Labar: How a Couple of Tweaks Could Make Next Season's CFP Better

By Abby Labar
Sportmoney Columnist

The moment we were all waiting for came and went on Sunday when the first ever 12-team College Football Playoff bracket was revealed. Coming into the season we were told how the seeding would work, but it wasn’t until we saw where each school actually finished in the poll, put the teams in the bracket, and could visualize the path to the championship that the reality hit that this is all quite…confusing. 

In an effort to not start on a negative note, I do think that the first regular season leading up to the expanded playoff met expectations. The excitement in November, games that felt bigger down the stretch, surprise teams that showed up and made it into the bracket: It was what we had hoped for. But the first season always comes with vulnerability, and parts of the system were surely exposed. It will be interesting to see the response by not just the committee this offseason, but in the way ADs, coaches and players handle scheduling, the transfer portal, etc. That’s for another conversation. For now, let's focus on the present. 

I’m sure most of you by know what the bracket looks like, but for the sake of comparison purposes and referencing, let’s revisit the basics:

• The four highest-ranked conference champions are seeded 1-4 and receive a first round bye, while the 5th-highest ranked champion is seeded where it was ranked in the CFP poll (or at No. 12 if it was ranked outside of 12).

  • No. 1 Oregon, No. 2 Georgia, No. 3 Boise State, No. 4 Arizona State

  • No. 5 (aka No. 12 but really No. 16 – see, this is where we start to scratch our heads…) Clemson

• Nos. 5-12 play in the first round, where the better-seeded team hosts (or it technically could choose a neutral site).

  • No. 5 Texas vs. No. 12 Clemson

  • No. 6 Penn State vs. No. 11 SMU

  • No. 7 Notre Dame vs. No. 10 Indiana

  • No. 8 Ohio State vs. No. 9 Tennessee

• The winners in Round 1 go on to play in the quarterfinals are as follows:

  • Winner of 8 v. 9 play No. 1

  • Winner of 7 v. 10 play No. 2

  • Winner of 6 v. 11 play No. 3

  • WInner of 5 v. 12 play No. 4

After talking with some of my friends that are experts and insiders covering this college football season, they all agreed that the seeding seemed unfair for the teams that should have been rewarded with an easier path to the championship. And the seeding not aligning with the CFP rankings made it confusing and frustrating.

One expert, who didn’t want to be named discussing the issues with the current process, told me: “My biggest gripe is not reseeding after the first round. I think we have to consider that moving forward. For example, Oregon beat Penn State in the Big Ten title game, but Penn State’s path to a title is much easier, in my opinion. Oregon is going to have to play the winner of Tennessee/Ohio State, and Penn State, with a win, gets Boise State. I think you see which teams win the first round and then reseed. It also incentivises winning your conference and getting a first round bye because you’d get no game in the first round and then an easier game in the second round.”

From my perspective, one thing we should all be able to agree on is trying to encourage participation in the conference title games. The first round bye is enticing and I understand the value in the reward, but I think with the controversy in strength of schedule and the different levels of competition among different conferences, it’s unfair to automatically give them the top four seeds. As we see now, it messes with the rest of the bracket and creates a lot of controversy and unfair advantages/disadvantages. So how do we keep the current ideals and incentives while making this more of a fair fight?

Here is what I personally would like to see:

• Five conference champions still get automatic bids into the playoff with the final CFP poll reflecting the seeding in the bracket. Now the part where this still gets tricky is the Clemson situation this year. If a conference champion is outside of the top 12, you slide them into that No. 12 seed just like in the current system. This incentivizes players to compete in their title game even if they’re on teams outside the top 12. 

• First round byes should be rewarded to the top four teams. This would still encourage a high level of competition and participation in the conference championships because those games would still ultimately have an impact on the final rankings. 

• So here is what my initial bracket would look like: No. 1 Oregon, No. 2 Georgia, No. 3 Texas and No. 4 Penn State get byes. The first round would be: 

  • No. 5 Notre Dame vs. No. 12 Clemson

  • No. 6 Ohio State vs. No. 11 Arizona State

  • No. 7 Tennessee vs. No. 10 SMU

  • No. 8 Indiana vs. No. 9 Boise State

• Reseed and matchups for the quarterfinals:

  • No. 1 vs. No. 8

  • No. 2 vs. No. 7

  • No. 3 vs. No 6

  • No. 4 vs. No. 5

In this scenario, No. 11 Alabama would still be left out to slide in Clemson because Alabama is the lowest-ranked not-conference champion in the top 12. So it would be all the same teams, just different seedings. 

At the end of the day, not everyone is going to agree on which ranking and seeding system is the best. There are so many different factors and opinions that will come from many directions. But from what we have seen on social media and through our personal conversations, there is agreement that there is definitely a better way to achieve the goals of the expansion. They won’t know unless they try, and at the end of the day, the committee did the best it could in Year 1 with a lot of positives to take away.