The idea of a national victor in the realm of college football has existed since all the way back in 1869, when the NCF (National Championship Foundation) declared the studious Ivy League schools as the best each year. When the Associated Press took the reins of college football in 1936, the selection process still involved no championship game between the top teams and remained a subjective voting amongst “experts. It was not until 1998 that the officials decided to establish a long-awaited head-to-head matchup named the BCS (Bowl Championship Series), which took the two highest ranked teams and stacked them up in a bowl game against each other. Most recently, the CFP (College Football playoffs) took the place of the BCS as a means to give to expand the playoff structure to a four-team playoff and has been captivating millions of football fans since 2014. Many of those fans, however, still do not seem to be satisfied with this new playoff format and call for an even wider expansion of the post-season bracket. There are many sides to the argument whether it is for more profit for schools, to provide a fairer route of deciding the champion, or to provide an opportunity for less renowned schools to show their worth to the football community. Many experts and critics support the current format and want to experiment with it more, and some even feel it is the more effective and efficient way to conduct the postseason. Ultimately, it is up to the CFP board of manager on how to deal with the debate, and they must decide which option would best support the fans, players, and Universities altogether.

The Washington Post’s article on “Expanding the College Football Playoff Field made perfect sense. The sport’s leaders said no” highlights the thought process of the higher executives of college football in rejecting the proposal to expand the playoff, and how money was the internal motive that inspires virtually every decision that is made regarding division one football. The article laid out some of the major details about conference commissioner Larry Scott’s idea to expand the championship bracket to consist of eight teams rather than four, and how the college football playoff committee shut down the idea entirely as a consensus and failed to even take a proper vote on it. Additionally, back in 2017 when UCF went undefeated and failed to find a spot in the playoffs, they went around putting up billboards and posters declaring themselves champions, which John Feinstein described as an “embarrassment to the CFP . . . [that] a 12-0 UCF team wasn’t given serious consideration for a playoff spot”. The values of the articles were brought into light, which were how Feinstein finds it important that smaller schools and conferences are equally represented and have a fair chance as being declared champions, so that it simply is not a contest of wealthiness. Later, Feinstein continues with his critical tone and turns to the specificities of why the CFP would be so inclined to reject a well thought out idea. He described how even though it is highly unlikely, that “ESPN would have a fit” if a team from one of the non-major conferences like “UCF or Boise State or Brigham Young crashed its annual rating extravaganza. Feinstein strengthens his stance on the issue of how he believes expansion would be the more efficient method of declaring a winner, but he also uses a negative tone toward the CFP to criticize how profits are the sole influencer of the CFP and large sports networks like ESPN’s decisions. Feinstein throughout this post aims to influence the reader to believe that the decision making of the CFP is corrupt and lacks morals, to persuade football enthusiasts to also believe and expansion of the playoff would be the more efficient and morally correct option.

Fox Sports journalist Jason McIntyre positions himself on the side of many in believing that the best solution to the current conflict with the playoff format in college football would be to expand to and eight team bracket rather than four, but his reasoning is slightly more unique, and makes strong points on what exactly is the problem with the current method. Rather than criticizing the higher executives and trying to tear down the governors of college football, he takes a stance where his aim is to really convince devoted and passionate fans that it would be beneficial and more exciting to watch their team during the season if the route to making the playoffs became easier. He describes the scheduling as “unbalanced” and how it is often disregarded as part of the issue when in reality “it’s actually the entire crux of the issue”. He introduced some very strong examples of teams in previous years like Clemson who went undefeated and reached the playoffs but only had the “74th toughest schedule in the country”. Using strong language, McIntyre reveals how we are not necessarily putting the best of the best teams in the country against each other in the postseason, which is why the expansion is necessary to squander the idea of luck contributing to the winner each year. He went on to describe how schools will so often form their schedules to try and matchup with easier opponents to strengthen chances of a 12-0 record and ticket to the playoffs but adding extra opportunities to reach the postseason could allow many more teams with one or potentially even two losses to find themselves with a chance of winning it all. He describes the notion as “positive” and “rewarding” for teams to play tough opponents during the regular season. He makes a very bold statement by metaphorically stating how “You can’t change the idea of needing an 8-team playoff on a yearly basis like you’re leasing a car or making a silly New Year’s resolution . . . you’re all-in, or you aren’t”. This puts an incredible strong divide between the two sides, which weakens the points of the article as those who feel neutral in the issue might feel heavily pressured to sway one way or the other. Regardless, McIntyre puts his own twist on not only the roots of the issue with the current format, but also helps the reader envision so many of the potential benefits of a future expansion from a die-hard fan’s point of view.

