Forget expansion, here's the best way to change the College Football Playoff format

College football fans finally got what they had been begging for in 2014, a national championship system that was more inclusive and depended heavily on the human element as opposed to the algorithms and formulas of the Bowl Championship Series. The College Football Playoff would be the Mr. Clean of the sports world, cleaning up the mess the BCS left behind.

It’s been just five years, and already we’re clamoring for a different method. The current four-team format is starting to receive as much criticism as the system it replaced. Suddenly, a room of 12 individuals with a loose set of criteria and enough opinions to fill Michigan Stadium selecting the four-team field doesn’t seem like a great idea.

The proposed resolution? Expand the playoff to eight teams.

Expansion was a topic of conversation again this week at the B1G spring meetings. Several athletic directors from the conference were in favor of revisiting the current setup and interested in the idea of expanding the field.

“I’m open to the consideration and looking at it and thinking about it,” Michigan AD Warde Manuel told Matt Charboneau of The Detroit News. “Anytime our Big Ten champion is left out of the playoff, what, three years in a row, that’s something that needs to be discussed. Because I obviously believe that you go through and you win the Big Ten championship in this league you’ve accomplished something that deserves to put you in position to play for the national championship.”

Wisconsin’s Barry Alvarez and Michigan State’s Bill Beekman offered similar responses to the question.

Obviously the B1G has an axe to grind with the current format. The conference has been left in the cold, looking through the window each of the last two years. The league champion hasn’t competed in the four-team field since 2015. A large portion of individuals associated with B1G programs are interested in the idea of expanding the College Football Playoff.

But why does the conversation of improving the current national championship system begin and end with expansion? Instead of debating whether we should have a four-team format or an eight-team field, maybe there’s a better way to move forward with this “Plus One” system.

Rather than determining the four qualifying teams before the bowl season has begun, extend the opportunity to compete for a national title to the 12 teams competing in the New Year’s Six bowl games.

It’s a wild concept, but it could be a strong solution.

Credit: Adam Hagy-USA TODAY Sports

How the New Year’s Six “Plus One” system would work

There’s nothing wrong with knowing which teams will be competing for a national championship before season kicks off. It’s been the way college football has operated since the BCS system was in place. But, in this scenario, all 12 teams playing in a New Year’s Six bowl would, in theory, be battling for a spot in the championship game. Instead of seeding teams, the system would work under the current bowl contracts:

• Rose Bowl: B1G champion vs. Pac-12 champion
• Sugar Bowl: SEC champion vs. Big 12 champion
• Orange Bowl: ACC champion vs. B1G/SEC/Notre Dame
• Fiesta Bowl: At-Large vs. At-Large
• Peach Bowl: At-Large vs. At-Large
• Cotton Bowl: At-Large vs. At-Large

The main squabble here is that the B1G champion could never play the Pac-12 champion in the national championship and the same would go for the SEC and Big 12. If that causes too much of an uproar, there could be some amendments made to those contracts.

For example, the B1G champion and Pac-12 champion could play two years in the Rose Bowl with the SEC rotating in for the Pac-12 on the third year. The B1G and Pac-12 could resume the head-to-head series for two more years and the ACC rotates for the B1G on the sixth year. In that scenario, both the B1G and Pac-12 would receive five Rose Bowl appearances in six seasons with four matchups against each other.

That’s not breaking too much tradition.

Winners of the New Year’s Six bowl games would then all be eligible to earn a trip the national championship game. A selection committee would still be in place, picking two of the six winners to compete for the title.

The 2018 season doesn’t provide the best example, so let’s look back at how this could’ve played out back in 2017, when several teams were worthy of consideration. As you’ll notice, the matchups are the same, but at different locations.

Alabama and Georgia competed in the all-SEC national championship that season. And while it’s very possible that the selection committee still could’ve picked the Crimson Tide and Bulldogs to play for the title, this format allows teams like UCF and Wisconsin an opportunity to prove their worth.

