It's the offseason, so I thought I'd throw this out.
There's been a lot of quite justified criticism of the College Football Playoff. So if you were benevolent dictator what realistically achievable changes would you make?
I say "realistically achievable" in that I personally would prefer 8 teams. But due to the huge money involved, a reduction in size would never pass. So that's out.
Last year, I think the two biggest mistake were
1. Publishing the rankings too early.
2. An absurd seeding process
Wait to Publish Rankings
SMU got in only because they beat a then-undefeated Pitt. Previous to that, they were outside the Top 12. With the win, they vaulted into the Top 12. Problem is, Pitt never won another game. So the win was greatly devalued. They later beat another team (Duke, I think) that also didn't fare well after the game with SMU.
Problem is, by that time, the committee had painted themselves into a corner, keeping SMU ranked way too high for several weeks only because they were undefeated -- against a schedule of cupcakes.
IOW, by the time SMU lost to Clemson in the ACCCG, the committee couldn't exclude without admitting what Mr. Magoo could see: they'd been wrong for over a month and had passed up multiple chances to correct the mistake.
Seeding
Second major problem was seeding. Convoluted rules and some late season upsets ended up with Boise State sitting at an absurd #3 seed, complete with a bye and a guaranteed home quarterfinal game.
So my proposal is:
1. Wait until after the second game in November to publish rankings. This would have kept an undeserving SMU team out altogether.
2. Power 4 Conference Champions are guaranteed a spot in the playoff, but nothing beyond that -- no guaranteed seeding, no guaranteed byes, no nothing beyond a spot in the 12.
3. Seeding as determined by the old BCS ranking system -- which, by #1 above wouldn't be published until mid-November. Objectivity provided by computers, with humans providing the eye test. If a Power 4 Conference Champion is outside the Top 12, it replaces the #12 seed as determined by the BCS formula.
It would be unlikely, but if two Power 4 Conference Champions are out of the Top 12, they replace #s 11 and 12. If three, #s 10, 11 and 12. In the ridiculously improbable event that all four Power 4 champs are ranked outside the final BCS Top 12, they replace #s 9, 10, 11 and 12.
4. For a non-Power 4 team to get in, it would have to be ranked in the final BCS Top 12 and not get bumped by a Power 4 Champ ranked outside the BCS Top 12.
If this process had been in place in 2024, I think it would have precluded the problems we all saw.
What do you think? What changes would you make?
There's been a lot of quite justified criticism of the College Football Playoff. So if you were benevolent dictator what realistically achievable changes would you make?
I say "realistically achievable" in that I personally would prefer 8 teams. But due to the huge money involved, a reduction in size would never pass. So that's out.
Last year, I think the two biggest mistake were
1. Publishing the rankings too early.
2. An absurd seeding process
Wait to Publish Rankings
SMU got in only because they beat a then-undefeated Pitt. Previous to that, they were outside the Top 12. With the win, they vaulted into the Top 12. Problem is, Pitt never won another game. So the win was greatly devalued. They later beat another team (Duke, I think) that also didn't fare well after the game with SMU.
Problem is, by that time, the committee had painted themselves into a corner, keeping SMU ranked way too high for several weeks only because they were undefeated -- against a schedule of cupcakes.
IOW, by the time SMU lost to Clemson in the ACCCG, the committee couldn't exclude without admitting what Mr. Magoo could see: they'd been wrong for over a month and had passed up multiple chances to correct the mistake.
Seeding
Second major problem was seeding. Convoluted rules and some late season upsets ended up with Boise State sitting at an absurd #3 seed, complete with a bye and a guaranteed home quarterfinal game.
So my proposal is:
1. Wait until after the second game in November to publish rankings. This would have kept an undeserving SMU team out altogether.
2. Power 4 Conference Champions are guaranteed a spot in the playoff, but nothing beyond that -- no guaranteed seeding, no guaranteed byes, no nothing beyond a spot in the 12.
3. Seeding as determined by the old BCS ranking system -- which, by #1 above wouldn't be published until mid-November. Objectivity provided by computers, with humans providing the eye test. If a Power 4 Conference Champion is outside the Top 12, it replaces the #12 seed as determined by the BCS formula.
It would be unlikely, but if two Power 4 Conference Champions are out of the Top 12, they replace #s 11 and 12. If three, #s 10, 11 and 12. In the ridiculously improbable event that all four Power 4 champs are ranked outside the final BCS Top 12, they replace #s 9, 10, 11 and 12.
4. For a non-Power 4 team to get in, it would have to be ranked in the final BCS Top 12 and not get bumped by a Power 4 Champ ranked outside the BCS Top 12.
If this process had been in place in 2024, I think it would have precluded the problems we all saw.
What do you think? What changes would you make?
Last edited:
