Changes to the College Football Playoff We All Want to See
The College Football Playoff that will be served next season will taste and smell a lot like the College Football Playoff we’re still digesting. This is a good thing; no one should pass up dry-aged, bone-in rib-eye for mystery meat. It’s un-American. It’s also not smart.
But as much as we have praised the first playoff—savoring every bite, and for good reason—there is room for growth. Areas can (and should) be improved upon, which will likely serve as one of the offseason’s many missions.
By the end of the month, the first College Football Playoff selection committee will jump on a conference call. In April, it will meet and discuss potential changes to the College Football Playoff.
.jpg?w=256 "Ohio State Team Doctor")
Those suggestions will be sent to the board of managers—a group represented by all 10 FBS conferences along with Notre Dame—and the proposed changes will get a second look from new sets of important eyes. If they are well received, the next step will be approval.
“I don’t think you’re going to see wholesale changes,” committee chairman Jeff Long told Bleacher Report. “By and large, we feel things went very well. But there may be some tweaks we make to it.”
Adding four more teams into the mix is no “tweak.” It’s also not a realistic option, at least not right now. Changes of this magnitude aren’t necessary. There are, however, ways the playoff—this gorgeous cut of former cow—can be improved. And it begins with the earliest phases of the process.
Push the Process Back
In a perfect world, the final Top 25 released by the selection committee would be the only one released. The reality, however, is that there are programming slots to fill, gobs of money to be made and a business side that is impossible to ignore.
I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I’m willing to concede. And, as was evident in its first year, the weekly shows created some magnificent entertainment and debate. Even with these factors considered, there has to be a middle ground.
For starters, this first release should be pushed back three weeks. The committee’s first ranking was posted on October 28 last season, which was entirely too early. The ranking you see around Halloween does nothing to reflect a playoff situation. Debuting these rankings in the middle or later part of November—cutting the total number of releases from eight to five—could allow for debate, which is good, but also create a more realistic picture of the teams involved.
What would be lost in programming would be won back in credibility. If the only ranking that truly matters is the final one, why spend eight weeks parading with something that won’t resemble the final, impactful installment?
The answer, of course, is money. But there has to be a balance. One release would be best, but that’s not the balance that will please networks. Three or four times will do.
Be More Transparent with the Rankings
Each week, Arkansas athletic director Jeff Long was given just a few minutes of airtime to justify two days of work. His final appearance on ESPN in December was more involved, although the explanation of these rankings was kept to a minimum. As a result, these appearances sometimes did more harm than good.
This is not in any shape or form a knock on Long. I’m an enormous fan of his, and I couldn’t envision anyone more equipped for an impossible job. He has minimal time to prepare, is forced to keep his answers brief and did an excellent job as playoff mouthpiece in the first year.
It’s the system in place that should be modified, not the messenger.
The information will always be polarizing. Some fanbases will be thrilled, and others will be outraged. This will happen each and every week for as long as some postseason is in place. It doesn’t matter how good his reasoning is on national television; the nature of this beast will always be controversy.
But to make these weekly cash grabs—I mean “reveals”—meaningful, they must carry more substance. Instead of filling air space for 23 minutes and forcing Long on and off the stage, why not sit down for 10 minutes or so and talk out the work being shown? Or what about providing some downloadable notes on the College Football Playoff website that explained sticking points in the rankings, notable discussions and other justifications?
On that note, I would love to see a ranking of the five best non-Power Five teams included. Since one of these teams is going to play in a marquee bowl game, why not appeal to more fanbases still hoping to see their team crash the party? Plus, it helps highlight programs in other conferences that won’t always see their names in the lights. It’s functional and beneficial for all.
Keep All Semifinal Games on New Year’s Day
My wife hates this. I hate this. A sport that crescendos on January 1 with a spectacular eruption should absolutely loathe the idea of not having games on New Year’s Day.
Over the next two years, however, college football’s semifinal games will not take place on January 1. That’s at least the protocol as it stands today.
The Orange Bowl and Cotton Bowl—the two semifinal tie-ins for next season—will take place on New Year’s Eve. The following year, the Peach Bowl and Fiesta Bowl—the next two spotlighted bowls in the lineup—will offer up the same end-of-year itinerary. Adjust your New Year’s plans accordingly.
The contracts and allocated time slots for these games, despite a drastic overhaul to the system, are still intact. As a result, the timing for the semifinals will shift based on which bowls will be tabbed playoff worthy for that year.
Did I mention that I hate this?
This is one the College Football Playoff would love to do over after seeing how successful the New Year’s Day doubleheader was in year one.
It’s not about keeping New Year’s Eve plans in order. You can keep those. I’m a family man, content to celebrate the start of a new year with my couch and without total strangers. That’s not an issue, although it certainly will be for others with bigger plans in mind.
This is more about combining the rich traditions of January 1—a special day in all of our football-deranged hearts—and building on these memories with something more. That happened only a few short weeks ago, when Oregon, Florida State, Alabama and Ohio State provided a show with the whole world watching.
The ratings for these games stacked up with national championships from previous seasons. Interest was colossal. Storied tradition meshed seamlessly with a brand-new system—like it had been there all along—elevating the overall quality of the product.
Will New Year’s Eve kill all of this momentum? Of course not. But it could impact the success of the playoff moving forward. More importantly to those pulling these strings, the ratings could suffer as a result.
This one is far more complicated than a gathering of selection committee members, although the potential impact on the bottom line could ultimately prompt a conversation for change and consistency. We can only hope.
.jpg?w=480 "Ohio State Team Doctor")
