College Football: Balancing Bowls and the Playoffs

By: Riley Liekweg

               Before the year 2014, it was all bowl games, while the top two teams fought for the national championship. That all changed when the College Football Playoff committee was formed. They were selected to pick who they believed were the top four teams to battle for the national title. Their goal was simple. Allow two more teams who had great seasons in their own right to have an equal chance of winning the championship. Four years later, it’s been a hit. For the most part, every game is competitive. Now, some people want more. Some people think the playoffs should expand to eight, some think it should expand to 16, yet some think they hit the nail on the head. Let’s take a look at the controversy.

               Let’s start by looking at some of the reasoning behind the desire for expansion, and what that could look like in today’s world. Joe Thomas, former offensive tackle for the Wisconsin Badgers and Cleveland Browns, believes an expansion should happen.  Thomas wonders, “How do we incentivize teams to schedule games against tough non-conference opponents in the interest of finding a true national champion? Expand the playoff to eight teams—five automatic bids for the Power 5 conferences and three at-large teams. In this system, a team that loses a tough non-conference game still has a chance to lock up a guaranteed spot in the playoffs by winning the conference. The teams that don’t win the conference titles can make a strong case for one of the three at-large spots based on stronger non-conference games.” Let’s break this down. Thomas first discusses the best way to convince teams to schedule tough non-conference opponents. Often, teams will schedule at least one game against a small school for what they will believe will be an automatic win beefing up their record. For example, this past season, the University of Iowa chose to play UNI and in years past Iowa State has done the same. Iowa and Iowa State are considerably bigger schools, so on paper they should win out of the ability to draw in better recruits. For FBS schools like Iowa and Iowa State, records are everything. UNI is different because it is classified as an FCS school meaning that as long as they can come up with a winning record they could qualify for the FCS playoffs.  This has backfired on teams like when Iowa State lost to UNI in 2016 or when Michigan lost to Appalachian State in 2007 when they were an FCS school themselves. Thomas then goes on to talk about the Power 5 conferences. These five conferences consist of the SEC (teams such as Alabama and Georgia are found here), the ACC (teams such as Clemson and Louisville are found), the PAC 12 (teams such as Oregon and Arizona State are found here), the Big 10 (home of the Iowa Hawkeyes), and the Big 12 (home of the Iowa State Cyclones). These are the five conferences consisting of some of the biggest schools in the country. Thomas explains that it gives the winner of each of these conferences a chance at the championship. It allows teams that lost in their respective conferences a shot at one of the last three spots, even if they lost only once, whether it be in the conference title game or to a tough ranked opponent early on in the season. This also gives a shot to non-Power 5 conferences a chance at the title as well such as the American Athletic conference (undefeated UCF can be found here), teams without a conference also known as Independents (Playoff team Notre Dame), and other smaller FBS conferences who might not get a chance otherwise. Thomas goes on to say, “Having a regional representative from each part of the country and each Power Five conference would enrich the playoff and make every college football fan interested.” Thomas means that by opening the playoffs to eight teams, it gains the interest of every state who has their team in that conference. Jacob Ruth, avid Iowa State and college football fan, also believes the playoffs should be expanded. He says, “Right now, it feels like it’s the same teams every year. Clemson and Alabama have played too many times, and it’s getting boring if you are not a fan of those two teams. It would be fun to get all Power 5 conferences in their plus some wildcards.” Expanding may be the case for these two and many other fans, but let’s take a look at the people who think four teams are plenty.

               Some people are perfectly happy with the playoffs being at four teams. According to Bill Hancock, executive director for the College Football Playoffs, “There is no talk about expansion among the university presidents and the commissioners. They are quite happy with the four-team playoff.” He believes that the system works well. Hancock goes on to say, “Limiting it to four teams keeps the focus on this wonderful regular season, the most meaningful and compelling in all of sports. Four lets us keep the bowl experience for thousands of student-athletes. Four keeps college football within the framework of higher education.”

       In simple terms, this means that by expanding the playoffs to more than four takes away from the great regular season that the top four teams. If a team goes undefeated, they earned that seat at the table for four, and if a team lost in its conference matchup or to a ranked opponent on, they may not get that chance. Those teams who don’t make it to the playoffs still have an opportunity to shine in their team’s respective bowl game. The more teams you add to the playoffs, the more you take away from the whole aspect of bowl games. Bowl games are for giving student athletes one more time to shine for their teams because they might not have the chance to suit up again in the pros.

 Tucker Hart, an avid Iowa State and college football fan, agrees “Right now, everyone complains the playoffs need to go to eight teams. If it goes to eight, then people complain it needs to go to 12 then 16 then 20 then 24. That’s crazy. I don’t think it needs to expand. Four teams is enough. Besides, it changes the FBS (Football Bowl Series) to a totally different postseason. Plus, it’s not going to be easy to schedule all of those games in a playoff scenario.” Both sides make good arguments, but let’s see how it relates to the present state of college football.

               The argument that comes up every year is over the first two teams out. These are the teams who finish ranked fifth and sixth, just missing the playoffs. This year, the playoffs consist of these four teams: The University of Alabama at #1, The University of Clemson at #2, The University of Notre Dame at #3, and The University of Oklahoma at #4. The first two teams out were The University of Georgia at #5 and Ohio State University at #6. Some people believe that the committee got it right by selecting Oklahoma because of their conference championship win over #14 Texas. Some people believe that Georgia should have been in over Oklahoma because their only loss was to Alabama in their conference championship. Others believe Ohio State should have gotten in after knocking of the number one defense in the nation at the time in Michigan by 23 points dropping 62 points on them. The committee ultimately chose to move up Oklahoma after they knocked off Texas.

ESPN College Football Analyst, Joey Galloway, believes that they got it right stating, “I don’t know where the Georgia excitement came from in losing the SEC championship game. They played well. It was a good game. They had their chances. They didn’t get it done, so they don’t get in.” For those arguing for an expansion, Georgia, Ohio State, Michigan, and UCF would have all qualified for the playoffs as well.

There are those who see both sides of the matter, the biggest being Nick Saban, Alabama’s head football coach. He says, “Well, I think there is good and bad in both. I think one of the great things about college football is bowl games always gave a lot of teams, fans, programs an opportunity to get a lot of positive self-gratification at the end of the season to qualify for a bowl game. I think the more playoffs you have, the less significant bowl games are. I think those two things are going to have a hard time co-existing. So at first, I think you need to set the priority of what is more important having bowl games and a small playoff or playoffs and no bowl game, and I think that’s an issue that needs to be resolved. I do think that because of the less significance of bowl games more and more players will choose not to play like we see now, and I guess if you had more playoffs and those games have more significance maybe more players would play. I don’t know.”

               In conclusion, it’ll be a heavy argument in the years to come in college football. Should they expand? Do they already have the right amount of teams in? Only time will tell, but that’s what makes college football fun to watch. Some believe the playoffs make college football a lot more interesting.