I'm taking a brief work from graduate study to write a brief opinion piece on what I believe the true culprit is for why a lot of people seem to hate the playoffs.

The Surface-Level Problem: Bad Playoff Formats

I have only been a fan of college football for a brief period of time. My first year as a fan came when JT Barrett led the 4th-quarter comeback against Penn State back when they had Saquon Barkley. My first full season as a fan came in Dwayne Haskins' one magical season here (may he rest in peace).

But that being said, I have seen heavy criticism for this sport'slast three systems to determine the national championship:

1. The BCS National Championship System saw an algorithm picking the top two teams to play in the national championship. Naturally, this excluded any other team, even if they were undefeated or "deserving" in another way. This came to a boiling point especially in 2012, where the algorithm selected a rematch of Alabama vs. LSU that had already occurred in the regular season.

2. The 4-Team Playoff was received with open arms after the BCS system, but it quickly overstayed its welcome. Teams like Alabama and Clemson forged dynasties and made the national championship what felt like every season to some fans. Additionally, many fans also felt like their teams got "snubbed", particularly in 2023 with Florida State missing the playoffs despite going undefeated and winning their conference. Finally, Group of 5 teams were still on the outside, which was a point of optimism for many observers who wanted to see them make the playoffs. The only Go5 team to get in was Cincinnati, who got immediately dominated by Alabama in the semifinal round.

3. In the one season of the 12-team playoff system, there has been criticism levied against it as well for a number of reasons. Many felt that snubs happened as well, with teams like Alabama and Miami missing the playoffs for teams like Indiana and SMU, who both played weaker teams. Giving conference championships a bye also had weird results, giving 12th-ranked Arizona State a top-four seed and putting 16th-ranked Clemson in the playoffs. Lastly, the outcomes were rather strange to many fans, as there were no competitive games in the first round, and none of the top four-seeded teams that received byes advanced.

In short, every system has been criticized or even hated by many fans.

Deliberation: Comparing College Football to the National Football League

I am going to make a general statement about the NFL: the system it runs under has more parity than college football.

There are probably those who disagree with me on this, so I am going to provide a few points to show why this is the case, at least theoretically:

1. The draft directly corresponds to each team's performance in a given year, meaning that the worst teams should get the best players, and vice-versa.

2. The league has a salary cap, which makes it harder for teams to assemble a squad of juggernauts to dominate the sport for 50 years. It is unlikely that every All-Pro talent is going to be willing to take a lesser salary to be on a prime Super Bowl contender.

3. The conference system is even with two conferences of sixteen teams, each with four divisions of four teams. While these divisions are not all evenly matched, every team is aware of their standings all year and knows what they need to get into the playoffs.

Is this system perfect? Absolutely not. Sometimes the AFC is stronger than the NFC overall, or vice-versa. The draft sees many higher-end players busting, many lower-end players excelling, and you also have to factor in trades and punishments from the NFL that can give or take away draft assets. These factors, to an extent, disrupt what would naturally balance out the league.

That being said, how many NFL fans do you hear saying their teams got "snubbed" from the playoffs? How many teams do you hear should have gotten in, but were kicked out on a technicality, or a dumb committee decision?

A lot less.

There are other controversies for sure: tush push, overtime rules, horrible officiating, et cetera. But there is a general balance to this system compared to CFB.

This is the word I want to highlight: balance.

Thirty-two teams.

Two conferences.

The same salary cap for each team.

The same draft picks to start with (barring penalties by the NFL).

.

- - - - -

.

Now, take a look at college football in each aspect compared to the NFL:

1. Recruitment is nowhere near as balanced as the draft, where programs like Alabama, Ohio State, and Georgia consistently send guys into the NFL more than lower-level programs like Group of 5 teams, or even lower-level Power Four teams. These programs' coaches, culture, tradition, and facilities give them a distinct advantage.

2. With no salary cap to speak of, NIL also plays a huge factor. A high-level recruit who wants to "start something new" at a smaller school not only has to risk losing out on better talent development, but also could lose out on thousands or millions of dollars of real money. That is both future and current risk! Both of these factors combined mean that recruiting is typically a "rich get richer, poor get poorer" game.

3. The conference structure is completely out of whack compared to the NFL: the SEC and Big Ten are superconferences while the Big 12 and ACC are a step down, and the Pac-12 is clinging onto existence for dear life. Group of Five teams vary greatly in relevance: in some seasons their best team is a prime playoff contender and in others that team gets boatraced in a meaningless bowl game by an 8-5 SEC or Big Ten team.

Comparing these points to the NFL:

Over 150 teams to the NFL's 32.

Several conferences to the NFL's two conferences and eight divisions.

No salary cap or draft whatsoever compared to the NFL.

- - - - -

Am I saying that college football should look exactly like professional football? Absolutely not.

