College Football Playoff Expansion is Coming and It Brings Excitement and Frustration

Written by Sammy Jacobs (@Hoosier_Huddle)

The College Football Playoff Working Committee, a four-man team, recommended on Thursday that the field expand from four teams to 12. “There's research to be done and many conversations to be had, but the working group did present its recommendation to the full management committee to change the playoff from four teams to 12.” Bill Hancock the Executive Director of the College Football Playoff said.

The debate about playoff expansion has be a discussion point among college football fans since the idea of a playoff was floated around and ultimately formed in 2014. The 12-team field bring excitement among the fans and pundits who wanted expansion while the #Stayat4 folks are going to poke holes in this plan.

According to a release from the CFP “the four highest-ranked conference champions would be seeded one through four and each would receive a first-round bye, while teams seeded five through 12 would play each other in the first round on the home field of the higher-ranked team. (The team ranked #5 would host #12; team #6 would meet team #11; team #7 would play team #10; and team #8 would meet #9.) Under the proposal, the quarterfinals and semifinals would be played in bowl games. The championship game would continue to be at a neutral site, as under the current format.”

A 12-team field under these rules would be really fun. Not only does it open it up for the Group of Five (the big winners here), it keeps the importance of the regular season by giving the top four conference champions a bye.

“This proposal at its heart was created to provide more participation for more players and more schools. In a nutshell, that is the working group's message: More participation.” Hancock added.

Hoosier Huddle’s T.J. Inman thinks that there is a lot of potential for this.

“My chief positive is that more programs now feel they have a shot at winning a national championship. This past season, a 12-team playoff would have put squads like Indiana, Iowa State and Cincinnati into the playoff. Would those teams actually have had a chance to take down Alabama and win the championship? Well, no. They would get a chance though and that's tremendously exciting for those fanbases. Another positive is that the four first round games (believed to be played on campus and hosted by the higher-seeded team) have the potential to be a whole lot of fun. Think about someone like Memphis or Central Florida or Boise State going unbeaten, earning a six-seed and getting to host a two-loss team from the Big Ten or SEC. Or awesome matchups like the SEC runner-up hosting the Big Ten runner-up. There will be blowouts in some of those games, sure. But there will also be great environments, games with high-stakes and some all-time great contests. Overall, if you put college football on my television, I am going to watch it. Is it the best thing for the sport? I do not know but playoff expansion is inevitable and this is a model that has plenty of positive merits so I find it hard to get too wound up about some of the potential pitfalls.

The main negative is that the regular season is potentially devalued. A team from a major conference could easily lose two games and know they still have a very strong chance to make the expanded playoff field. Does that take the urgency and luster out of some of the bigger matchups in the regular season if both teams know they are playing for the right to play for a national title, rather, they are playing for a potential bye or home-field advantage in the playoff? I think it does. Another negative is the bowl games that are not in the College Football Playoff rotation further lose their viability and importance.

Like anything there are winners and losers. The major winner here is the Group of 5 who now has a seat at the table. The losers, in my opinion, are Notre Dame and the Pac-12. Only conference champions can earn a first round bye which means Notre Dame cannot earn one unless they join a conference. The Pac-12 has struggled gaining national clout and should their champion stumble, they could be left out of the top four and maybe even the top six, if there are two stronger Group of Five Champions (Oregon would have been left out entirely last year).

Another positive is that the first round games would be hosted by the higher seeds, which gives the fans a unique experience and could help ease the burden of travel costs. Some would like to see the quarter finals be on campus as well, but the committee wants to stay away from having to play in extreme conditions in the northern parts of the country.

There is still work to be done and the earliest this change would take place is in 2023. “In the next few days, the 11 members of the management committee will discuss the recommendation with people on campus, their conferences, presidents, AD, coaches and student-athletes. We want all their input. The management committee will meet next week in Chicago to decide whether or not to recommend this plan or any other plan, frankly, to the presidents and chancellors, the board of managers, 11 board of manager members, and they are the people who will be in charge of making the decisions. If a favorable recommendation is made to those presidents and chancellors they will receive the proposal at their meeting on June 22 in Dallas, and if the presidents decide to allow this proposal or any alternative proposal to be considered, we anticipate that there would be a study period over the summer to explore what we believe or what we know to be many details that still remain to be worked out.” Hancock said. “The earliest, and I repeat that, the earliest that any final decision could be made by the board would be in September. It certainly could be later, but the earliest is September.”