24-Team CFP? Good Grief!

 Welcome Back!

Momentum seems to be building for the CFP to expand to 24 teams (from the current 12), as the ACC and Big 12 have come out in support. The lone holdout seems to be the SEC, and I'm not sure how long they will stay in opposition, as some coaches (Kirby Smart included, as I've read) say they like the idea. 

I think this is a mistake, and too much too soon. We still don't know the full ramifications of the most recent expansion to 12 teams (it's only been 2 years!), and it could lead to the devaluing of the regular season (bad idea!) and the elimination of conference championship games (could be good or bad).

A little history here. I had been an advocate for playoff expansion for several years, and even wrote one of my very first blogs (almost 10 years ago!) on this subject. I felt 4 teams weren't enough, and cited figures that showed College Football allowed the fewest of its members into its playoff of any sport. Many felt this was a plus, as the regular season was ultra-important; you almost had to go undefeated to get in. However, the biggest drawback, I felt, was that of the 120-130 teams (at the time), only 50-65 truly had a path to win the national championship. That means that, before the season even started, fully half of the teams had no chance. My idea was a 16-team CFP, with all 10 conference champions and 6 at-large. That would grant possible access to every team in the FBS.

When the 12-team playoff was proposed (and later adopted), I though it was a reasonable compromise. Every team (theoretically, if not practically) had a path to a CFB championship, conference championships were emphasized (which I think is important), and the best of the remaining teams would have a chance, and not be eliminated because of some fluke play or bounce of the ball- one loss wouldn't derail their hopes. Now with the proposed 24-team affair, we are looking at the possibility of automatic bids and G6 teams being squeezed out altogether, and teams with 8-4 records being included.

So I have my own ideas to deal with every team equitably. If we're going to do this, we need to do this right. Here is how I think this 24-team monstrosity should be structured.

There is no dispute that the P4 conferences will get the majority of the slots in the CFP. That is where most of the talent resides. However, EVERY conference (through their champion) needs access to the CFP. The top 21 teams as rated by the committee are automatically in. The next 3 slots would be decided by a play-in between the six champions of the G6. However, If a G6 champion is in the top 21, then that play-in game slot may be filled by the #22 team in the rankings. 

Let me give an example. Let's say we have one of those years where there is no dominant G6 team (like Boise State or James Madison recently have been) and no G6 team finishes in the top 21. Then the six conference champions would be seeded 1 through 6, with 6 playing at 1, 5 playing at 2, and 4 playing at 3. The 3 winners would then be slotted in as seeds number 22-24 for the CFP. If, however, we have a typical year, where there is a dominant G6 team (like Western Michigan in 2016 when they went 13-0, or Tulane last year, when they finished #20 in the CFP rankings), that team is likely to be in the top 21. Therefore, they would already be in the CFP, and whoever was #22 in the Final CFP rankings would be seeded in the play-in portion to determine the last 3 slots. Now I realize that this actually means a 27-team tournament, but it would allow EVERY team a shot at making the CFP regardless of where they were located or their historical success (or lack thereof), and would allow the maximum number of "deserving" teams into the tournament.

Alternatively, we could just take the top 18, and then each of the G6 champions, replacing them if needed if they finish higher than 19. The benefit of that is that there would be no extra game to win to just make it in, but a major drawback is a truly mediocre champion (like Kennesaw State last year in CUSA) making the field. At least the "play-in" would most likely eliminate those types of teams while allowing access. And if a team from one of these conferences gets in at 8-4, at least they were a conference champion, as opposed to the 5th place team in the SEC or Big Ten.

Some of you are probably thinking, "Now, why would we want anyone but the best 24 teams in the CFP?" My response would be two-fold. First, best is, and always has been, subjective, which is why we have a tournament to determine a champion in the first place. Second, does it really matter who enters the tournament in the 19-24 spots? Those teams may win a game (or 2), but the likelihood of them running the table is extremely slim. If we are going to give access to the CFP, then EVERY team deserves a legitimate chance at that access. Cutting out the MAC or CUSA because they are weaker (as of now) doesn't allow room for growth, and actually hurts parity.

Just my thoughts on the subject. What do you think?

Feel free to leave a comment. Don't forget to bookmark this page, and come back this summer for my previews!

May you and your loved ones be blessed!