Well, the first year of the 12-team college football playoff is over. Some say it was a success and some say it just sucked. Many complaints center around how the teams have been seeded and the criteria used.
Now, the original idea was, as the NCAA stated, to increase competition. There was even a marginal benefit to the players as well. While all of that is partially true, the obvious underlying reason was MONEY!
Show me the money!
Let us not kid ourselves here: sports are big business, and football is the biggest revenue draw in college sports. In 2022, according to Zacks.com, college football raked in an average of 31.9 million dollars PER SCHOOL. Now, obviously, not every school gets that much. It is not just ticket sales; it includes TV contracts, merchandise, and concession sales. The money college football takes in is more than the other 35 college sports combined. Basketball was next at only 8.1 million per school. It comes as no surprise that your traditional powerhouses are at the top of the heap. (Texas $144 million, Georgia $134 million, Michigan $126 million, Ohio State $116 million, and Alabama $110 million).
With TV contracts like ESPN's 470 million dollar deal and at that time the Power 5 conferences each had tv contracts worth at least 200 million dollars, it is easy to the obvious attraction (financially). Now, find a way to put more games on the schedule. The question becomes, how many do they add? Some have suggested a 14-team playoff that would include some sort of play-in game. An article by Dennis Dodd of CBSsports.com said that there could be at least within the B1G and SEC a play-in setup where the top 6 teams play for a "spot" 1 plays 2, 3 plays 6, and 4 plays 5. This would add two games to the conference's TV package as well as ticket revenue for both schools and the conference itself. The same would go for the SEC. There was also a formula in which 14 berths would be split between the P4 conferences, four each for the B1G and SEC, and two each for the ACC and Big XII, leaving two at large berths. Whatever formula will be decided in the end, if it is financially profitable to expand, then expansion WILL happen.
Will it improve competition?
The issue that fans yelled the most about was how the playoffs were seeded. The model used this past season had the top four conference champs getting the four first-round byes. This allowed teams like Boise St. and Arizona State A bye while Texas, Ohio St, Penn St, and Indiana had to play first-round games, and Notre Dame had no chance at a bye. Compounding that fact was that the four teams who received a bye lost the first game they played: Oregon, Georgia, Arizona St., and Boise St. The most vocal fans came from the SEC, who thought Alabama, LSU, and Ole Miss were snubbed.
I think it was a flaw in the formula of solely relying on rankings and win totals. Now, if you ask me, does a 9-3 Alabama team deserve a shot over a 10-3 Clemson team who got in only because they won their conference championship? Well, that is a tough call for me because I don't think any three-loss team belonged, anyway. But the argument is valid: Should teams get in based on a conference championship? Texas was ranked third before the final College Football Playoff (CFP poll). Penn State was 4th, but both were pushed out of those rankings, not because of losses they incurred but by conference champs who got automatic bids due to winning a conference championship game. To me, it should always be based on the regular season champ. If done right, yes, expansion could make for better competition. The argument becomes just what format? Some have suggested two separate Nattys for division 1. This would make the P4 conferences with three teams for each conference and two or four at-large bids(depending on if you go with 14 or 16 teams).
The Non-P4 would place the top two in each conference along with two or four at-large bids. You would be recreating a D1 and D1A. The other option is to have a football version of the NIT. After the CFP is seeded, then you pick 8, 10, or 12 teams to have a separate playoff. This would include all conferences in the current D1. This would elevate the competition level and still give smaller schools that are not P4 a chance for post-season honors. A D1 and D1A system sounds fair to me, but would the D1A playoffs get the TV revenue that networks would want?
What does it mean for players?
Now, what about the players here? There has been talk of a profit-sharing model being worked on for the players. For those with good NIL deals, it is just extra cash, but for those who may be borderline NFL or who didn't have much of a financial advantage before college, more games mean more revenue to share. The NCAA is some circles are claiming that then distribution would be fair and equitable. The only hiccup I see here is whether the agents for the NIL players will get involved and demand more because of their clients' status. I think it is something that has to be addressed.
The idea itself may not be a tough sell, but the final details will be hard fought not by the Power 4 conferences but by conferences like Conference USA, the MAC, Mountain West, Sun Belt, the AAC, and the reformed Pac-12 to make sure there is financial equity.
will expansion happen?
I do believe we will see an expanded playoffs now. Whether it is 14 or 16 teams, I don't know. As a fan, I would say 16. That way, you eliminate the bye, which seems to have been one of two main problems fans had with the playoffs this year. The other problem is the seeding. I think you have to elminate the relevance of conference championships, and put extra emphasis on schedule both non-conference and conference. I will have more to say on this on upcoming shows of Talking Sports on the Bleachers and The NCAA Report presented by the F.U.E.L. Sports Network.
Let me know what you think. Hit me up on X @tsotbgcs or on Facebook at Talking Sports on the Bleachers podcast.
Until next time, have fun, stay safe, and I will see you soon.
Comments