After Alabama and Clemson meet for the second consecutive time in the National Championship Game on Monday night, we will have completed the third College Football Playoff.
So far, there have been six Playoff semifinal games and only one has been competitive.
The biggest argument in favor of moving from the BCS system, which used computer rankings to determine the two best teams, to a four-team playoff was that more than two teams were often deserving of the right to play for a national championship.
The results haven’t supported that logic.
The lone competitive semifinal, in Year One of the CFP, seemingly justified the four-team format. Ohio State appeared in danger of missing the cut in 2014, but it then upset No. 1 Alabama 42-35 before taking down Oregon to win the title as a No. 4 seed.
It was a validation of our belief that more than two teams should be given a chance to prove they are worthy. After years of debate, the Buckeyes appeared to deliver a decisive victory for Playoff proponents.
Since then, however, no semifinal game has been nearly as close. Outside of that Ohio State upset, the favorites have outscored the underdogs 172-44. The Big Ten, which some believe is the best conference in college football, has scored zero points in the past two years of the Playoff.
The same two teams — and top two seeds — are meeting for the second year in a row, and they haven’t had much opposition along the way.
Alabama- Clemson likely would have been the matchup under the BCS system, highlighting the fact that the Playoff hasn’t changed much of anything.
Right now, the Playoff is shining a light on the gap between the frontrunners and the also-rans.
Now, the debate is shifting to the selection committee. After an epic Rose Bowl, many wonder whether USC or Penn State, two of the nation’s hottest teams by season’s end, might have given Alabama a better game.
That’s a reasonable thought. Penn State had a very strong case for getting into the Playoff. It was Big Ten champion and gave Ohio State its lone regular-season defeat.
The committee is charged with selecting the four best teams — perhaps there is too much gray area involved.
The BCS system was overly rigid and couldn’t account for public opinion or momentum. After trumpeting the importance of conference championships, though, the committee opted to select the Buckeyes over the Nittany Lions.
Nobody will ever know whether USC or Penn State would have been able to do more against Alabama than Washington did. It’s likely that the final result would have been more of the same.
So is our frustration really with the system, or the fact that the system simply can’t be what we wish it could be?
The NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament is one of the most exciting times of the year. A 68-team field full of lovable underdogs takes to the hard court for a multi-week run of drama.
Football isn’t basketball, though. With five men per team on the floor at a time and as few as two days separating games, the chances for madness are much greater. If one player has the game of his life, a 15-seed can topple a 2-seed.
Outside of Ann Arbor, that just doesn’t happen in college football. Especially not with championship-caliber teams.
People want to expand the Playoff to include six, eight or even more teams. This will lead to more football, which is always a good thing, and may even lead to a few upsets.
It won’t lead, however, to the crazy atmosphere of the basketball tournament. Because if Alabama plays Penn State, USC or Washington 10 times, it will win nine of those games. The Crimson Tide’s lone loss over the past two seasons came on a day when Ole Miss could do nothing wrong.
In football, the better team almost always wins. Over the past three seasons, the Playoff has driven that point home.
