, at least winning the “Orange Bowl” in 2020 means you get a shot to play for the title.
January 11th, 2022 at 7:27 PM ^
Unless I am mistaken, in your scenario, Georgia this year would have had to play a lot of games.
They played 13 games going into the playoffs, then would have to play a play in game for game 14 to then make the quarter finals. That is 17 games to win the title. Is that too much?
January 11th, 2022 at 7:42 PM ^
It also seems like a lot of games for the non-power 5 champions - especially since some of thrm are going to win and play past New Year’s day.
January 11th, 2022 at 11:44 PM ^
As I believe was mentioned, the G5 (and maybe P5 teams as well) might cut their regular season length by one or two games if this is deemed too much.
January 12th, 2022 at 6:11 AM ^
Even in your scenario, 91% of the teams won't make the playoffs and they won't want their home games cut for a bigger playoffs that one of the top teams will win anyways.
January 12th, 2022 at 8:21 AM ^
“might cut their regular season length by one or two games if this is deemed too much.”
No P5 program is going to be dropping home games for the slight possibility of reaching the playoffs.
January 12th, 2022 at 1:00 AM ^
I also think the real problem is less the total number of games in a season, and more about the wear and tear (and missed school) of playing consecutive weeks. (And arguably the basketball season is relatively much longer, with more than twice as many games). This would only apply to a few schools anyway, and as mentioned, the 20-hour rule (maximum 20 hours of meetings and practice) could be applied for playoffs per game, i.e. over two weeks, not per week.
January 11th, 2022 at 7:27 PM ^
I agree with increasing the importance of conference champions, but I don’t understand the infatuation with having “at-large” teams. I think if we want to modernize college football while preserving the importance of a regular season, the national championship should be a “champion of champions.” There are many ways to do that in a 6 or 8 team format.
I don’t see that happening though, because the drivers behind this whole thing (ESPN/Disney) make a lot of money off the controversy the sport generates.
January 11th, 2022 at 8:32 PM ^
If we had 8 power conferences that included everyone, then I agree. But we have an awkward 5 power conferences and non affiliated teams like ND and smaller conference teams that want a shot like Cincinnati. So the at large spots would be a concession to those teams.
January 12th, 2022 at 2:44 PM ^
This is easy.
Six team format where you either take the 6 best conference champs (from all 10 FBS conference), or have a certain number of P5 conferences auto-qualify (all 5, or potentially 4). Top 2 teams get byes.
OR
8 team format where you take all 5 P5 champions, then choose the best/most deserving 3 G5 teams as lambs to slaughter for the top 2 or 3, with the occasional Cincy/UCF that’s a real threat to go deep.
EDIT: you’re right about ND. That does really screw things up.
January 12th, 2022 at 6:37 PM ^
I have been an advocate for an eight arrangement with the P5 champions and the "best" 3 remaining teams (Group of 5 or runners-up in the P5 conferences, or independent, I won't even say the name). Use the primary New Years Day bowls as the quarters and then neutral site the semis and final.
I would re-establish bowl tie ins Big Ten/Pac 12 to Rose, SEC and at large to Sugar, ACC /at large Cotton, Whatever takes the place of the pretty well dismembered Big 12/at large to Orange.
Having the assured entry by being the champion would have the benefit of allowing teams to schedule glamor non-conference matchups. Think of a Michigan non-con of say USC,ND, Texas. You could drop all three, but still make the playoffs by blasting through the Big Ten schedule.
January 11th, 2022 at 9:03 PM ^
I don’t understand the infatuation with having “at-large” teams
Totally agreed. No more effin rematches that negate the result of a regular season meeting.
And restricting conferences to one playoff participant would provide incentive for bluebloods to space themselves out, instead of all consolidating in one conference
January 13th, 2022 at 11:45 AM ^
For arguments sake, say that Alabama lost to Georgia in the SEC championship game. Who is the better team Pittsburgh the ACC champion or Alabama the loser of the SEC championship game?
No one wants to see a playoff's where a team like Pitt is in because they played in a weak conference and a team like Alabama is out because they played a much tougher schedule.
January 11th, 2022 at 7:28 PM ^
11~14 teams mean 5~6 SEC teams, and they'll dominate, accelerating them taking over CFB as new members know they can make the playoffs. That's why the other leagues are against expansion.
At least now schools hesitate knowing the chances of making the playoffs in the SEC are very tough.
Also I like how unless you're Georgia level dominant, 1 loss late in the season has huge ramifications.
January 11th, 2022 at 7:36 PM ^
Maximum of four at-large teams in the proposal (depending on whether all G5 champions are included or not). I would agree with limiting the number of teams from one conference to two or three, including the champion.
January 11th, 2022 at 11:22 PM ^
Imagine how pissed off the SEC would be if the committee decided to only allow conference champions into the playoffs. How fast would Texas and Oklahoma lawyer up in efforts to get back to the Big 12?
I think doing this would help to level the playing field. Players want to get to the playoffs for a chance at a NC. Why would they continue to flock to the SEC where competition is ultra intense and only one team makes it any given year?
January 11th, 2022 at 11:46 PM ^
The SEC has too much veto power for that. But if that were the case, they would conceivably break up into two "conferences", the SEC-East and SEC-West. Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
January 11th, 2022 at 11:46 PM ^
[double post somehow]
January 11th, 2022 at 7:32 PM ^
The talent is so skewed to a few teams that it's become entirely predictable which teams have a shot at winning the title. I think the only way you have a chance at rekindling some of the pre-CFP magic is to do something that will never ever happen - limit CFP participation to one team from each league. Then you can still get chaos and teams getting eliminated with one bad week
January 11th, 2022 at 9:10 PM ^
Yes. The current problem is that when your team has a magical year, and everything goes right, you get sent to play Bama, and if you beat them, you play Georgia or Clemson or OSU. I’d rather have no playoff, and end the season in the Rose Bowl playing another very good team, that isn’t paying $25m for their players every year and having players that have never been on campus except for practice and games.
January 12th, 2022 at 8:50 AM ^
Then why play at all? You're acting like everyone is afraid to the play those teams. You go try telling the Cincy players or UM players "Let's go to the Rose Bowl instead so we send a message that we aren't good enough". Like it or not, the playoff does ultimately decide the champion, whether they are leaps and bounds ahead of everyone is a different story.
What you described is verbatim a classic Loser's Mentality.
January 12th, 2022 at 9:18 AM ^
Agreed.
If you want to be the best, you have to beat the best. I hated seeing an all-SEC matchup in the title game (again) but you can't tell me those weren't the two best teams in the country. The goal of the CFP is to find and crown the best team, and I believe its done that.
In no world could I have ever imagined Harbaugh and his players saying to themselves "you know what, let's just go play in the Rose Bowl instead and at least then we'll have a great chance to end the season with a W against a lesser opponent."
January 11th, 2022 at 7:46 PM ^
While it's happening less (note the Bowl games this past year on the 18th as an example), I think one of the likely considerations in December is Finals week, for the students.
January 11th, 2022 at 7:47 PM ^
Just a longer way to get the SEC into the finals.
January 11th, 2022 at 8:14 PM ^
Most years there doesn't even end up being 3-4 teams that can realistically win the title/be the best team in the country. Expanding the playoffs to 8, then 12, and then 16 teams is not going to increase parity or give more teams a "fair chance" at winning the title. There may be an upset here and there, and a star player might get hurt for a favorite that makes it so the best team doesnt win in the end.
But expansion just for the sake of expansion or including all the conferences isn't going to make the Playoff more competitive or accurate. Because while its certainly not perfect, the playoff set-up itself isn't what makes things so uncompetitive. The problem is the deep-down systemic inequity between programs across the country at the FBS level. There are only a handful of teams that really have a chance at winning the title now thanks to the advantages they have (both allowed and swept under the rug) and those advantages will only keep increasing with the changed landscape of NIL/Transfer Portals, etc. Without any changes to the make up of the rules of FBS football, expansion of the playoffs isn't fixing anything except the bottom line of the higher-ups in TV land and the NCAA.
