Would more be better for the CFP format?

On Monday afternoon in Chicago at Big Ten Media Days, Jim Harbaugh was asked regarding his thoughts on the current CFP format.

“More would be better,” Harbaugh said. “Let’s go to eight, and eventually get to 16.”

Would more be better? The Michigan head coach was not the only one who gave opinions on the topic Monday.

Former UCF head coach, current Nebraska head coach Scott Frost is also in favor of expansion. Likely due to his experience with his 2017-18 UCF team who Frost felt was worthy of a shot at a national championship.

This isn’t the first time Frost felt he was robbed of an outright national title, or at least a shot at one. The Nebraska head coach was the team’s starting quarterback in 1997-98 who had to split a championship with Lloyd Carr’s Michigan team who was named the AP national champion.

“Four was an improvement,” Frost said. “But it’s hard to look at last year’s college football season and not feel like an eight-team playoff isn’t where we should go. I think that’s my opinion. I think it should be five conference champions and three at-large teams. That would give a surprise conference champion that plays well at the end of the season a shot. It might give a team like we had at UCF last year a shot.”

Harbaugh wants a 16-team playoff, but for this topic in particular I personally have to agree with the former Nebraska quarterback. The argument against 16 teams is allowing several teams with a potentially an unworthy resume to have a chance they simply don’t deserve. Eight teams are perfect, in my opinion.

Eight teams that consist of five conference champions, and then three bubble teams with well worthy resumes. This limits the committee debate to just three teams, and yes much like the current format, there would still be an angry fan-base or two.

This would, as Frost said, allow for a team like 2017 UCF to have a shot in which they deserve. Going undefeated is impressive, even if it’s not in a power five conference schedule. However, with just four teams it’s close to impossible to let every worthy team have a chance to win it all.

Last season, it was a coin-flip decision between the Big Ten champion Ohio State and one-loss divisional runner-up Alabama for the four seed in the playoff. The committee had to have a debate in this scenario, and they concluded with selecting Alabama. Ohio State’s loss to an unranked Iowa team was their “deciding factor”, which is fair depending on who you ask.

Is it fair though? Did Ohio State not win the arguably most competitive division in college football and also beat an undefeated Wisconsin team in the conference title game? Did they not deserve a chance? They did deserve a chance, but this system will always have issues like this until it is resolved with an expansion.

This is what the 2017-18 season would’ve looked like had it been an eight-team format.

  1. Clemson (ACC champions)
  2. Oklahoma (Big 12 champions)
  3. Georgia (SEC champions)
  4. Ohio State (Big Ten champions)
  5. USC (PAC-12 champions)
  6. UCF (12-0)
  7. Wisconsin (12-1)
  8. Alabama (11-1)

This is what round one would look like:

  • Clemson vs Alabama
  • Ohio State vs USC
  • Georgia vs UCF
  • Oklahoma vs Wisconsin

As I said earlier, this is just my opinion. I believe this gives everyone who is truly worthy a real shot. Winning a power five conference is impressive, and teams who do so should be rewarded with this opportunity. Besides, an extra week of college football is something I think we can all get behind. We need expansion, or the debate will continue.

Advertisements