Leave College Football Alone, a Playoff Will Only Mess It Up

It seems like university officials are warming to the idea of a playoff for college football's top division.

But, I can’t understand why people want the FBS to adopt a playoff system. It is as though college football is unbearable to watch and we need to make it better.

Or, worse, that human happiness depends upon how a champion is crowned.

Give it a rest.

College football is doing great in terms of revenue, keeping fans and gaining new ones. If viewers didn’t like what was going on, they wouldn’t watch.

Yet it is college football fans, presumably those who tune in on Saturdays, who are clamoring for change.

If you don’t like what’s on, change the channel and send a clear signal to administrators that you are unhappy with the product they produce.

That being said, here is my argument against a college playoff system.

Some of my points serve as direct counters to playoff proponents, while some make an argument to keep the system as it is.

What I intend to show is that our attachment to the familiar and accepted is what drives us to want a playoff system. Not logic or clarity of thought.

1. It probably won’t affect the team you cheer for anyway.

If your team is not one of the Top Four teams in the nation, or competes for that spot on a regular basis, it doesn’t matter how a champion is decided. Your team will not be directly affected.  

But, your team could get to a bowl game, which is pretty cool for smaller schools and their fans.

Not just for small schools either.

Teams like Texas A&M or Minnesota who are usually competitive but not great are rewarded by a trip to a bowl. This gives players the chance to take part in the bowl experience and it gives fans an excuse to get out of town.

Moving to a playoff system could lead to the elimination of bowls altogether—like the FCS. This would be bad for fans and players.

2. The expanded bowl format rewards mediocrity.

That's true, but so does the FCS and all divisions not part of the FBS.

Should we get rid of those programs? After all, if you're not the best you shouldn't get the opportunity to play. That seems to be the argument of those who oppose an expanded bowl format.

3. When a team loses matters more than losing.

A team that loses their last game of the season is punished more than a team that loses early on. This is considered unfair, and a playoff system is seen as a remedy.

At last check, that is the entire point of a playoff: to make the very last game of the season the most important. Just ask the 18-1 New England Patriots or the 14-6 Giants to whom they lost in the Super Bowl.

It doesn’t appear this is a valid reason for switching to a playoff since a playoff would only increase the importance of the final games.

No system values the final game of the season more than a playoff system.

The only way to make sure each game is weighted equally is if each team played 12—or any agreed upon number of—games against randomly selected opponents then, after the 12th game, have a computer or committee randomly select which six games will be the games that counted for the end of season rankings.

The six games by which teams are judged would vary from year to year since they would be chosen at random. This would allow all games  to weigh the same. There would have to be contingencies for ties, but it could be done.

Unsatisfying, you say?

Sure, but so too is a playoff system if you look for it to correct a problem it can't.

A playoff system would not address the weighting problem in the current system.

4. "A playoff system will allow the champion to be decided on the field."

This is the most commonly used argument for a playoff system—perhaps the most preposterous.

A playoff system would only settle the matter between two teams on one day and not between all other teams over an entire season.

If fairness and settling it on the field is truly what is desired, there is only one way to guarantee it—a 1-2-3 team round robin preceding a playoff. This way computers won’t be relied upon to calculate strength of schedule.

Also, all teams will have played one another and, thus, have settled it on the field.

Ridiculous?

Yes, but it is no more ridiculous than thinking a four-team playoff will allow things to be settled on the field. Especially when they do not share a common set of opponents. 

As long as there are conferences tied in there will be no way to objectively determine who the best four teams are—or get the best four teams to play one another.

Not even the NFL can get around this in its format. If you don't believe me, ask the 7-9 Seahawks who made the playoffs over teams with winning records.

Unless a playoff system will truly allow teams to settle it on the field and end all debate about who the best team in the nation is for a given year, there is no reason to scrap the current system for one with similar flaws.

5. With a playoff system, there will still be a debate about which teams belong in the playoff or the national title game.

Debating the quality of teams is what fans and pundits do. No system will stop it.

Watch the men's basketball tournament selection if you think a playoff system will eliminate this sort of debate. If a field of 68 won't get people from petty bickering about who should be in or out, a four-team field certainly won't.

To think otherwise is to ignore the obvious.

6.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Is there an unquestionable national champion at the end of the college football season? Sometimes the answer is no.

But, does my happiness depend upon whether the question is settled?

Nope.

Once the game is over do I care who won?

Not really, unless it's a team I root for or bet on.

If the team I cheer for wins a national championship under the current system or a playoff system will I be more or less happy?

Nope.

When UT won in 2005, did I turn to my friends and say, "Well, it's not a real national championship because it isn't a playoff?"

Do you think Nick Saban has thought any less of his accomplishments because they didn't happen in a playoff?

A playoff will bestow no more and no less legitimacy on a national champion than the current system. 

College football is great, so why mess with it? Everyone seems to think the changes that would accompany a playoff will be positive. With a change, there will be unintended consequences.

It is simple hubris to say otherwise. To say you can correctly predict the future.

I don't have enough confidence in human foresight to not mess up a good thing. 

Certainly there are areas in the game that can be improved, but a complete overhaul is not the direction to go.