Ladies and gentlemen, college football has undergone a remarkable transformation in the past decade, all thanks to the magnificent invention known as the College Football Playoff (CFP). This revolutionary four-team playoff system not only revolutionized the postseason and finally settled the eternal debate of who the undisputed national champion is, but it also brought about a new standard for success and failure in the realm of college football. With its rich tapestry of consequences, the CFP has had a profound impact on the sport, helping the already rich and powerful teams become even more rich and powerful, nationalizing a sport that once had regional roots, and marking an important milestone in the evolution of the postseason.
Let's take a moment to reflect on the positive aspects of the CFP. Prior to its implementation in 2014, college football enthusiasts were subjected to the Bowl Championship Series (BCS), a flawed system that granted only two teams a shot at claiming the national title. This often led to unsatisfying results and prolonged debates about the deserving teams. However, the introduction of the four-team playoff effectively put an end to this turmoil.
Bill Hancock, the executive director of the CFP, rightly points out that the playoff system eliminated any controversy about the rightful champion. The champion was no longer decided by votes or subjective opinions; it was determined on the field, showcasing the true essence of competition. This shift not only brought more excitement to the game but also drew record-breaking television ratings.
It's important to note that the adoption of the playoff system was not an easy decision. In fact, the very notion of a playoff was long regarded as taboo in college football circles. However, the success of the CFP's first season in 2014 quickly dispelled any doubts and turned the naysayers into believers. The playoff system proved its worth by producing an extraordinary champion in Ohio State, a team that had overcome early adversity to lift the trophy.
But, as with any major change, the CFP also had unintended consequences, some of which were negative. For instance, conferences that failed to secure a spot in the four-team playoff began to suffer in terms of their brand image. American Athletic Conference Commissioner Mike Aresco notes that being left out of the playoff became synonymous with having problems within your conference. This was particularly evident with the Pac-12, one of the Power Five conferences, which made it to the playoff only three times in ten years and endured a six-year drought from 2017-2022.
The introduction of the CFP further solidified the division between the Power Five and Group of Five conferences, an unfortunate consequence that cannot be ignored. While Aresco acknowledges that the exclusion didn't singlehandedly cause the demise of the Pac-12, it certainly did not help the conference either. The playoff system seemingly favored the Power Five conferences, generating massive revenue that disproportionately went to these conferences and perpetuating the notion of their superiority.
This created a vicious cycle, where the same powerhouse teams repeatedly qualified for the playoffs, giving them a significant advantage in recruiting top talent. Aresco rightly points out that players want to be a part of the playoff, which further consolidates power into the hands of these elite programs. Consequently, we witnessed multiple playoff blowouts, as the gap between the dominant few and the rest continued to widen.
Moreover, the decision to hold the four-team semifinals on dates other than January 1 was a misstep that impacted the viewership and diminished the significance of New Year's Day in college football. The once revered bowl games, intended as rewards for playoff hopefuls, lost their luster and became consolation prizes distorted by opt-outs from players and coaching changes. One need not look any further than the Orange Bowl, where an underwhelming Florida State team suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of Georgia, to understand the consequences of this distortion.
In light of these challenges, the need for expansion became apparent. Although some, like SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey, were content with the four-team playoff, the consensus now leans towards expanding the playoff format. The upcoming implementation of a 12-team system, championed by Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick among others, is poised to address many of the concerns and offer a more inclusive path to the national championship.
In conclusion, the College Football Playoff 1.0 may have had its imperfections, but there is no denying its impact on the sport. It eliminated controversies surrounding the national champion and brought new levels of excitement to the game. However, it also exacerbated divisions between conferences, perpetuated the dominance of a few select teams, and led to a decline in the prestige of traditional bowl games.
The future holds promise with the advent of the 12-team playoff. This next phase, while still daring and demanding, has the potential to remedy some of the unintended consequences of the previous playoff system. It's an exciting time for college football, as we eagerly await the new chapter that will soon unfold.
