For college football playoffs, less is more a better solution than expansion

With the College Football Playoff National Championship game between Alabama and
Clemson looming on Monday night at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, CA, followed by
the NCAA basketball tournament in March, you will hear two reactions.

Many people will swear by the NCAA Tournament in college basketball and swear at the
College Football playoff system.

I'm in the minority, while the College Football Playoff system is not perfect, it is much
better than the former BCS (Bowl Championship Series).

Though I quit the tradition of filling out brackets about six years ago, I enjoy March
Madness but you’re not going to hear me say that March Madness is the greatest thing
since the Great Wall of China.

Before the BCS came into being in the 1998 season, we frequently had two undefeated
teams. The problem is that they at times were not matched up against each either: 1991
Miami-Washington, 1994 Nebraska-Penn State, 1997 Nebraska-Michigan. Did those
teams play each other on the field? No.

Why? Because the Pac-10 and Big 10 were so hell-bent on keeping their Rose Bowl
tradition but when they had an unbeaten team, they'd whine about either getting a split
National title (i.e. Michigan in 1997) or no National title (i.e. Penn State in 1994). I say,
sorry folks. You can't have it both ways. The reality is that Penn State screwed itself out
of the National title in 1994 by going from Independent to Big 10.

The BCS was not without its controversies either including but not limited to the years
of 2000, 2001, 2006, 2007 and 2012.

In 2014, the BCS was succeeded by the CFP. The system maintains the existing bowl
games but has four teams playing two semifinal games with the winner of those contests
playing each other one week later. The 13-member committee selects and seeds the four
teams to take part in the CFP. This system differs from the use of polls or computer
rankings that had previously been used to select the participants for the BCS. The current
format is a Plus-One system, an idea which became popular as an alternative to the BCS.

The other layer to the college football playoff controversy is the exclusion of Group of
Five teams like Central Florida or Boise State to name a few. In a previous writing, your
truly made a case for such schools:

http://vincedadamo.blogspot.com/2018/12/making-case-for-central-florida.html

I find it comical how fans, media and talk show hosts whine and complain about the
BCS just like they whined and complained about Nebraska (2001), Oklahoma (2003),
Alabama (2011), Ohio State (2016) and Alabama (2017) not winning its conference
but yet still playing for the title. Yet they don't say boo about a team finishing seventh
in its basketball conference and getting an NCAA tournament bid.

The pro March Madness folks would then say but "at least it's played on the court."
True but it doesn't stop teams that were on the bubble from complaining about not getting
an NCAA tournament bid.

The NCAA men's basketball tournament might be exciting but it's nothing more than a
gimmick. Fans that love it say that a team can get hot all of the sudden. My argument is
that any team can get hot all of the sudden but once they lose a game, the pressure is gone.

Whereas going undefeated is a bigger accomplishment. It's like pitching a perfect game
in baseball. With each win, the laws of averages are not on your side because that team
has a Bull's Eye right across its chest.

Again, March Madness is exciting but the field of 64 teams is watered down worse than
a flat Budweiser and please don't come at with the George Masons of the world either.
I say cut the field to 16 teams and have truly the best teams.

If the idea is to find out which college basketball team is the best by having a tournament
and having everyone play it off, then when play the regular season in the first place?

With the exclusion of Group of Five teams from the CFP, there have been cries to expand
the field to eight teams to give the illusion of fairness. In my world, more does not mean
better. Former Nebraska defensive end Adam Carriker, who played five years in the NFL
(two with the St. Louis Rams, three with the Washington Redskins), had the best idea
yet and it’s one I have espoused for years. Carriker does a weekly segment called
Carriker Chronicles, as a Nebraska alum, I follow it closely.

Having the CFP after the major bowl games is much better than the eight team playoff.
The latter may be the easiest thing to do but that doesn’t make it the best way. With an
eight-team format, you start getting into teams with two losses. No team with two
defeats should be playing for a National Championship because it de-emphasizes the
regular season. That is exactly why many fans in other sports don’t bother watching
the regular season because the postseason formats are watered down worse than a flat
Budweiser.

With college football, the regular season is like a de facto postseason. Another example of
more not being better is bowl games. Over half the damn teams in college football qualify
for bowl games, even those that go 5-7 for crying out loud. The first thing I would do is
make bowl games a more challenging feat to reach. Make a team go 7-5 minimum.

I would also chop the system from six major bowls to four: Rose, Sugar, Orange and
Fiesta. I could make a point of realigning conferences and getting rid of conference title
games but that’s completely another discussion. That idea falls into the less is more
category. OK, so what do you do after the bowl games?

There is merit to a two-team format because in the Rose and Sugar, there are often two
conference champions so whoever wins that would be perfect for a title game but there
are wild cards. To that end, a three or four team format would work. For openers, I think
an undefeated Group of Five team belongs in the playoff regardless of ranking. Please,
spare me the “they don’t play anyone/they’d lose by 75 touchdowns” card. If they get
blown out so what, how is that any worse than Clemson throttling Notre Dame or
Alabama blasting Michigan State?

I would err on the side of a three-team format but with the flexibility of adding a fourth
depending on the year. The No. 1 team would get a bye while No. 2 plays No. 3. In a
nutshell, make it three teams every year and if there’s an undefeated Group of Five, they
become the fourth team.

I can hear the grovels, “it’s all about money!” Thank you, Captain Obvious. However,
money can also be combined with merit. Less is more. Look no further than Super
Bowl Sunday. The per ad revenue is off the charts. Why? Because there is only one.
That day, you have people watching the game that don’t care about football.

The overarching issue is power five conferences. They don’t care one iota on what is
best for college football. They care about money. It’s called capitalism, which is not a
dirty word. However, if they that there is money to be made by having the CFP after
the bowl games, they are more likely to get on board with the idea.