Have you ever heard someone say 'there's too much football on television' or 'I don't want to watch two premier football programs compete'? The likelihood that you've heard someone say such blasphemy is slim-to-none. So what's the holdup? Can we add four more teams? Or maybe just two more? Either way, sounds fun, right?
The CFP was introduced in 2014 with the goal of removing the "favoritism" aspect in college football due to the outdated BCS format. Before, many respectable programs had little chance to reach the title game and losing one game would remove any chance that existed. The NCAA knew a change needed to be made. How could college football give more top programs a legitimate chance at winning a title? A playoff would be the fairest way and that's exactly what the NCAA did.
The BCS format was outdated for many reasons but there were pros to it as well. If there was one thing the BCS format did was emphasize regular season games and their importance. Many variable have to be taken in account for each football season but it was absolutely critical a team go undefeated in order to play for a national title. If your team lost their conference championship game so did the opportunity to advance. Depending on how you decide to look at it, some might consider it to be more negative than positive. A con to the BCS system was the many different circumstances that arose would be determined by computers and not people. Can a computer really tell us one team is better than another?
So what makes the CFP revolutionary? Nothing really, but it does pit the four best teams (according the CFP board members) against each other with the hopes the two best teams advance to the title game. Doesn't sound sexy, but since its' introduction seven years ago, the "playoffs" have been entertaining. But given the success of the CFP format, the question of whether or not to expand still looms in the distant. How would a expanded playoff work and look? Let's ask FCS programs.
FCS football is still Division 1 so quick asking (Nick Sabin voice) and the 24 team playoff offers plenty of quality football over a month long. What's not to like? In the FCS format, the field of 24 is split into two different qualifiers: 10 automatic bids and 14 at-large bids. Automatic qualifiers are winners of the 10 difference conferences that exist. This format has been working for the FCS since 1978 when the first playoff was introduced. So could a similar format work for FBS programs? I believe so.
Currently, the four-team playoff incorporates any of the six major bowl games on a rotational basis for the semifinal round. How would a expanded playoff work? By adding two more playoff spots, you could allow the top two seeds to have byes and two play-in games. Doing so reduces the concern over "late-season losses." Should a top team lose late in the year, they would instead fall into a play-in game versus dropping out the playoff chase all together. The addition of two more playoff spots would mean one more major bowl game can be featured in the semifinal round. I like football. You like football (I hope). So why not more football? Also, did I hear the ding of a cash register??