Saturday Blitz
Fansided

SMQ: How would eight-team College Football Playoff look in years past?

By Zach Bigalke

facebooktwitterreddit

Every year around Selection Sunday we hear that this year justifies not expanding a College Football Playoff. What would it have looked like?

This is the time of year when postseason placement is on everyone’s mind. Given the structures  of a system that leans heavily on nostalgia and creates instant tradition out of thin air, the top division of college football is the one major sport in the United States that lacks a substantive playoff structure with clear metrics for qualification. Playoffs abound in every other division of intercollegiate gridiron play, other levels of the sport from grade school to the professional ranks, and in other sports.

Yes, the College Football Playoff exists. This year there is little mystery about who will make the four-team field. The only real curiosity at this point when the selection committee releases their final set of Top 25 rankings around noontime will be which team lands the No. 1 seed, and which of the next two teams will play as the home team and which as the away team in their semifinal matchup.

By some, this is perceived as immutable justification for perpetuating the four-team College Football Playoff structure:

What we lose in an argument like this is any sense of historical perspective. Because the structure for an expanded playoff field did not exist in the past, it has fostered the illusion that there are fewer opportunity for the fluke results and Cinderella stories that mark playoffs if we only opt to avoid creating those structures.

This is a false sense of security, however.

Even in the past, teams like BYU have stolen away the national championship from under the nose of more established powers.

FBS football is marked by a relative lack of structure, which might work to stifle Cinderella stories but does nothing substantive to mitigate flukiness from the system. A combination of 10 different conferences have divergent numbers of members, play different numbers of league opponents, and offer a variety of both opportunities and restrictions  in regards to recruiting, revenue generation, and other structural benefits.

The entire system as it is designed places artificial ceilings on a large number of programs before seasons even commence. These ceilings, it must be stressed, are in no way natural.

Plenty of virtual ink has been spilled about the College Football Playoff. In this space I have projected what an eight-team playoff would look like in 2018, and what a 16-playoff might have looked like way back in 1936. We have projected what a four-team playoff would look like during the BCS era.

What we haven’t done yet, though, is assessed what an eight-team playoff might have looked like across college football eras. That is the focus of this week’s Sunday Morning Quarterback as we prepare for the big news on Selection Sunday.

Who would design the postseason from scratch as it currently exists?

College football leans heavily on its traditions, and few are more beloved than the proliferation of bowl games. Forming a postseason on the foundation of a tradition of naked cash grabs designed by tourism bureaus to capitalize on underpaid labor to draw a holiday vacation spike would certainly get laughed down in committee if we were forming a college football postseason structure from scratch.

I love bowl games. They are a fun exhibition to celebrate the end of a season for programs. They are, however, a saccharine substitute for really determining quality on the gridiron. When we lean so heavily on the nostalgia of this tradition, we ignore college football’s greatest tradition — innovation.

This is a sport that happily changes up precedent whenever it no longer suits the times. Just look at the tweaks that were initiated to the BCS formula repeatedly throughout its early history. College football has never been afraid to switch things up when they no longer work as well as intended… though sometimes it takes longer to break free from tradition than might truly be justified.

Not every year lines up as neatly as 2019 has for the selection committee

This season makes it quite easy for the College Football Playoff selection committee to parse out the top four teams and set the semifinal bracket. Even in the most recent era of the sport, though, the selection process has not always been completely clear.

Take the first season of the playoffs back in 2014. The selection committee tabbed Ohio State as their No. 4 team, and the Buckeyes went on to stun Alabama and Oregon in succession to win the national title. By that metric, the selection process worked perfectly in affording a legitimate contender a chance to win the national title.

What we can never say with any certainty, though, is that Ohio State was the only team that could pull off the feat in 2014. Right behind them were Baylor and TCU, Big 12 co-champions at 11-1, that offered just as legitimate a case to reach the playoffs. Behind them, Mississippi State and Michigan State had posted 10-win seasons that put them right in the thick of the discussion for much of the regular season.

Expanding the field further would have provided opportunities to every legitimate contender. It is far more equitable to accept a questionable contender at the bottom of the bracket than to restrict the field to a point where high-quality challengers are left on the outside looking in. Only when this occurs can we declare with any legitimacy that playoffs have crowned a true champion.