January 11th, 2022 at 8:56 PM ^
Serious question: what rule changes are you suggesting or alluding to?
January 12th, 2022 at 9:19 AM ^
The only way to
get real competition throughout the FBS is to have the same rules.
- set admission standards across the board
- set scholarship requirements. (Guarantee four years)
- recruiting salary cap (each school can spend up to $25million, any more and you lose scholarships for the following year which would hurt because of rule above where you have to honor the guys you already have and can’t just cut them to make room for the 5* you now don’t have room for)
- schedule restrictions ( like one fcs opponent per year max and one G5 team max)
just some examples
January 11th, 2022 at 8:18 PM ^
CBS did a mock up of what this year’s playoff would look like as twelve teams.
MSU would play at Ohio State in the first round, with the winner playing Michigan. so you basically get the M-OSU game played all over again three weeks after the regular season match up.
If we start down this road we run a real risk of diluting the regular season games, especially rivalry week. If a team has their division locked up, you could start seeing teams sitting their starters for rivalry week, which would stink.
I’m not necessarily against playoff expansion, but as we’ve seen with all the recent changes, we should consider the unintended consequences.
January 12th, 2022 at 3:00 AM ^
CBS just plopped the teams in their current rank in a playoff. If this were real, they should absolutely make sure that the conferences are more spread out. It should be a rule that the first round should not have a conference matchup.
January 12th, 2022 at 6:09 AM ^
Yeah, the CBS proposal example sucks not because conference champions get Quarterfinal home advantage (which is nice), but because it strictly adheres to rankings, and sets up too many rematches.
There should be at least some flexibility to rearrange: e.g. in the First Round, Ohio State, ND, and Ole Miss swap so ND, Ohio State, or Ole Miss don't play a team they already played in that or the next round. Ditto for MSU who should be swapped with Oklahoma State, Utah, or Pitt. In other words, avoiding rematches until at least the semi-final round.
(#5-8 are home teams, and #7-12 are away).
e.g.
- (9) Ok State at (7) Ohio State; winner at (1) Alabama
- (12) Pitt at (5) Georgia; winner at (4) Baylor
- (10) MSU at (8) Ole Miss; winner at (3) Cincinnati
- (11) Utah at (6) ND; winner at (2) Michigan
or
- (11) Utah at (7) Ohio State; winner at (1) Alabama
- (10) MSU at (6) ND; winner at (4) Baylor
- (12) Pitt at (5) Georgia; winner at (3) Cincinnati
- (9) OK State at (8) Ole Miss; winner at (2) Michigan
etc,
January 11th, 2022 at 8:26 PM ^
So many players would opt out of bowl/playoff season in this scenario.
January 11th, 2022 at 9:32 PM ^
The couple things that keep me hung up on expansion are:
1. I don’t believe non-conference champions should get in.
2. No byes in the playoffs.
I would be all for 8 conference champions making the playoffs. FPI/S&P determines seeding (encourages strong non-conference scheduling).
Win your conference you are in. Just like in basketball. Every team then goes into the year with a shot to win a national title.
Either that or split into FBS-A and AA and let the non power conferences have their own playoff.
January 12th, 2022 at 3:09 AM ^
I think you nailed it at the end. There are way too many teams in D-1. Only power conferences. Perhaps even shift them into 4 or 8 conferences, depending on how large you want the playoff to be. I would prefer 8 conferences, which means each conference can play every team in their conference during the regular season.
8 conferences. 80 teams in D-1. 10 member conferences. 9 game conference schedule, 2 non-conference games only from the other power conferences (no playing Citadel, Alabama), and those 2 games must be played at the beginning of the year (still looking at you, SEC). Conference championship games aren't strictly necessary since everyone plays everyone. The playoff is 8 conference champions. At most, 2 teams play 14 games.
