My Proposed Changes to the CFP Format/Committee

The inaugural CFP is finally set, and as expected there are fan bases that are elated, and fan bases that are pissed. This is not something that is new, we experienced these issues with the BCS and the 4-team playoff model, and just like when we switched from the BCS to the Committee, we as fans were promised that these problems would be fixed.

First, we must all understand that we will always have an imperfect model to decide our champion and/or playoff, but I will be the first to argue that the imperfectness of this process is what makes college football the perfect sport. However, this should not dissuade us from trying to make the process better, and maybe one day we will find the perfect system to crown 1 champion out of 135 teams (likely not).

The major and necessary change that needs to be implemented is the removal of Conference Champion byes. I think this is the least controversial take out there, especially after a year where we see a G5 team holding the 3 seed and an easier path to the championship then the Power 4, undefeated, number 1 ranked team (who also beat the G5 team). Conference Champions should receive an automatic bid but should be awarded the seed that corresponds with where they are ranked. So, Oregon, Georgia, and Clemson would remain at their current seed (1, 2, and 12 respectively), but Boise State and Arizona State would be the 9 and 11 seed respectively. This would reward the Conference champions, while still allowing there to be a discrepancy in the strength of each conference.

The next change isn’t as necessary, or maybe not necessary at all after the first change, but I would look into the process of re-seeding teams after each round. This would be unique to college football as the only major sport that has their playoff format implement re-seeding. This would continue the rewarding for the top ranked teams and also add more meaning to every game, especially every upset. This honestly would be a logistical nightmare for teams and Bowl game representatives, changing projected matchups based off of each game’s result, but it encourages teams to do everything they can in regard to overall performance but also schedule making to ensure they can stand out when stacked up against their peers.

The third and final proposed change (for now) is the overall presentation of the rankings. Yes, the show seems to take forever to get to the end result, but that is not what I want to change. The committee needs to eliminate the reveal of the rankings after the regular season and before the conference championships. A vast majority of the suspense was taken away from the Conference championship games when the committee revealed that there were 2 slots available for 3 teams, and that the results of 90% of the games really only played a factor in seeding. Additionally, the committee is in desperate need of accountability and transparency. After presenting the rankings, which should only take 10 minutes at most, the committee should offer write-ups or at least dialogue for the reasoning behind their rankings. Why is Alabama ranked ahead of South Carolina and Ole Miss? Why is Miami behind Alabama, but also behind the other 3 loss SEC teams? Why is SMU in front of Clemson when they just played, and Clemson beat them? Why is Tennessee behind Ohio State? Why is Texas in front of Penn State? These are all valid questions, that may very well have valid answers, but with the current construct of the CFP committee we will never know.

As we have learned with the 4-team format and now the 12-team format, the committee answers to no one, and better yet the committee isn’t even selected by fans or coaches/players. So maybe that is the next change that needs to be implemented, committee members elections. Imagine that every 4 years when electing our nation’s leaders, we have ballots for our College Football Committee members. I don’t know if that’s what the sport needs, more politics, but at least some accountability and transparency would be nice.