It is not about being right, it is about getting it right. For the most part, I think going from four teams to 12 in the expanded College Football Playoff went quite well in the first season of the new format. While there are certainly some gripes to be had along the way, the bones of this one-of-a-kind postseason tournament seem to be quite good. It is all about making the adjustments to improve it.
For a while there, I thought four teams was enough for the field. I never really thought twice that more than four teams in a given season could win a national championship when you really got down to it. However, the 2023 college football season completely ended that notion with teams like Florida State and Georgia on the outside looking in. An expanded playoff could have resulted in either winning it.
So what I want to do today is take a look at what the College Football Playoff got right in its new format, and where it went wrong. Some gripes with it are more obvious than others. There could be bigger fish to fry later down the line, but for right now, I have five areas where I think the postseason tournament could be improved upon. Not all will be enacted next season, but maybe they will soon?
Let's start with how the playoff is being covered before proceeding to far bigger issues at hand here.
5. Broadcasters should talk about who first-round winner will face more
Not to take away from the game at hand, but I think the broadcasters need to do a better job of explaining the implications of what is to follow from a first-round game. With the way the bracket is set up, we already know beforehand who each first-round winner will play next in the national quarterfinals at a neutral-site location. Once it gets out of hand or is decided, talk about the matchup.
For example, I feel that the ESPN telecast could have talked more about the winner of No. 7 Notre Dame vs. No. 10 Indiana taking on No. 2 Georgia in the next round. It has less to do with Georgia being my team, but rather explaining how the Fighting Irish or the Hoosiers would have matched up with the Bulldogs in the Sugar Bowl could have really added some spice and intrigue to the upcoming game.
I am picking nits here, but I feel like ESPN could have done a better job of teasing what was in store.
4. There must be more suspense when it comes to revealing the bracket
As it is with my previous point, this one is rather minor. What I found intriguing in how ESPN shared the rankings in the previous format was the amount of suspense that was baked in. They would often go from No. 25 to No. 7 before revealing the top three. Debating teams No. 4-6 before finally revealing the rankings is the stuff television executives dream about. I do not feel the same with the 12-teamer.
In a way, it is kind of like the NBA Draft lottery where we are jumping around the board so much in all sorts of directions. I kind of feel that there could have been more suspense when it came down to SMU getting the last at-large bid over Alabama for the No. 11 seed this past season. Not all years will it be as compelling, but I think that there could be some sort of refinement in how this is all revealed.
You will want to leave viewers guessing and totally locked into your college football rankings show.
3. If at all possible, try to have all of these games played on a Saturday
I did not think this was that big of a deal going into the expanded playoff. While I have grown accustomed to the national championship being played on a Monday night, are we sure that is still a good thing? More importantly, do we have to be beholden to having these national quarterfinals be played in an around the New Year's holiday? I feel college football needs to be played on Saturdays.
For as long as college football continues to be enamored with the Rose Bowl being played at the same time every single New Year's Day, it will hurt the potential viewership the sport could garner. This year, many of the playoff games were on a Wednesday. What I would do is go at the NFL head-on for trying to step on your turf and your day. College football games are not as often heavy-handed.
Having these games played on Saturday is the best way to keep your viewership fully engaged.
2. We really need multiple broadcasting partners to make this feel bigger
While No. 1 is very obvious, No. 2 is actually one that needs to be rectified as soon as the College Football Playoff's contract with ESPN expires. The playoff really needs to be broadcasted on multiple networks. The NFL does it with CBS, ESPN, FOX, NBC and now Amazon. This past season only saw games be broadcasted on ESPN, with two first-round games airing on TNT. This needs to change.
It may pain the other networks to advertise for games on other networks when it comes to NFL broadcasts, but it does make the league feel bigger. It forces how each network covers the NFL to be better. By having it be strictly an ESPN property, we are denying broadcasting networks like CBS, FOX and NBC from having a slice of the pie to really help promote this incredible postseason tournament.
This is a way for the playoff to avoid settling for complacency should ESPN's coverage go sub-par.
1. The four highest-ranked conference champions should not get byes
This had to be No. 1. While Texas, Penn State, Notre Dame and Ohio State absolutely deserved to move on past Arizona State, Boise State, Georgia and Oregon, respectively, the seeding of the tournament resulted in a ton of first-round blowouts and only one competitive national quarterfinal. While the five highest-ranked conference champions should get in, we do not need to give out byes.
By not shoehorning Boise State and Arizona State into the No. 3 and 4 seeds, we would have gotten many more competitive games if Boise State was the No. 9 seed and Arizona State was the No. 11. Oregon and Georgia would have still gotten first-round byes, but Texas and Penn State would not have had to play Clemson and SMU in the first round. We need to see closer game be played here.
Ultimately, the playoff is a TV product. The last thing it needs is for viewers to tune out prematurely.