This would require a lot of shifting - but I think it would be good for the game. I think another element would be if you wanted to change conferences, it would have to look more like a trade. The numbers balance is important, so if you want to leave a conference, another team has to take your place, and since only 10 teams per conference, that conference you are joining needs to drop another team.
January 12th, 2022 at 3:12 AM ^
Further, a relegation system may organically appear. Say Western Michigan begins to tear it up in the MAC (not one of the power 8) and Rutgers continues to Rutger. The B1G decides to drop Rutgers into the MAC and bring up Western into the B1G. That would be fascinating.
January 12th, 2022 at 8:47 AM ^
But...who would give up the precious NY TV market for the...Kalamazoo TV market??
January 12th, 2022 at 9:45 AM ^
For reasons of television and recruiting markets, stadium size, league footprint, academic prestige, etc. relegation will never happen for the B1G. Do you honestly think they would ever drop Illinois or Northwestern or Maryland or Rutgers for a Northern Illinois or Ball State or a directional Michigan school?
The NY/NJ television and recruiting markets required a team in that area, and having Rutgers has probably made sense for the B1G. (Who else from that region? Syracuse? Temple?)
Ditto for Maryland. The other teams in the B1G East have plenty of competition to build up their SOS already.
[Nebraska is the member of the B1G that never made much sense to me - a big name in football from the late 60s to the 90s yeah, but little since; small television market; a net loss in the recruiting market (they take more from the rest of the B1G footprint than they offer); and bringing Wh to the rest of the conference prestige academically speaking. (Nice folks though.) They belong in the Big 12. B1G probably should've taken Missouri or Georgia Tech instead.]
January 11th, 2022 at 9:34 PM ^
8 teams is the maximum before the regular season starts getting significantly devalued. Even if an 8 seed were to do the unthinkable and win the championship it still wouldn’t be very satisfying because they likely already have two losses. When you start expanding the playoffs to 12 or 16 teams then there will be three loss teams with a chance to win a championship. A three loss team should never be in the same breath as National Championship. College football is great because the regular season is so meaningful.
January 11th, 2022 at 9:58 PM ^
Want to make the Bowls mean something to the players again? 50% of the payout going to the school’s NIL fund (create one). Only players who dress are eligible.
January 11th, 2022 at 10:59 PM ^
The whole thing about P5 conferences getting the scraps of any conference not the BIG ten and BIG and PAC 10 champs having to play in the Quarter finals regardless of ranking is just really bad. I mean what if USC and OSU finish 1 and 2 in the country. Their "reward" is playing one another? Also, what if by chance 8-4 Iowa (with a home loss to Northern Iowa) gets lucky after 11-2 PSU's QB gets injured in the conference championship. Are you giving Iowa a free trip to the Rose Bowl?
You ever hear of KISS? All P5 conference champions are in but are seeded according to the playoff rankings. If maintain the traditional bowl game feel, the quarter finals could be regionalized with the highest 4 seeds being assigned their closest venue. Quarter final locations could be played in four regions, while rotating regions from 5 total regions. The regions could be SE location (e.g., ATL (Peach), Miami (Orange), NO etc. (Sugar)), a SW region (e.g., Dallas (Cotton), Phoenix (Fiesta), Houston (some crap-bowl), etc.), a West Coast Location (e.g., LA (Rose), SF (No idea but I know there is at least one), LV (Silver?), etc.), a MW region (e.g., Indy, Minnesota, Detroit, or even Chicago), and a east coast location (e.g., DC, NY, Boston, Philly, etc.). In an eight team playoff, that logistics are easy. 1-4 get 8-5 respectively. If you want to add a play-in game, the top four team get byes and 5-8 play 12-9, respectively at home. After those games the four winning teams can be re-seeded based on the previous weeks results (or not).
In either scenario, the season would probably need to be shorted by a week. In both eight and twelve team formats, conference championships would take place the weekend after Thanksgiving. In the twelve team format, the play-in round would be hosted first weekend of December, and Quarter Finals would take place ten days later. If an eight team format, then the first. Personally, I think eight team is the way to go.
