What Does a 4 Team College Football Playoff Really Solve?

A playoff has finally arrived for college football fans everywhere, but what will really change?  Does this give Boise state a greater chance to play for a national championship? Doubtful. After all, a selection committee will be involved creating a scenario eerily similar to what we currently have in major college basketball; the dreaded bubble.  However, a college football playoff will likely leave out most of the best teams while the current college college basketball bubble boots teams that would be considered barely above average.   Do we, as fans, really believe that Boise state would make a national championship playoff if it were in place when the team was rattling off undefeated seasons and shocking some of the best teams we have seen? I do not believe it for one moment.

The new playoff system is not truly focused on creating fairness and equality amongst all teams, rather it's focus lies on the big picture.  And by big picture, I mean money.  Although I never agreed, at least the BCS has a partially mathematical system in place to determine the two best teams at the conclusion of the season.  A selection committee allows for far too much bias and human error in the decision making process.  Sure, the NCAA basketball selection committee can make a few mistakes when choosing and seeding 68 (and growing) teams.  There is zero room for error when selecting teams for such an elite football postseason event.  What will happen when 3 of the top 4 teams lie in one conference, say the SEC.  The committee will, without a doubt, feel pressure from other power conferences such as the BIG10, BIG12, and PAC12 to exclude one of those three teams.  

The tournament is set to begin in 2014 carrying a contract through 2023.  I certainly hope that the contract is renegotiated sooner rather than later.  The NCAA should take a considerable look at expanding the playoff as soon as possible.  Not only will it generate more revenue, but is also instills a much fairer approach.  I have never felt particularly compelled to keep non-conference games on the schedule, especially with major conferences seemingly headed to 16 total members in the near future.  Here is a simple solution: limit the non-conference schedule to 1 game per team.  This would free up a minimum of two weeks at the end of the season to add to a playoff.  The tree would easily be expandable to 16 total teams, thus less likely to make "bubble" mistakes.  The single out-of-conference game will allow storied programs to continue any rivalries that they see fit.  Eliminate bowl games and conference championships altogether. Begin a tiered playoff system (for example, 3 flights of 16 teams each).  This set-up allows 48 total teams to participate in a playoff that can conclude in 4 weeks, yet 5 weeks is much more likely considering the necessity of a bye before the championships.  

But wait, we forgot about the big picture: profitability.   No, this system will not make the most money.  No, this does not always mean the most talented team will even make the final game.  It does create an atmosphere of equality while satisfying all the requirements of amateur sport.  Again I pose the question: What does a 4 team playoff really solve?  Who honestly believes that Oklahoma State or Stanford would have had a snowball's chance in hell against Alabama or LSU?  Now I completely understand that games are not played on paper, but from a non-delusional point of view the cowboys and cardinal should be happy they played each other.  At least a larger pool of teams allows for more parity and, hopefully, more exciting games.  Not to mention the incredible amount of exposure that all of the teams involved will receive which certainly assists in leveling the astonishingly uneven recruiting 'playing field'.  When it comes to the total number of teams involved in a postseason playoff, why accept less when you can have more?