We've been hearing it this whole week: the 4-team CFP are increasing disparity in college football, and they are the reason why Bama, Clemson and OSU are on a league of their own right now. And that moving to a 6-team or 8-team playoff is what will fix this and bring some parity back to the college football landscape.
I don't buy it. Firstly, I don't think a 4-team playoff created this - if we were still in the BCS model with only 2 teams playing in a championship, this would be even worse. You'd have two out of Alabama, Clemson and OSU playing for the title pretty much every year.
This is what the top 2 would have looked since the CFP started:
2020: Alabama vs. Clemson
2019: LSU vs Ohio State
2018: Alabama vs. Clemson
2017: Clemson vs. Oklahoma
2016: Alabama vs. Clemson
2015: Alabama vs. Clemson
2014: Alabama vs. Oregon
The 4-team CFP has actually given other teams (Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Michigan State, Georgia, Florida State) a chance to be in that same stage with the truly elite teams and gain at least a little bit of an edge in recruiting. But what gets missed in this conversation is that expanding the playoffs to 4 teams actually showed even more convincingly how there are 2 programs that stand head and shoulders above everyone else (Alabama and Clemson), two programs that are right behind them (Ohio State and LSU), one program in the bubble (UGA), and then a whole bunch of "who cares".
If you skip the first playoff (14-15), we've seen either Alabama or Clemson in every title game since, and either Alabama or Clemson have won 4 of the 6 playoff titles. The other 2 were OSU and LSU. And UGA and Oregon are the only other two teams to make it to a title game.
What's going to happen if you expand to 8 teams? Here's what I think will happen: instead of leaving the door open to the possibility that maybe #6 Oklahoma or #8 Cincinnati could have competed with Alabama, Clemson or Ohio State, we will see a #1 Alabama team anihiliate #8 Cincy and leave all doubt behind. And #3 Ohio State would butt-f*** Oklahoma.
Which brings me to me original thought: the reason for the lack of parity isn't because of the post-season, but rather because recruits today are a lot more pragmatic (and much less idealistic as it relates to their football careers) than past generations. 10 years ago, what we used to see in recruiting was a heavy focus on existing allegiances - regional, family, etc. ties that would generally drive recruits to sign with their in-state team, or the team they grew up watching, or the team their parents wanted them to go to. That has greatly vanished as kids in this generation - seemingly being much more willing to put their career above idealistic prinicples like "bringing a team back to prominance" - are just going to choose the best team in the country that will have them.
And that means that if you're a 5-star player now, it is infinitently more likely that you're going to go play at Bama, OSU, Clemson, UGA, or LSU - i.e., the teams that are winning a lot right now - than you are to go play for historical powerhouses that have "tradition" on their side - e.g., Nebraska, USC, Michigan, Florida State, and yes, us, Texas.
Expanding the playoffs to 8 teams is not going to do shit because the same 4-5 teams are likely going to be the ones to win the games - and that is ultimately what matters. Oklahoma has made the playoffs a bunch of times and then they went and got butt-poked every time, which in turn seems to actually have hurt their recruiting.
So no, expanding the playoffs isn't how you solve this. In fact, I don't think there's an artificial way to solve this - the way this gets resolved is probably a combination of:
1. Powerhouse programs becoming more aggressive in replacing/going after coaches that can get them over the hump (Michigan staying pat with Harbaugh is a bad, bad move).
2. Programs at all levels stealing coordinators from these programs more aggressively to make it harder for these top tier programs to have continuity and/or having to take some risks to replace playcallers.
3. Powerhouse programs who are underperforming sucking it up and pulling out the wallet to a) hire the best support staff they can, b) improve facilities/operations as much as possible
4. Powerhouse programs much more aggressively working the transfer portal, as the only thing that will supercede playing for a winning program is going to be to actually play.
I don't buy it. Firstly, I don't think a 4-team playoff created this - if we were still in the BCS model with only 2 teams playing in a championship, this would be even worse. You'd have two out of Alabama, Clemson and OSU playing for the title pretty much every year.
This is what the top 2 would have looked since the CFP started:
2020: Alabama vs. Clemson
2019: LSU vs Ohio State
2018: Alabama vs. Clemson
2017: Clemson vs. Oklahoma
2016: Alabama vs. Clemson
2015: Alabama vs. Clemson
2014: Alabama vs. Oregon
The 4-team CFP has actually given other teams (Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Michigan State, Georgia, Florida State) a chance to be in that same stage with the truly elite teams and gain at least a little bit of an edge in recruiting. But what gets missed in this conversation is that expanding the playoffs to 4 teams actually showed even more convincingly how there are 2 programs that stand head and shoulders above everyone else (Alabama and Clemson), two programs that are right behind them (Ohio State and LSU), one program in the bubble (UGA), and then a whole bunch of "who cares".
If you skip the first playoff (14-15), we've seen either Alabama or Clemson in every title game since, and either Alabama or Clemson have won 4 of the 6 playoff titles. The other 2 were OSU and LSU. And UGA and Oregon are the only other two teams to make it to a title game.
What's going to happen if you expand to 8 teams? Here's what I think will happen: instead of leaving the door open to the possibility that maybe #6 Oklahoma or #8 Cincinnati could have competed with Alabama, Clemson or Ohio State, we will see a #1 Alabama team anihiliate #8 Cincy and leave all doubt behind. And #3 Ohio State would butt-f*** Oklahoma.
Which brings me to me original thought: the reason for the lack of parity isn't because of the post-season, but rather because recruits today are a lot more pragmatic (and much less idealistic as it relates to their football careers) than past generations. 10 years ago, what we used to see in recruiting was a heavy focus on existing allegiances - regional, family, etc. ties that would generally drive recruits to sign with their in-state team, or the team they grew up watching, or the team their parents wanted them to go to. That has greatly vanished as kids in this generation - seemingly being much more willing to put their career above idealistic prinicples like "bringing a team back to prominance" - are just going to choose the best team in the country that will have them.
And that means that if you're a 5-star player now, it is infinitently more likely that you're going to go play at Bama, OSU, Clemson, UGA, or LSU - i.e., the teams that are winning a lot right now - than you are to go play for historical powerhouses that have "tradition" on their side - e.g., Nebraska, USC, Michigan, Florida State, and yes, us, Texas.
Expanding the playoffs to 8 teams is not going to do shit because the same 4-5 teams are likely going to be the ones to win the games - and that is ultimately what matters. Oklahoma has made the playoffs a bunch of times and then they went and got butt-poked every time, which in turn seems to actually have hurt their recruiting.
So no, expanding the playoffs isn't how you solve this. In fact, I don't think there's an artificial way to solve this - the way this gets resolved is probably a combination of:
1. Powerhouse programs becoming more aggressive in replacing/going after coaches that can get them over the hump (Michigan staying pat with Harbaugh is a bad, bad move).
2. Programs at all levels stealing coordinators from these programs more aggressively to make it harder for these top tier programs to have continuity and/or having to take some risks to replace playcallers.
3. Powerhouse programs who are underperforming sucking it up and pulling out the wallet to a) hire the best support staff they can, b) improve facilities/operations as much as possible
4. Powerhouse programs much more aggressively working the transfer portal, as the only thing that will supercede playing for a winning program is going to be to actually play.
