College football's new playoff is already a loser

SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY JWR UPDATE. IT'S FREE. Just click here.

The College Football Playoff spent a decade inviting just four teams to play for a national championship.

It was an exciting concept. But it was too often mired in angry arguments about the criteria the selection committee uses to select the bracket. So, hoping to quell the controversies this year, the CFP expanded to 12 teams and added complex new rules for seeding the bracket.

It didn't work.

Since the bracket announcement, fans, coaches, athletic directors and journalists have criticized the CFP selection committee and the subjective criteria — such as which teams had the most demanding schedule — it uses to invite and seed the CFP.

They have a point. College football teams shouldn't be judged and ranked like Olympic ski jumpers. Fixing the broken ranking system will require two main steps.

For starters, the selection committee needs to go. Teams deserve a playoff that lets the wins and losses speak for themselves — without outside opinions. To help achieve this, we need the second step: College football must significantly reduce the number of teams that qualify for its playoff brackets.

These are radical ideas that will further sever college football from its amateur past. But the sport must consider them because as it professionalizes, it cannot afford to have a reputation for an unclear and questionable process in determining its champion.

It won't be an easy process. For one, traditionally less-competitive schools (such as those in the Group of Five conferences) will be marginalized, relegated and excluded. In most organized team sports, teams qualify for the playoffs on the basis of a win-loss record acquired playing many — if not most — teams in a compact league. In college football, there are simply too many teams — 134 are eligible for the playoff in 2024 — playing too few games (typically 12 in the regular season) to do something similar.

Playoff frustration, past and present, over how teams are selected isn't just about what happens on the field. It's also about the money being exchanged off it. ESPN is paying $7.8 billion for the CFP through 2032. Teams that qualify and advance in the tournament earn millions for their conferences.

That money is then distributed back to schools. It will come in handy when, starting next year (pending final approval), schools can opt in to share more than $20 million per year with their athletes. Those that don't want to participate in the revenue-sharing model will find it difficult to attract top talent, making their teams far less likely to be competitive on the field and in the race to play in the CFP.

Colleges and universities' desperation for the extra funds is one main reason private equity and other outside investors have sensed opportunity recently. This year, two groups — Project Rudy and College Sports Tomorrow, or CST, — proposed forming compact college football super leagues from the best conferences and teams. Project Rudy, according to Yahoo Sports, promises an increase of media and sponsorship revenue of about $15 billion over 12 years.

A super league would have certainly whittled down the 134 eligible teams in this year's playoff. And a less crowded field would satisfy many fans and media partners because that means frequent matchups between Power Four teams with national followings — those in the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC conferences and the independent Notre Dame.

More importantly, the structure would provide a more objective basis for a competitive college football playoff. Under the CST proposal, there would be a 24-team, NFL-like playoff featuring division and wild card teams based on win-loss records. Project Rudy envisions a relegation system that would, in theory, give lesser competition a shot at a playoff, but in all likelihood would ensure that top conferences and schools are competing in January.

Of course, not everyone will like these changes. Conferences outside of the Power Four won't want to lose out on the money they earn from playing better competition. But as revenue-sharing with players looms, the wealthiest conferences — especially the Big Ten and SEC — are increasingly seeking a bigger piece of the media rights pie, anyway.

That's why the growing numbers of schools are rightly coming around to the concept of a super league (and even the private investor proposals). The Big Ten and SEC recently discussed how they can collaborate more, including boosting matchups between their schools. With 34 teams, just two more than the NFL, it's easy to imagine the two conferences establishing their own super league and a separate playoff reached via wins and losses (there are no current plans for such a league).

Meanwhile, during Sunday's ESPN College Football Playoff Selection Show, retired Alabama coaching legend Nick Saban, whose former team was left out this year's CFP, mused about a potential super league comprised of teams that opt in to player revenue-sharing. He didn't offer details, but such a league would likely exclude much of college football outside of the major conferences.

Nothing is imminent. The College Football Playoff, and its selection committee, will persist at least until its current media rights deal with ESPN expires in 2032. But the teams that matter most for the business of college football are already clamoring for a fairer and more professional future. The game of college football needs to take the signal.

Minter is a Bloomberg View columnist. He is the author of "Junkyard Planet: Travels in the Billion-Dollar Trash Trade."

Previously:
• $2,000 college football tickets may be the new norm
• March Madness as we know it faces extinction
• Private equity and college sports can make a good team
• Baseball fans should root for gambling's expansion
• PGA merger with LIV Golf is only the beginning
• Farmers are fighting for our right to repair our iPhones
• This column may, or may not, cause an allergic reaction
• There's one Trump idea even libs should like