Semifinals and final could be rotated from venues not selected for quarter finals. Semi-finals on or around NYD and CFP 10-14 days later.
January 12th, 2022 at 12:18 AM ^
The whole thing about P5 conferences getting the scraps of any conference not the BIG ten and BIG and PAC 10 champs having to play in the Quarter finals regardless of ranking is just really bad.
Scraps? Georgia was one such "scrap" team this year, and the won the NC. Cincinnati would have played one more game (at home) which they easily might have won, and then faced the ACC champion. Alabama, and Oklahoma State would have played ND, Ohio State, MSU, or one of the other upset winners of the play-in round game played at home.
I mean what if USC and OSU finish 1 and 2 in the country.
Yes, some years the Rose Bowl might be the toughest quarter-final matchup, others it might be the easiest. This season it would have been Michigan playing Utah. But preserving the Rose Bowl tradition would be something the bowl and both conferences would prefer, and give the entire conference season and championship games full meaning.
As far as the playoff/tournament goes, it's single-elimination, so all that matters to most people is the team that finishes first, regardless of their path their.
Also, what if by chance 8-4 Iowa (with a home loss to Northern Iowa) gets lucky after 11-2 PSU's QB gets injured
So? If Iowa wins the conference championship (as that conference defines it), yes they go to the Rose Bowl - which in the propose case, is a playoff game. Maybe they go further, maybe not. I have not heard a single word spoken against the NFL or other sports playoff systems which often includes teams barely above .500. (A 9-7 team nearly won the Super Bowl one year).
[BTW if you want to be technical about it, a "playoff" should only be held among two or more teams with identical records like 13-0 or 12-1, i.e. to break a tie. What we have in virtually all sports is actually a tournament, with varying requirements for qualifying.]
January 11th, 2022 at 11:33 PM ^
I’m unclear what problem you’re trying to solve exactly.
Has there been a single year when a team who didn’t make the CFP would have actually had a legitimate chance to win it all?
January 11th, 2022 at 11:41 PM ^
It’s not a bad concept, especially this model. The problem is that playoff expansion as a whole further trivializes the regular season. In fact, the playoffs have actually hurt the regular season already by making teams less willing to set up strong out of conference games. Who wants a loss when that could potentially knock you out of contention and you still have to play your conference?
January 12th, 2022 at 12:39 AM ^
AQs encourage you to play OOC games, because they don't kill your chances as they do now. They place more importance on conference records and conference champions than overall records and subjective "eye tests." So, in fact, there would be an incentive to play more challenging OOC games. (Either earlier in the season, or maybe add a cross-conference challenge at the end for the teams not in the conference championship game, e.g. B1G East #2 vs ACC Coastal #2, and so on, the weekend of the conference championships, or the weekend after).
If there are AQs, the conversation would cease becoming "Who are the Top 4?" endlessly to "Who will win their conference?" followed by "Who else is worthy?"
January 12th, 2022 at 12:42 AM ^
The fundamental "problem" (if one views it as such, I'm not sure I agree) with the CFP is the gap between it and the regular season. All momentum is lost during those 4 weeks. The ups and downs that are inherent when you're doing anything continually for 100 days (e.g., the regular season) don't factor into the bottom-line results like they do in the regular season.
It's essentially like hitting the reset button. All this, of course, favors the teams with more inherent talent. It's easier to pull an upset when thinks ebb and flow. It's harder to pull an upset when they don't.
We can reform the CFP, but if there remains a significant gap between the regular season and CFP (this gap remains in your proposal), the large-margin scores, particularly in the earliest rounds of the CFP, will remain.
January 12th, 2022 at 1:14 AM ^
You have a season starting in late August and ending early February. Nearly a 6 month season. I think one of the biggest problems is for the athletes that play school. Finals are going on in December/January and then starting a new semester. Some teams would play way too many games.
I admire your idea but I don't think it would be feasible.