An Expanded Playoff is Coming!

 An expanded playoff is coming- and that's a good thing!

In case you haven't heard (you need to climb out from under that rock you're living beneath if you haven't heard...), a working group, consisting of the commissioners of the SEC (Greg Sankey), Big 12 (Bob Bowlsby), Mountain West (Craig Thompson), and Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick have proposed a 12-team playoff.  Here are the particulars, none of which are set in stone and all of which still need final approval, probably sometime in September at the very earliest.:

- The 12-team field would consist of the 6 highest ranking conference champions, and 6 at-large teams.

- The top 4 conference champions would get a 1st-round bye.

- Teams 5-8 would host teams 9-12 on campuses, sometime in December.

- Quarterfinal games would be at bowl sites on or around January 1 (spread over 2 dates).

- Semifinal games (also spread over 2 dates) and the final would be sometime in January, with the semifinals at bowl sites and the final at a neutral site (as it is now).

This sounds like an excellent plan, which incorporates a lot of what I have been calling for, and takes the best of the conference championship automatic berths and the rankings of the committee.  The earliest this could possibly be implemented would be after the 2023 season, but it could wait until after the current 12-year deal runs out before the 2026 season.  Here are what I see as the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal.

STRENGTHS

1. Access- This proposal allows access to all 130 teams currently playing in the FBS Subdivision (Side thought- Will the name have to be changed with bowls being less important? Will they go back to calling it Division IA?).  Every team will now have a clear path to playoff eligibility.  Win your conference and maintain an undefeated record, and you are almost guaranteed to get in.  You no longer have to be in a Power 5 conference to make the field.  The 6 highest rated conference champions are guaranteed a slot, and the top 4 are guaranteed a bye.  It's even possible that 2 Group of 5 champions could get chosen, as might have been the case last year with Cincinnati and Coastal Carolina both being undefeated in the regular season.

2. Fairness- Many critics of expansion have pointed out that guaranteeing automatic berths to conference champions may leave us with a 7-5 team making the playoff.  This plan guards against that.  If a 7-5 Pittsburgh were to upset a 12-0 or 11-1 Clemson in the ACCCG, the Panthers are not likely to be one of the 6 highest ranked conference champions. And they're less likely to be picked as an at-large team, as the at-large teams are supposed to be the next 6 highest ranked teams that are not necessarily conference champions (but could be).

3. Seeding- Everyone has something to play for even in late October and throughout November.  The top 4 get a bye, 5-8 get a home game, and 9-12 get an opportunity.  Many more teams will have the chance to prove they belong by winning games and conference titles, and for scheduling tougher games.

WEAKNESSES

1. Access- It may be difficult for Independents (except Notre Dame) to make the playoff.  The only way they can be chosen for the playoff is one of the at-large berths.  It may push some to join a conference, but you can't just join; both the team and the conference have to agree.  The MWC would probably take BYU back, but would need to add one more to keep balanced divisions.  The most likely landing spots for the other Independents (assuming they want to join, and a conference wants them): Army could join the AAC and be paired with Navy, but I would be surprised if that happened after all their years of Independence.  Liberty could be a good fit for CUSA, but that would bloat that conference to 15 teams, which I see as unworkable.  One other option would be joining the AAC, perhaps paired with Army to allow the American to split back into two 6-team divisions.  I don't see any conference being interested in New Mexico State (unless the MWC would want them just to balance their divisions should BYU rejoin), UMass or UConn, and neither of these have been competitive for at least the last 3 years, and UConn and UMass for longer than that.

2. Fairness- According to the proposal, Notre Dame (or any other Independent) cannot be seeded any higher than 5th, since the top 4 seeds must be the highest ranked conference champions.  Even if the Fighting  Irish go 12-0 with victories over FSU, Wisconsin ,Cincinnati, Va Tech, USC, North Carolina, Navy, and Stanford (assuming this started this year, which it won't), they cannot be seeded any higher than 5th.  However, they also don't have to play a conference championship game, so perhaps their thinking was that the 5-12 game would be similar to that and replace that game.  The ND athletic director was in the working group, so I can only surmise that he accepted this in exchange for something he wanted.

3. Seeding- I do not like the fact that the quarterfinals will be at bowl sites; they should be on campus, like the 1st round is.  Asking fans to travel to 3 different "neutral" sites in the course of a month (and right after Christmas, at that) is maybe too much.  I'm ok with the semifinals and finals being neutral or at bowl sites, but I would prefer all games except the final be on campuses, like the NFL does.  It's also possible that this format may only be for the 2023, 2024, and 2025 seasons (if it even starts that early), as the bowls would have to sign off on any changes before the contract runs out before the 2026 season; this could be a stop-gap "compromise" to make it to the next contract.

All-in-all, I think the strengths outweigh the weaknesses in this proposal.  It's a nice middle point between my radical proposal (see my previous blog) and what we have now.  Let me know what you think by adding a comment.  

Until next time, may you and your loved ones be blessed!