Anything less leaves the residue of uncertainty.

How would an expanded playoff be structured?

This is always the sticking point for most people when debating the structure of an expanded playoff. Should the system reward conference champions with automatic bids? Should a group of voters in a back room be permitted to subjectively sort out contenders from pretenders out of a pool of possibilities, or should there be a more  transparent process?

For the purposes of this exercise, because conference affiliation is fluid and leagues come and go across time, we are going to look solely at the best eight teams each season. Taken into consideration is conference affiliation, as well as providing one automatic bid for a Group of Five program (what we would call mid-major in previous eras). So let’s go back through time and see how playoffs might have changed our narrative about a given year.

2018

  • No. 1 Alabama (13-0) vs. No. 8 Washington (10-3)
  • No. 2 Clemson (13-0) vs. No. 7 Georgia (11-2)
  • No. 3 Notre Dame (12-0) vs. No. 6 UCF (12-0)
  • No. 4 Oklahoma (12-1) vs. No. 5 Ohio State (12-1)

2017

  • No. 1 Clemson (12-1) vs. No. 8 USC (11-2)
  • No. 2 Oklahoma (12-1) vs. No. 7 Auburn (10-3)
  • No. 3 Georgia (12-1) vs. No. 6 UCF (12-0)
  • No. 4 Ohio State (11-2) vs. No. 5 Alabama (11-1)

2016

  • No. 1 Alabama (13-0) vs. No. 8 Western Michigan (13-0)
  • No. 2 Clemson (12-1) vs. No. 7 Michigan (10-2)
  • No. 3 Ohio State (11-1) vs. No. 6 Oklahoma (10-2)
  • No. 4 Washington (12-1) vs. No. 5 Penn State (11-2)

2015

  • No. 1 Clemson (13-0) vs. No. 8 Houston (12-1)
  • No. 2. Alabama (12-1) vs. No. 7 Ohio State (11-1)
  • No. 3 Michigan State (12-1) vs. No. 6 Stanford (11-2)
  • No. 4 Oklahoma (11-1) vs. No. 5 Iowa (12-1)

2014

  • No. 1 Alabama (12-1) vs. No. 8 Boise State (11-2)
  • No. 2 Oregon (12-1) vs. No. 7 Mississippi State (10-2)
  • No. 3 Florida State (13-0) vs. No. 6 Baylor (11-1)
  • No. 4 Ohio State (12-1) vs. No. 5 TCU (11-1)

As you can see, during the College Football Playoff era this would not have made any substantively weaker matchups. One can look at the Group of Five teams that made the field and question their ability to take down their listed opponent, but it is hard to find a legitimate reason why they should not earn a chance.

Similar stories arise when we break down the BCS era in similar fashion.

2013

  • No. 1 Florida State (13-0) vs. No. 8 UCF (11-1)
  • No. 2 Auburn (12-1) vs. No. 7 Ohio State (12-1)
  • No. 3 Alabama (11-1) vs. No. 6 Baylor (11-1)
  • No. 4 Michigan State (12-1) vs. No. 6 Stanford (11-2)

2012

  • No. 1 Notre Dame (12-0) vs. No. 8 Northern Illinois (12-1)
  • No. 2 Alabama (12-1) vs. No. 7 Stanford (11-2)
  • No. 3 Oregon (11-1) vs. No. 6 Georgia (11-2)
  • No. 4 Florida (11-1) vs. No. 5 Kansas State (11-1)

2011

  • No. 1 LSU (13-0) vs. No. 8 Wisconsin (11-2)
  • No. 2 Oklahoma State (11-1) vs. No. 7 Boise State (11-1)
  • No. 3 Alabama (11-1) vs. No. 6 Oregon (11-2)
  • No. 4 Stanford (11-1) vs. No. 5 Arkansas (10-2)

2010

  • No. 1 Auburn (13-0) vs. No. 8 Boise State (11-1)
  • No. 2 Oregon (12-0) vs. No. 7 Oklahoma (11-2)
  • No. 3 TCU (12-0) vs. No. 6 Ohio State (11-1)
  • No. 4 Wisconsin (11-1) vs. No. 5 Stanford (11-1)