Michael Rosenberg takes a strong stance on the less popular side of this issue, at least less popular with fans, where he attempts to target the audience that is in favor of expansion and help them realize the distinct reasons that the format would be best left untouched. He argues that the culture for college football is pushing more toward adapting to the customs of the NFL (National Football League), which is taking away from some of the unique traditions and customs of college football. He argues the current format, where you must find a way to win every game and you are penalized for losing even the closest games to the highest quality of teams, is “quirky, and to win the national championship, you had to find ways to win all year long”. He argues that it is these exact characteristics that make the sport “wonderful”. He makes convincing arguments about how it’s the journey that is so important when looking back at how national champions achieved their success, and he reveals he values consistent success throughout the season rather than getting lucky and performing strong only toward the end. Additionally, Rosenberg has the right intentions when trying to properly address the opposite side before going into the depths of his argument, and retaliate the common points made about allowing more worthy teams to have a chance in the postseason. The only argument where he loses some credibility was when he mentions a recent game between two of the best teams in the country: Michigan and Ohio State. He argues it was a winner takes all game where the loser is eliminated, which is true, and claims “that game wouldn’t have meant nearly as much if the teams were merely angling for seeding”. Although it is true some importance in the game would be removed, the blind spot he fails to acknowledge is that games that previously were not considered important because both teams were considered “eliminated” would be brought to light and become legitimate games. So, although some games lose importance, Rosenberg does not address any of the potential matchup that would replace them. Overall, Rosenberg brings some light to the issue that many fanatics have not considered, and persuasively lays out details about many of the conflicts that would arise with an expansion of the postseason bracket.

Dan Wolken’s article in the USA Today highlights many of the reasons he believes that an expansion of the playoffs would reduce the competitiveness of the college football spectrum, and the likelihood of upsets would be reduced. He forms much of his language to allude toward his strong dislike of the idea of expanding, describing it as “pointless” and how it is “almost impossible” for there to be any relevant competition in many of the early rounds. He reveals his values are more geared toward trying to preserve the competitive nature of football, and uses many past incidents including how LSU “steamrolled” Oklahoma, or Clemson’s “wipeout” of Ohio State. He also succeeds in addressing the counter argument in his conclusions stating, “the hunger to expand the Playoff to eight is slowly but surely taking over the sport” but rebuts it by claiming “an expanded playoff means the gap between the quality of opponents is going to get bigger, not smaller”. Wolken attempts to sway the popular opinion of his audience by trying to appeal to the love for close games and competition in football and describing how it is a unique aspect of football that is slowly diminishing.

Regardless of what the CFP final decision ends up being, there will be many agitated fans, players, and coaches who all have differentiating opinions on how to approach this complex phenomenon. The argument for expansion is highly justified for fans as their team might still have a legitimate chance at the playoffs even if they lose a game, and coaches will have a shot as underdogs to try to win it all. Critics of the expansion also have legitimate reasoning as it can take away from some of the importance on the regular season as well as affect the competitive nature of the sport itself. Likely, an expansion of some sort is likely to happen at some point in time, but the question that remains to be revealed is will it be more efficient than the current structure, and how some of the values of fans like competitive games and reaching bowl games will be affected.

Works Cited

Feinstein, John. “Expanding the College Football Playoff Field Made Perfect Sense. The Sport’s Leaders Said No.” Washington Post, WP Company, 8 Oct. 2020, washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/10/08/college-football-playoff-expansion-pandemic/(opens in a new tab).

McIntyre, Jason. The Case for an 8-Team College Football Playoff, FOX Sports, 16 Dec. 2019, http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/gallery/college-football-playoff-expansion-eight-teams-ohio-state-lsu-clemson-121419.

Rosenberg, Michael. “Why College Football Playoff Should Stay at 4 Teams.” The Case against Eight: Why College Football Playoff Should Stay at Four Teams, Sport Illustrated, 23 Dec. 2016, http://www.si.com/college/2016/12/23/college-football-playoff-expansion-four-teams-eight.

Wolken, Dan. Opinion: LSU’s Blowout of Oklahoma in Peach Bowl Is Reason Not to Expand College Football Playoff, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 29 Dec. 2019, http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/dan-wolken/2019/12/28/lsu-rout-oklahoma-reason-not-expand-college-football-playoff/2766246001/.