Auburn tight end Brandon Fulse (11) and wide receiver Dimitri Reese (86) celebrate with fans after a 59-42 victory against Missouri in the SEC Championship game at the Georgia Dome in Atlanta, Saturday, Dec. 7, 2013. (Hyosub Shin/Atlanta Journal-Constitution/MCT)As you probably know, college football is finally getting a playoff after more than 150 years without one.
There were many controversies in the BCS era, but the outrage from the 2012 Alabama vs. LSU national championship game (a rematch from the regular season) was the last straw.
But just because more teams are in contention this year and beyond, controversy won’t go away. As long as there teams aren't qualifying for a playoff, people will want it expanded to include their team.
The playoff also isn’t going to slow down the SEC’s dominance — the conference has three teams in the top four of both the AP and Coaches' polls this week.
More importantly, the playoff doesn’t fix the central problem the BCS had — subjective criteria for inclusion.
There isn’t a clear way to determine the best teams. There are 12 or 13 games in the regular season and more than 120 schools playing FBS football. That's an inadequate sample size, especially when the majority of games happen within a conference.
Should selection criteria be from an “eye test” view, which attempts to rank teams by watching games? Or should the committee use a résumé approach to determine who is the most deserving?
The BCS computers used an analytic approach to determine which teams had performed the best in the regular season. Each model weighs variables differently, such as strength of schedule and home field advantage.
The 13-person playoff committee is subject to the same biases as any previous poll. It's going to watch games and be presented with statistical evidence from Sports Source Analytics.
It's a noble effort to have a committee dedicated to picking the best teams, but despite all the film preparation and advanced metrics, no one has a magic formula that accurately ranks teams or predicts football games.
Map locates the four stadiums among which, starting in the 2014 season, a pair of NCAA football playoff games will rotate: Rose Bowl, University of Arizona Stadium (Fiesta Bowl), Superdome (Sugar Bowl), Sun Life Stadium (Orange Bowl). MCT 2012.Once we accept that selecting the best four teams is a futile effort, an objective approach is a more realistic. This may not include the best or most deserving teams, but neither does a subjective approach.
To do this, I’m proposing to expand the playoff from four to eight teams, with all five major conference champions being invited into a the playoff. That’s objective criteria — win the conference.
It would bring legitimacy to the College Football Playoff, because schools know the standard before the season starts.
As for the other three bids, one would be assured from one of the five small conference champions and the other two would be wild cards. Those final three bids would be subjective, but teams that missed out didn't meet the benchmark.
Eight teams is the optimal size for the playoff. This format still values the regular season (at least conference play) and includes just enough teams to give access across leagues. With eight teams including two wild cards, it would be rare to clinch a bid during the season, a concern of an expanded postseason format.
Bids would be won on the last week of the season, when the conference championship games are played. Essentially the conference title game would be a play-in game for the College Football Playoff.
An expanded playoff to eight teams is not going to hurt television. Fans will be interested regardless of whether teams are battling for a division title or a No. 4 ranking. According to the Wall Street Journal, ESPN signed a 12-year deal for $470 million annually to broadcast the four-team playoff and other associated bowl games
My proposed playoff gives teams the freedom to schedule marquee out-of-conference games without worrying about their playoff standing. It also protects against cannibalization in the conference, which is happening in the Pac-12.
According to ESPN's Football Power Index, there is an 85 percent chance the Pac-12 champion finishes with at least two losses, and a 47 percent it has at least three.
It doesn't have to be this way.
Reach the columnist at jmjanss1@asu.edu or follow him on Twitter @jjanssen11
Like State Press Sports on Facebook and follow @statepresssport on Twitter