Here’s what the selection committee would’ve been evaluating among the six winners:

In this situation, Ohio State and Penn State can probably be eliminated, with four teams still with one loss or less. And, for the sake of simplicity here, let’s assume non-conference champions are eliminated in this situation, taking Alabama and Wisconsin out of the running.

That leaves a 13-1 Georgia against a 13-0 UCF for a national championship.

Obviously the selection committee could weigh certain criteria a little more heavily. But, essentially, you’d likely have four teams — Georgia, Alabama, UCF and Wisconsin — in consideration for two spots.

Yes, this situation still clearly poses a debate. However, it does allow teams like UCF and Wisconsin — who had relatively weak schedules that year — to notch a marquee win. It also forces Alabama to at least win a bowl game to earn its spot, rather than sitting idle during the SEC Championship Game.

Credit: Dale Zanine-USA TODAY Sports

Subjectivity is still going to be a problem

College football is the one sport in which opinion matters most. While that idea can be maddening at times, it does provide a little unique aspect that you don’t find too often in athletics. So, would this New Year’s Six system eliminate the subjectivity? Absolutely not.

And while you will have six teams battling for two spots, there likely isn’t going to be any more subjectivity than we’ve seen in the past.

Last year, Ohio State and Georgia both had strong arguments to earn that fourth spot which was awarded to Oklahoma. In 2017, an undefeated UCF, a one-loss Wisconsin and a two-loss Ohio State that won the B1G all had a case, but a one-loss Alabama that sat on the couch watching the SEC title game received the final spot.

Would this new system really be any worse?

Perhaps the strongest argument against this idea is the thought that the selection committee might weigh a bowl performance too heavily. What if that one-loss Wisconsin team posted a 40-point win over Miami while Alabama needed a game-winning field goal to knock off Clemson? It’s a worthy discussion, but again, nothing we haven’t seen in the past.

Remember, Ohio State’s 59-0 win over Wisconsin in the 2014 B1G Championship Game is essentially what landed the Buckeyes in the College Football Playoff over the likes of Baylor and TCU with similar resumés.

The New Year’s Six “Plus One” system would also incorporate what most want with College Football Playoff expansion: inclusion of all Power Five conference champions and the highest-ranked Group of Five team. Maybe not all six of those teams would be serious candidates for one of the two spots each year, but hey, at least they’re included.

Players skipping bowl games would likely decrease

Maybe the best reason to change from a College Football Playoff format to a New Year’s Six “Plus One” system is to limit the number of players skipping important bowl games. It’s an issue that’s become so prominent since the implementation of the four-team playoff that several big-name players are skipping out on New Year’s Six games.

If players knew that, with a win in their New Year’s Six game they’d be eligible to earn a spot in the national championship, they’re probably going to suit up for that contest. It would immediately restore the importance and significance in the highest-profile bowl games, providing for a more entertaining postseason.

This wouldn’t have much of an affect on bowl games outside of the New Year’s Six, but at least we’d see the best players on the field for the best matchups.

It’s hard to blame players who opt out of playing in those games to preserve their draft status. With so much money on the line, it’s more of a business decision than an emotional one. And while players should have the right to decide whether they sit or whether they play, putting a little more meaning into those New Year’s Six bowl games would be enough of an incentive for several top players to participate in the postseason.

Credit: Kevin Jairaj-USA TODAY Sports

Final thought

There really isn’t an ideal way to determine a national champion in college football. Limit the field to two, and you run the risk of not seeing the best teams compete for a title. Expand it to eight or more and the field gets watered down.

Keep the playoff at four teams and there’s at least one that’s getting a raw deal.

The idea of a New Year’s Six “Plus One” system isn’t perfect and doesn’t come without flaws. You could easily argue that some of the same situations you run into with the current College Football Playoff would be seen in this proposed format.

But college football fans love when games have relevancy and love to see star players on the field. Maybe this idea doesn’t fix everything we dislike about the current format, but it certainly restores the interest and importance of the New Year’s Six games every season. It incorporates every Power Five champion and at least one Group of Five team without expanding the bracket.

It’s not perfect, but it certainly puts an emphasis back on the New Year’s Six games.