2009

  • No. 1 Alabama (13-0) vs. No. 8 Ohio State (10-2)
  • No. 2 Texas (13-0) vs. No. 7 Oregon (10-2)
  • No. 3 Cincinnati (12-0) vs. No. 6 Boise State (13-0)
  • No. 4 TCU (12-0) vs. No. 5 Florida (12-1)

2008

  • No. 1 Oklahoma (12-1) vs. No. 8 Boise State (12-0)
  • No. 2 Florida (12-1) vs. No. 7 Texas Tech (11-1)
  • No. 3 USC (11-1) vs. No. 6 Utah (12-0)
  • No. 4 Texas (11-1) vs. No. 5 Alabama (12-1)

2007

  • No. 1 Ohio State (11-1) vs. No. 8 Hawaii (12-0)
  • No. 2 LSU (11-2) vs. No. 7 Missouri (11-2)
  • No. 3 Virginia Tech (11-2) vs. No. 6 USC (10-2)
  • No. 4 Oklahoma (11-2) vs. No. 5 Georgia (10-2)

After the chaos that reigned in 2007, wouldn’t it have been incredibly fun to see the postseason played out with more teams getting the option to play for a title — rather than letting the nebulous “we didn’t lose in regulation” do the heavy lifting that sorted the haves from the have-nots?

2006

  • No. 1 Ohio State (12-0) vs. No. 8 Boise State (12-0)
  • No. 2 Florida (12-1) vs. No. 7 Wisconsin (11-1)
  • No. 3 Michigan (11-1) vs. No. 6 Louisville (11-1)
  • No. 4 USC (10-2) vs. No. 5 LSU (10-2)

2005

  • No. 1 USC (12-0) vs. No. 8 TCU (10-1)
  • No. 2 Texas (12-0) vs. No. 7 Georgia (10-2)
  • No. 3 Penn State (10-1) vs. No. 6 Notre Dame (9-2)
  • No. 4 Oregon (10-1) vs. No. 5 Ohio State (9-2)

2004

  • No. 1 USC (12-0) vs. No. 8 Georgia (9-2)
  • No. 2 Oklahoma (12-0) vs. No. 7 Virginia Tech (10-2)
  • No. 3 Auburn (12-0) vs. No. 6 California (10-1)
  • No. 4 Utah (11-0) vs. No. 5 Texas (10-1)

2003

  • No. 1 Oklahoma (12-1) vs. No. 8 Miami of Ohio (11-1)
  • No. 2 LSU (12-1) vs. No. 7 Florida State (10-2)
  • No. 3 USC (11-1) vs. No. 6 Ohio State (10-2)
  • No. 4 Michigan (10-2) vs. No. 5 Texas (10-2)

2002

  • No. 1 Miami (12-0) vs. No. 8 Boise State (11-1)
  • No. 2 Ohio State (13-0) vs. No. 7 Oklahoma (11-2)
  • No. 3 Georgia (12-1) vs. No. 6 Washington State (10-2)
  • No. 4 USC (10-2) vs. No. 5 Iowa (11-1)

2001

  • No. 1 Miami (12-0) vs. No. 8 BYU (12-1)
  • No. 2 Oregon (10-1) vs. No. 7 Illinois (10-1)
  • No. 3 Colorado (10-2) vs. No. 6 Maryland (10-1)
  • No. 4 Nebraska (11-1) vs. No. 5 Florida (9-2)

2000

  • No. 1 Oklahoma (12-0) vs. No. 8 Florida (10-2)
  • No. 2 Florida State (11-1) vs. No. 7 TCU (10-1)
  • No. 3 Miami (10-1) vs. No. 6 Oregon State (10-1)
  • No. 4 Washington (10-1) vs. No. 5 Virginia Tech (10-1)

1999

  • No. 1 Florida State (11-0) vs. No. 8 Marshall (12-0)
  • No. 2 Virginia Tech (11-0) vs. No. 7 Wisconsin (9-2)
  • No. 3 Nebraska (11-1) vs. No. 6 Tennessee (9-2)
  • No. 4 Alabama (10-2) vs. No. 5 Kansas State (10-1)

1998

  • No. 1 Tennessee (12-0) vs. No. 8 Tulane (11-0)
  • No. 2 Florida State (11-1) vs. No. 7 Texas A&M (11-2)
  • No. 3 Kansas State (11-1) vs. No. 6 Arizona (11-1)
  • No. 4 Ohio State (10-1) vs. No. 5 UCLA (10-1)

The immediate question is whether there are any real duds in the lineups. At no point would any system — whether a committee of selectors, an algorithm aggregating human and computer ranking systems, or any other number of methodologies — would never be required to take a team with fewer than two losses.

