NCAA Should Consider Postseason Expansion

Some people are satisfied with the current format of the college football playoff, but others, including myself think there's still a lot of work required to make the postseason the best that it can be. This year's playoff includes an unbeaten and all of the once-beatens from the nation's power conferences. On paper, it looks like the committee got it right but if you look a little closer, one or two two-loss squads can solid argument for inclusion.

The selection committee made their decision last weekend and decided to include Alabama (13-0, 9-0 SEC), Clemson (12-1, 9-1 ACC), Ohio State (11-1, 8-1 B1G) and Washington (12-1, 9-1 PAC-12). There were two other teams contending on selection day, both from the Big Ten. Penn State (11-2, 9-1 B1G) and Michigan (10-2, 7-2 B1G) were the first two out and both believed they were a playoff-caliber team.

Penn State won the Big Ten conference over both Ohio State and Michigan and beat the Buckeyes head-to-head in October. The Nittany Lions' downfall was due to the fact that they lost to Michigan by 39 points in September and dropped a close non-conference matchup with Pitt in the season's second game.

Michigan is widely considered one of the nation's most talented teams and they beat the conference champion. They also won a non-conference matchup with Colorado who turned out to be pretty good. They stumbled late in the season, losing to the underachieving Iowa Hawkeyes. They dropped their season finale to rival Ohio State in dramatic fashion which knocked them out of contention for the conference title game.

It was pretty obvious that Alabama and Clemson would be the top two seeds in the playoff, but the rest was up for debate. Many thought that Washington played too weak of a schedule to be included and that because of Penn State's head-to-head win over Ohio State, that the Lions should have leaped the one-loss Buckeyes. Both are valid arguments, especially the one against Washington. Their non-conference strength of schedule ranked 127th out of 128 teams. To me, a dangerous precedent has been set by letting them in. It tells a contender that they can put together a non-conference schedule with no actual competition and get in as long as they win 11 or more games. It's also worth noting that the Pac-12 was the weakest Power 5 conference this season.

Regardless, this is the playoff schedule that we'll be seeing in the coming weeks:

National Semifinal

Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl

December 31, 2016

4 Washington
vs. 1 Alabama
----  ----  ----  ----

PlayStation Fiesta Bowl

December 31, 2016

3 Ohio State
vs. 2 Clemson

The aforementioned matchups are the ones we'll be seeing in a few weeks. My objection isn't necessarily to any of these teams being in the field, rather that one or more equally (or more) qualified teams didn't make the final cut. The four-team field is a vast improvement on the BCS system that we all loved to hate, though that doesn't mean it can't continue to improve as flaws are exposed.

It's difficult to argue with a one-loss team making the field over one or more two-loss teams but this year, the latter category may be more deserving. If the field expanded to six teams, we could reward the two best-finishing regular season teams with a bye week, and the remaining four would only have to play one extra playoff game to win a national title. It would reward conference champions with an automatic bid while also allowing for a wild card spot for the team deemed the best at-large by a committee. Seeding would also be up to the committee, as the at-large team wouldn't be restricted to the sixth and final seed. The only restriction is that the at-large qualifier wouldn't be eligible for a top-two seed and as a result, is guaranteed to have to play in the quarterfinal round. The reason is that it's incredibly likely the at-large team would not have had to play in their conference championship game, therefore essentially rewarding them an extra bye week. The reason for the bye is to reward a conference champion by giving them an extra week of rest.

The following projection is my idea of how a six-team field would look this season. Keep in mind that seeds could easily fluctuate depending on the committee's decisions, but if it were a one-man committee and I were on it, this is how it would look:

National Semifinal

6 Washington vs. 3 Penn State
---- ---- ---- ----

5 Oklahoma vs. 4 Ohio State

National Quarterfinal

LOWEST REMAINING SEED vs. 1 Alabama

---- ---- ---- ----

HIGHEST REMAINING SEED vs. 2 Clemson

There's no such thing as a perfect system but it can always be less flawed. To leave the conference champion of what's widely considered the best conference in the country out of the playoff isn't good for the game. That's what happened to Penn State as they're on the outside of the playoff looking in after rallying to win nine straight to win the Big Ten. One of those wins includes a victory over then-ranked No. 2 Ohio State. The Buckeyes are in while Penn State can only hope to continue their momentum into the Rose Bowl and come back strong next year. Oklahoma is another two-loss conference champion who is as hot as anyone who will not have the chance to prove themselves on the national stage.

We probably won't see another change to the system anytime soon but it's always fun to talk about what could be. A six-team field with one at-large qualifier seems like the the best, most fair system that gives deserving teams a shot while not adding much more time to the college football season. To me, it doesn't make much sense that there are fewer playoff spots than Power 5 conferences. The system I propose solves that problem and also gives another talented team (like Ohio State) an opportunity to upend the conference champions.

Let me know which system (aside from the current) you think would be best for college football.