I didn’t hate 4.

You might’ve hated the 4-team Playoff. Your buddies might’ve hated it, too. Shoot, your random acquaintance that you see once a week might’ve hated it.

As for me, I didn’t hate 4. Of course, I didn’t think there was any world in which it would actually stay at 4. There was always going to be too much money to be made from expansion, even if that meant perhaps dialing the stakes back in the regular season. At least a touch.

There are plenty of things I’ll love about the 12-team Playoff. Mainly, the fact that we’re getting more football and a 4-month season is now closer to 5. Cheers to that. Cheers to 2024 embarking on a new era of college football wherein all of us, myself included, will adjust our expectations.

But here’s what I’ll miss about the field of 4 in its final year:

4. The catastrophic 1 bad day

Think back to all the instances in which we debated whether a certain team was about to miss the field because of 1 loss. There were cases in which that debate proved to be moot. Think last year with Ohio State-Michigan or the Big 12 Championship with TCU falling to Kansas State. There was 2020 Notre Dame getting smoked in the ACC Championship. Go back to 2017 Alabama after the Iron Bowl. All of those teams still made the field despite the loss.

But there was at least that healthy debate about what that 1 loss meant. For other 1-loss teams in the Playoff era, that meant not making the 4-team field:

  • 2014 TCU
  • 2015 Ohio State
  • 2015 Iowa
  • 2017 Wisconsin
  • 2018 Ohio State
  • 2020 Texas A&M
  • 2021 Notre Dame

As much as we’ve been programmed to believe that there’s always 1 loss to give in the 4-team field, that actually shows you why there’s still a legitimate discussion about Playoff chances after any loss. Granted, all of those teams besides 2018 Ohio State failed to win their respective conferences.

It’ll no longer be a topic of instant debate when a team loses that first game. Even if that can be a bit annoying, especially when we’re doing it for teams who control their own path to a conference title, it’s still one of the pillars of the 4-team era. Losing a game will no longer be in the “make or break” discussion. At least not for Power 5 teams.

3. The same Oklahoma/Notre Dame/Michigan ending

I don’t have a dog in the fight, but I’ll admit there’s a certain part of me that enjoys seeing how many people fall for the trap with those 3 schools, all of whom are winless in the 4-team Playoff era. The semifinal results have been … lopsided:

  • 2015 Oklahoma: L, 37-17 to Clemson
  • 2017 Oklahoma: L, 54-48 (2 OT) to Georgia
  • 2018 Oklahoma: L 45-34 to Alabama
  • 2018 Notre Dame: L, 30-3 to Clemson
  • 2019 Oklahoma: L, 63-28 to LSU
  • 2020 Notre Dame: L, 31-14 to Alabama
  • 2021 Michigan: L, 34-11 to Georgia
  • 2022 Michigan: L, 51-45 to TCU

That’s 0-8 with an average margin of defeat of 18 points. Yuck. Believe it or not, 3 of those instances were losses as a 2-seed.

In the 12-team field, I actually think Oklahoma, Notre Dame and Michigan stand to benefit greatly. Getting to host a potential first-round game — and winning — can absolutely change the perception of how those programs are viewed by some. Beating quality competition on a big stage still matters, even if it doesn’t yield a title.

When we see those 3 teams come up short in a semifinal matchup, it’s almost like they get lumped into that group with every non-title team. Even TCU, which beat Michigan, got blown out by Georgia in the title game and prompted everyone to ask how many teams would’ve put up a better fight.

Even in the likely event that Michigan/Notre Dame/Oklahoma still don’t have national championship upside in the expanded field, I’ll miss the pre-Playoff discussion topic about whether they can finally get over the hump.

2. The preseason prediction for a 4-team Playoff

I love getting to predict the Playoff every May. That’s right. May. There’s something fun and unique associated with calling your shot and predicting a team like Cincinnati will make the field … and there’s something torturous and maddening associated with calling your shot and predicting a team like Utah will make the field.

When the field expands next year, I don’t know that we’ll have people predicting all 12 teams. That’s a ton. At that point, you’re essentially halfway to a preseason Top 25.

What I do feel like will become the new “bold” preseason take is saying that a team like Kentucky or Illinois will make the 12-team field. When you know that the field is going to include perhaps a 3-loss team, you can be a bit more bold. Even a team coming off a 7-5 season could be picked to make the Playoff the following year.

Shoot, think about if we had the 12-team field this year. Some might bang the drum that Texas A&M, fresh off a 5-7 season, will make a 12-team field. That sounds bold, but in reality, the vast majority of Power 5 teams should enter a season with 9-win upside.

What I think will replace the preseason prediction of the 4-team Playoff will be the post-selection bracket, just like we have with March Madness. It won’t be quite on that level, obviously. But I imagine it’ll open up a new type of intrigue for calling Playoff upsets in a way that we really don’t currently have.

I guess I’ll settle for that instead of being wrong about my preseason Utah pick.

1. The exclusivity

I actually like the fact that in the 4-team Playoff, we’re never asked to bang the drum for a 3-loss team. Call it elitist, if you will, but I like the feeling that a team truly has to put together a phenomenal season to make the 4-team field. Once the field expands, we could see plenty of teams who have a “down” year by their standards and yet, they’ll still be in the field with 3 losses with a shot at a title. That’s different than a 1-loss 2015 Ohio State team or a 1-loss 2017 Alabama team having hotly debated invites and then playing their best football in the Playoff.

If we’re being honest, I don’t think a 9-3 team deserves a shot at college football immortality. But again, I’ll adapt.

When the field expands, I’ll spend a whole bunch of time digging into which 3-loss teams are most worthy. We’ll spend the most time arguing about those teams instead of the automatic qualifiers (Power 5 conference champs and the highest-ranked Group of 5 champ). Why? Because it’ll be new and there’ll be plenty of ways in which arguments can be twisted.

Analyst 1: “Well, they lost 3 games but it was by a combined 7 points.”

Analyst 2: “But the 3 teams they lost to are a combined 14-28.”

Analyst 1: “I’m just saying … they’re 3-4 plays from being undefeated.”

Analyst 2: “Cool. They also have 3 horrendous losses.”

On second thought, I’m actually here for that discussion, as dumb as it is.

Bring on the 12-team field.