As early as 2007, there were rumblings of expanding the conclusion of the College Football season past a singular Championship Game. Following several controversial finishes in the Bowl Championship Series rankings, chief among them the 13-0 2004 Auburn Tigers that did not play in the BCS Title Game.
A FOOTBALL FINAL FOUR | NYPost | 2007
Preceded by the Bowl Championship Series was first the Bowl Coalition (1992–1994) and next the Bowl Alliance (1995–1997) which were meant to – as definitively as possible – determine a champion for Division I-A College Football. After a finish like 1997 when 12-0 Michigan split a National Championship with 13-0 Nebraska; the natural evolution to the BCS was inevitable.
Every year, in the early part of December, we as College Football fans go through this almost ritualistic debate about how the season should be concluded satisfactorily. While I'm not completely opposed to the current "Playoff" model that has been in place since 2014, the more data we get as time marches on illuminates the unpleasantness of it all.
College Football is rich with tradition and predates the popularity of Professional Football by decades. There are conference tie-ins to Bowl Games there practically generational. If you grew up in the midwest or the Pacific, your goal every year was to reach the Rose Bowl. If you were in the South or the Texas/Oklahoma region, your goal was to get the Sugar Bowl or Cotton Bowl. I use those examples because if the BCS and further the College Football Playoff spotlighted one thing, it is the neutering of meaningfulness that a good bowl matchup brings. Particularly when it isn't recognized by a committee of individuals.
When the discussions about how to "fix" the BCS were happening in the late 2000's, one solution that did have some ardent supporters (Kirk Herbstreit was one) was known as the "Plus One" model. As Pete Thamel wrote for the NYTimes in 2008:
"The closest thing we're going to get to a playoff would be a Plus One model, which would essentially have the top two ranked teams play after the five BCS games."
In hindsight, I wonder if that is the model that should have been used all along. Rather than invalidating the existence of storied Bowl Games (Rose, Sugar, Cotton Orange) it would, instead, invigorate them. Seasons would play out exactly as they did before the start of the BCS (1998) and after those bowl games have been played there would be a final poll that would match up #1 vs #2 in a National Championship Game.
The pieces were in place all along for this to happen. Indeed, in the 2006 season when the BCS began playing the BCSNCG at one of the four sites the week after the "normal" bowl was played, it seemed as though that is where the sport was inching.
Alas, that did not happen. I'm not naive to the reality that money plays a massive role in all of this. I'm also a realistic fellow, I know that we will get more football and not less. There will be an expansion of the College Football Playoff that exists today. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.
Just a short 24 hours ago both Georgia and Alabama played a game where Alabama absolutely had to win to ensure their spot in the "Playoff". Georgia didn't have to win to ensure a slot. Furthermore, 'The Game' this year all but crushed our Buckeyes' shot. That's how consequential and inconsequential the current state of things are within 7 days of each other; juxtaposed in a Venn diagram.
Aside from the pageantry and tradition, the real secret sauce of College Football is consequentiality. Unfortunately, I don't believe any other sport has this. Major League Baseball once did but abandoned it. The NBA and NFL have never much been interested in the concept. Only Division I-A College Football exists in a place where quite literally every game matters. It's not a frivolous marketing slogan, it's a reality.
Unfortunately, if there is further flirtation with expanding the "Playoff", I'm quite certain the overall makeup of the game may be altered forever. That doesn't mean I won't watch or you won't watch, but it will mean that something that doesn't need to die, dies.
For further reading on this topic, here's a really nice (long) breakdown on this topic.
The Plus-One system would’ve been better than the Playoff
And, if you're curious what a Plus-One would look like this year, here are the conference tie-ins:
Rose Bowl — Big Ten #1 vs. Pac-12 #1.
Sugar Bowl — SEC #1 vs. Big 12 #1.
Orange Bowl — ACC #1 vs. SEC #2, Big Ten #2, or Notre Dame.
Cotton Bowl — at-large or "Group of Five" (committee selection)
Here would be the bowl pairings:
Rose Bowl — Michigan #2 vs. Utah #11
Sugar Bowl — Alabama #1 vs. Baylor #6
Orange Bowl — Pittsburgh #13 vs. Georgia #3
Cotton Bowl — Ohio State #6 vs. Cincinnati #4
After those games are played... the two best teams (based on an algorithm, committee... or both) would play in the National Championship Game.
The world is not perfect. College Football is not perfect. But, in my estimation, that is a much more attractive outcome to any season than what we have or, especially, what may be coming in the very near future.