This quickly complicates the narrative that expanding to eight teams would immediately devalue the quality of a national championship. For a sport that spent nearly a century playing for the bragging rights of a mythic national championship that carried no definitive weight, far too many fans and pundits of that sport seem to imply that there is some inherent sanctity to a four-team system that doesn’t exist with any other potential structure.

But that ignores the era before the BCS, where a trio of split national championships served as the impetus for finding a better system in the first place. How might an eight-team playoff have clarified the messes of the Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance eras and the period of anarchy that preceded those prototype championship systems?

1997

  • No. 1 Michigan (11-0) vs. No. 8 Colorado State (10-2)
  • No. 2 Nebraska (12-0) vs. No. 7 Florida (9-2)
  • No. 3 Tennessee (11-1) vs. No. 6 North Carolina (10-1)
  • No. 4 Florida State (10-1) vs. No. 5 UCLA (9-2)

1996

  • No. 1 Florida State (11-0) vs. No. 8 Virginia Tech (10-1)
  • No. 2 Arizona State (11-0) vs. No. 7 BYU (13-1)
  • No. 3 Florida (11-1) vs. No. 6 Penn State (10-2)
  • No. 4 Ohio State (10-1) vs. No. 5 Nebraska (10-2)

1995

  • No. 1 Nebraska (11-0) vs. No. 8 Toledo (10-0-1)
  • No. 2 Florida (12-0) vs. No. 7 Texas (10-0-1)
  • No. 3 Northwestern (10-1) vs. No. 6 Notre Dame (9-2)
  • No. 4 Tennessee (10-1) vs. No. 5 Ohio State (10-1)

1994

  • No. 1 Nebraska (12-0) vs. No. 8 Colorado State (10-1)
  • No. 2 Penn State (11-0) vs. No. 7 Florida State (9-1-1)
  • No. 3 Miami (10-1) vs. No. 6 Alabama (11-1)
  • No. 4 Florida (10-1-1) vs. No. 5 Colorado (10-1)

1993

  • No. 1 Nebraska (11-0) vs. No. 8 Louisville (8-3)
  • No. 2 Florida State (11-1) vs. No. 7 Wisconsin (9-1-1)
  • No. 3 West Virginia (11-0) vs. No. 6 Texas A&M (10-1)
  • No. 4 Notre Dame (10-1) vs. No. 5 Tennessee (9-1-1)

This is the first time in this thought experiment where stipulations requiring one automatic spot for a mid-major program would force the playoffs to take a three-loss team. Louisville, then an independent three years away from charter membership in Conference USA, went 8-3 against a record that included Arizona State, Texas, Pittsburgh, Michigan State, and Navy. Their only three losses came against West Virginia, Tennessee, and Texas A&M, all projected to reach the playoffs in this season and who ended the regular season with a combined 30-2-1 record between them.

1992

  • No. 1 Miami (11-0) vs. No. 8 Hawaii (10-2)
  • No. 2 Alabama (12-0) vs. No. 7 Michigan (8-0-3)
  • No. 3 Texas A&M (12-0) vs. No. 6 Colorado (9-1-1)
  • No. 4 Florida State (10-1) vs. No. 5 Notre Dame (9-1-1)

1991

  • No. 1 Miami (11-0) vs. No. 8 East Carolina (10-1)
  • No. 2 Washington (11-0) vs. No. 7 Iowa (10-1)
  • No. 3 Florida (10-1) vs. No. 6 Penn State (10-2)
  • No. 4 Michigan (10-1) vs. No. 5 Florida State (10-2)

1990

  • No. 1 Colorado (10-1-1) vs. No. 8 BYU (10-2)
  • No. 2 Georgia Tech (10-0-1) vs. No. 7 Washington (9-2)
  • No. 3 Texas (10-1) vs. No. 6 Florida State (9-2)
  • No. 4 Miami (9-2) vs. No. 5 Notre Dame (9-2)

1989

  • No. 1 Colorado (11-0) vs. No. 8 BYU (10-2)
  • No. 2 Miami (10-1) vs. No. 7 Alabama (10-1)
  • No. 3 Michigan (10-1) vs. No. 6 Florida State (9-2)
  • No. 4 Notre Dame (11-1) vs. No. 5 Nebraska (10-1)

1988

  • No. 1 Notre Dame (11-0) vs. No. 8 Wyoming (11-1)
  • No. 2 Miami (10-1) vs. No. 7 Auburn (10-1)
  • No. 3 West Virginia (11-0) vs. No. 6 Nebraska (11-1)
  • No. 4 Florida State (10-1) vs. No. 5 USC (10-1)

1987

  • No. 1 Oklahoma (11-0) vs. No. 8 San Jose State (10-1)
  • No. 2 Miami (11-0) vs. No. 7 LSU (9-1-1)
  • No. 3 Syracuse (11-0) vs. No. 6 Auburn (9-1-1)
  • No. 4 Florida State (10-1) vs. No. 5 Nebraska (10-1)

1986

  • No. 1 Miami (11-0) vs. No. 8 San Jose State (9-2)
  • No. 2 Penn State (11-0) vs. No. 7 Texas A&M (9-2)
  • No. 3 Oklahoma (10-1) vs. No. 6 LSU (9-2)
  • No. 4 Michigan (10-1) vs. No. 5 Nebraska (9-2)

1985

  • No. 1 Penn State (11-0) vs. No. 8 Nebraska (9-2)
  • No. 2 Miami (10-1) vs. No. 7 BYU (10-2)
  • No. 3 Oklahoma (10-1) vs. No. 6 Michigan (9-1-1)
  • No. 4 Iowa (10-1) vs. No. 5 Florida (9-1-1)

1984

  • No. 1 BYU (12-0) vs. No. 8 Boston College (9-2)
  • No. 2 Washington (10-1) vs. No. 7 Ohio State (9-2)
  • No. 3 Oklahoma (9-1-1) vs. No. 6 South Carolina (10-1)
  • No. 4 Florida (9-1-1) vs. No. 5 Nebraska (9-2)

1984 marked the start of modernity in college football. The Supreme Court broke up the NCAA’s monopoly on television right in the summer before the 1984 season. Once action began on the football field, contenders dropped by the wayside until WAC champion BYU emerged as the only undefeated program in the I-A ranks.

By default, the Cougars won the national championship when they won the Holiday Bowl over Michigan. But this season shows the utility of a larger playoff structure in sorting out a national champion in a landscape riddled with disparate schedules.

So what does this show us?

It is easy to create lists and subjectively decide where each team might be ranked. But, while it is fun to see how playoffs might look over the years, that is not the primary purpose of this exercise.

What this shows us, in the end, is that a national champion can come from a far wider pool of contenders than we often give credit. Extrapolating that to this season, as we prepare for the selection committee to make their final call, here is how it might look in the present year:

  • No. 1 LSU (13-0) vs. No. 8 Memphis (12-1)
  • No. 2 Clemson (13-0) vs. No. 7 Penn State (10-2)
  • No. 3 Ohio State (13-0) vs. No. 6 Florida (10-2)
  • No. 4 Oklahoma (12-1) vs. No. 5 Oregon (11-2)

In such a structure, every Power Five conference is represented by at least one team. The two strongest conferences in 2019, the SEC and the Big Ten, are both represented by two schools. Memphis, the top team in the Group of Five after winning the American Athletic Conference, would also get a seat at the table.

One can debate the relative merits of each team, or even lobby for different seeding. What cannot be disputed, though, is that this is a structure which would provide more equitable access to contention.

It would also, contrary to popular belief, produce at least as legitimate a national champion as the current four-team structure, the previous two-team BCS matchups, or the mythic national championship era of the sport.

Next. A brief history of the conference championship game. dark

Playoffs are only legitimate when they provide access that is achievable, with clear criteria defined for reaching those achievable access requirements. Playoffs that cut off access before all legitimate contenders are included are playoffs in name only, offering an illusion of legitimacy while leaving lingering doubts about whether the winner is truly the best team in the country.

Home/College Football Playoff