You will never see Notre Dame losing to Northern Illinois, the Cincinnati Bearcats making the four-team playoffs, or Ohio State stomping the Michigan Wolverines in the National Football League.

On the contrary, we did not see C. J. Stroud getting his first win over a Harbaugh, Ezekiel Elliott being a top-four draft selection, or Terry McLaurin's insane breakout season at Ohio State.

The differences between each league are what make them fun.

But the reason I point out these differences is this...

I think we may have gotten our expectations a bit too high.

The Real Problem: Misplaced Expectations

I know it sounds like a copout, but here are a few reasons I view this as the biggest problem:

1. College Football is a Very Disorganized League

Some could point to basketball and claim that March Madness is a much better bracket solution than anything college football has put up in the last few seasons. Whether you agree or disagree with that claim, I think it is an interesting comparison, as I have heard far less complaints about "snubs" or playoff formats from college basketball fans.

However, I still think it's an unfair comparison because of the differences between the sports.

There are five starters in every college basketball game, where there are over 20 in football. And that's not even including special teams.

This makes sense considering the difference in roster size as well: the scholarship limit for basketball is 15 players (if I did my research right), whereas it's several times that number for football.

Additionally, football is FAR more physical than basketball and therefore requires more time to schedule and rest the players. Holding a 67-game tournament for football is practically unheard: the FCS has 27 games, but over double that would take months just to complete and greatly raises injury risk.

This is why I compared the NFL instead: it's the same sport. There are rule differences and other distinctions to be sure, but it shows that the playoff format is not simply a "wow, these guys are idiots" problem: the sport of football combined with the number of teams, conferences, and other factors make putting together a fair playoff system exponentially more difficult than in many other leagues.

2. An Clear-Cut Algorithm or Formula is Practically Impossible

The last time an algorithm was responsible for picking teams, it was the BCS system. But what if we made a BCS-esque algorithm choose 12 playoff teams instead? Wouldn't that solve the issue?

Unfortunately, football decisions are hardly objective. While stats such as touchdowns, yards, and scores can be objective, the decisions the algorithms must make with these stats are not.

- 13-0 conference champion Florida State missed the playoffs to two-loss Alabama last year. While many criticized the decision, Bama proceeded to give Michigan the best fight they had all year, bringing it to OT. Was that the right call?

- What should we value the highest? A lack of losses? Strength of schedule? Point differentials? Common opponents? Roster talent? How do injuries factor into the decision?

- Even statistics such as strength of schedule or strength of record are based on a ranking of all teams in college football: in other words, a subjective ranking. It is not an entirely objective metric.

The semantics behind making a decision in this complicated of a league make it essentially impossible to assign to a computer and even harder for a variety of people with differing opinions to come to agreement on.

3. Many (but not all) Criticisms are Overblown

Let me make this clear: I am not saying that ALL criticisms of the playoff formats are bad. But let me respond to some notable criticisms of the twelve-team format:

"My Team Got Snubbed!": Miami did not deserve to go in above an SMU team that made their conference championship or a Clemson team that won it. Alabama got shut down all-game by a Michigan team missing several players. Ole Miss had a clear-cut path to the playoffs and instead lost to Florida's freshman quarterback. Even if one of these teams made it instead, I have very little confidence that they would have done anything other than get boatraced by Ohio State, Texas, Penn State, or ND.

"The Conference Champs Didn't Deserve Byes": This is an incredibly subjective statement, as many people who say this also defended a one-loss Bama last year over Florida State because "they won the better conference." Additionally, the only conference champ that wasn't getting in regardless was Clemson, who competed with Texas for longer than the score indicated. Arizona State proved they belonged, and Boise State had to face what was probably their worst match-up on paper (Penn State had two elite RBs instead of one and a top ten rush defense. They were basically just Boise State but better).

"The Seeding Sucked; Every Team That Got a Bye Lost": Every team except for perhaps Boise State had a reasonable excuse. Oregon had to face Ohio State in the Rose Bowl (need I say more?). Georgia was on a back-up quarterback. Arizona State was essentially one no-call away from beating Texas, and I already mentioned the bad match-up for Boise State. Calling this a fault of the playoff format exclusively doesn't make any sense and is ignorant of all of these factors.

Conclusion: Readjust Expectations

To restate, I do not think that all criticisms of the playoffs are bad. I am very glad that we are not still in the BCS system, with only two teams having the chance to win it all. Even last year, the two teams that made the national championship wouldn't have had a shot at all in the four-team system.

But I think that we have gotten our hopes up for this mystical "perfect playoff system", where every game is competitive, every team gets a fair shot, and no shenanigans happen. I do not think such a system exists.

Blowouts will happen. "Snubs" will happen. Controversy will exist. Sometimes this is the fault of the playoff system, but in other times, this is simply because college football is a weird, beautiful sport.

That is all. Now feel free to flame me in the comments.