The recent botched launch of the “revolutionary” Super League highlighted the sporting world’s desire for higher levels of talent, competition and, above all else, potential profits. The collection of European soccer’s brightest, and richest, stars plotted an elaborate money grab that temporarily disrupted the soccer universe. Although the league has seemingly immediately failed before truly gaining traction, the idea of higher-intensity sport provides insight into the wants and needs of spectators.
The Super League acted solely on financial motivation, ignoring its millions of fans in the process. The lack of regard displayed for the sport as a whole has likely permanently fractured the relationship between involved clubs and their stakeholders. But, the concept of collecting the best competition in the world and pitting these teams against one another is highly appealing.
The distribution of talent and premier teams across the soccer landscape is, in some ways, reminiscent of the sporadic arrangement of premier college football teams throughout conferences and the nation. However, top-tier college football programs from different regions rarely have the opportunity to play each other. Aside from three or four non-conference games at the start of each season, bowl games and the four-team college football playoff, teams are stuck with competition in their individual conferences. After the concept of the Super League was announced, college football fans across the country drafted what all-star collegiate conferences would look like.
These hypothetical stacked lineups feature programs like Alalbama, Clemson, Ohio State and Oregon. The idea is tantalizing, of course, but the likelihood of any major conference reshuffling is non-existent. If a reshuffling were to happen in the future, teams within the super conference would be similarly bashed for their prioritization of money over maintaining the spirit of college football.
Since this won’t happen on a large scale, the next best solution is to expand the College Football Playoff to eight, 12 or even 16 teams. This scenario would open the door for more non-conference competition. Further, a larger playoff pool would reduce the bias against non-Power-5 programs that have never appeared in the current four-team format. Recent reports have suggested that there is substantial support and interest in re-evaluating the current system.
The reconsideration of the playoff has been spurred by fears over fan disinterest and the consistent dominance of the same handful of programs, according to The Atlantic. Allowing for a larger playoff pool would give additional squads the opportunity to engrave their names in the national landscape. A 12-team playoff could give the highest-ranked group of five teams an automatic bid, combating the exclusionary nature of the current system.
The College Football’s Playoff format is entering the eighth year of its 12-year agreement for the postseason. The format may not be restructured until the agreement terminates, but the playoff committee and conference leaders would be wise to enact change as early as next season. Since the first playoff in 2014-15, only 11 teams have won at least one playoff game. The lack of participation from the majority of the 129 FBS programs hinders the national support of the current structure.
The College Football Playoff committee must enact near-immediate change to maintain and increase support of college football as a whole. If the current system is maintained, engagement among audiences will decrease. College football’s postseason must be altered to include a minimum of eight teams to advance the sport.