Wilner – How to improve the expanded College Football Playoff format and selection process

Six weeks of speculation and sneak peeks morphed into reality Sunday when the College Football Playoff selection committee unveiled the pairings for the inaugural 12-team event.

The committee avoided controversy comparable to the 2023 conflagration involving Florida State. But the process wasn’t without stumbles, contradictions and head-scratching decisions.

To a certain extent, the committee is beholden to an underlying structure created several years ago by the university presidents and conference commissioners who oversee the CFP.

Playoff expansion is undeniably a quantum leap forward for the sport, but the process needs tweaks.

Our suggestions to improve the format.

1. Eliminate the weekly rankings

The five Tuesday broadcasts throughout November serve a single purpose: to provide programming for ESPN, the CFP’s media partner.

But the cost is immense. The weekly exercise sets up the committee for failure and undermines its credibility when the final Top 25 — the only ranking that matters — is unveiled after conference championship games.

Any attempt to eliminate the five Tuesday shows would require CFP officials to stand up to ESPN. That’s unlikely, if not fanciful, given the network’s role in bankrolling college athletics.

The most realistic option might be to trim the frequency of shows. (Even with that, ESPN would seek a pound of flesh; the shows are great business for the network.)

Maybe the CFP could release one Top 25 in the middle of November — a strategy similar to that deployed by the NCAA Tournament selection committee, which releases a working Top 16 (seeds) a month before Selection Sunday.

Or perhaps the CFP releases two sets of rankings, on the first Tuesday in November and again a few weeks later.

At the very least, the committee must eliminate the public rankings on the Tuesday before the conference championships. Too often, the penultimate version boxes the committee into positions that will lead to controversy and frustration.

That scenario played out last week when chair Warde Manuel explained that teams not participating in conference title games were locked into position.

2. Add transparency

With so much riding on its decisions, the selection committee must be held accountable — not via the weekly rankings release but through an airtight set of criteria.

The CFP’s own website lists a set of “principles” intended to guide the process when distinguishing “among otherwise comparable teams.”

In order, the four are:

— Strength of schedule
— Head-to-head competition
— Comparative outcomes of common opponents
— Other relevant factors (e.g., availability of key players and coaches)

Yet throughout the six-week process, the committee seemed to care far more about the number of losses.

Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark was less than pleased, noting of the strength-of-schedule component: “I haven’t seen that come into play as much as it should.”

At another point, Manuel seemed to brush off strength-of-schedule, explaining that “teams can only play the schedule that’s in front of them.”

That’s problematic when Ohio State plays Penn State, Indiana and Oregon but the Nittany Lions miss Indiana and Oregon.

Or when Georgia plays Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee but Texas misses all of them.

If the committee won’t adhere to the stated criteria, then create a new one. Why not develop a football version of the NET rankings — the primary sorting tool used in the NCAA Tournament selection process?

It’s clear the process, designed before realignment, doesn’t work with engorged conferences. The disparities in schedules are too great.

The system needs to change, sooner than later.

3. Give the top seeds more advantages

Any format in which the No. 5 seed could be deemed more advantageous than the No. 1 seed is flawed, but you could make that exact case with the 2024 field.

Oregon, the No. 1 seed, has three-and-a-half weeks off, then faces the Ohio State-Tennessee winner in the quarterfinals at the Rose Bowl.

Texas, the No. 5 seed, has two weeks off, plays No. 12 Clemson at home, then would rest for another 10 days before facing No. 4 Arizona State.

A similar path awaits No. 6 Penn State, which hosts No. 11 SMU and then would advance to play No. 3 Boise State.

Remember, the seeds don’t match the rankings. Tennessee and Ohio State were both ranked higher by the committee than Arizona State and Boise State.

Yet because conference champions are elevated, the Ducks are slotted to face a higher-ranked, but lower-seeded, opponent.

Their reward for winning the Big Ten is no home game and a quarterfinal opponent loaded with future NFL Draft picks on the lines of scrimmage.

And if the Ducks reach the semifinals, they would face Texas in the Cotton Bowl (if the Longhorns advance).

It’s the antithesis of the way the NFL treats its top seeds.

One option: Re-seed the field after each round.

Another option: Don’t reserve opening-round byes for the conference champions; instead, assign them to the top four seeds.

Ideally, the CFP would allow the top seeds to play home games, but that step would mean untethering from the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, Cotton and Peach bowls.

Which seems as likely as the CFP standing up to ESPN.

*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716

*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline