Tim Benz: 12-team college football playoff will solve some complaints, create others

Now that we know what to complain about regarding this year’s College Football Playoff, let’s compare that to what we’ll be griping about in 2024 — when the format expands from four to 12 teams.

Oh, because, trust me, we’ll still be complaining. The only question is, will the complaints be as substantial?

For instance, this year, what are the big gripes?

The biggest one seems to be that USC (11-2) got bumped out of the top four spots for playing an extra game (a PAC-12 championship game loss to Utah), while Ohio State (11-1) benefited by not playing the Big Ten title game since they lost the previous week to No. 2 Michigan.

Yes, that stinks. Southern Cal dropped from fourth to 10th for losing that game. Meanwhile, Ohio State climbed a spot for being idle because they didn’t even win their own division.

Not that I disagree with the four teams that were chosen. Those are the four teams I would’ve picked too. Nor am I crying for USC. The Trojans lost to the same team — No. 8 Utah — twice. And the Utes are also left out as the eighth-ranked club. Therefore, Southern Cal. getting bounced, to me, isn’t the major complaint, per se.

It’s that the Buckeyes, who risked nothing last weekend, got a berth by virtue of not playing. That’s a problem, and that is something that will be somewhat rectified by the 12-team format.

Under the new plan, the only true benefit of being in the top four will be getting a first-round bye. In order to get a bye, you have to win a conference championship game. So, under the new model, Ohio State (sixth seed) and USC (10th seed) would be at-large teams.

Then again, Ohio State would still get some benefit by not playing, because seeds Nos. 5 to 8 would get home games in Round 1. That means the Trojans would have to go on the road to battle Alabama, and the Buckeyes would get to host No. 11 Penn State.

Again, a more advantageous result for a team that wasn’t required to play an extra game.

Another complaint is that the seeding of the top four looks manipulated to avoid Ohio State and Michigan rematching in the semifinals. Both OSU and No. 3 Texas Christian University have one loss. They both lost their most recent game. Neither is a conference champion. And the eye-test all year had the Buckeyes in front of the Horned Frogs in the rankings.

Yet, when the final rankings appeared, TCU maintained its third ranking after falling to Kansas State in the Big 12 title game. Go figure!

The team that gets hurt the most by that result is, ironically, No. 1 Georgia. As the top seed, the Bulldogs shouldn’t draw the toughest opponent. In terms of raw talent, that’s probably OSU, even though they are the fourth seed.

This is a fault that will be avoided come ’24 in the sense that the top four won’t be able to play each other until the semifinals. Something fluky could happen, though, where the top seed is always going to get the eight or nine seed in the quarterfinals, and seeds Nos. 2-4 may get double digit upset winners out of the byes in the second round.

If it’s me, I’d reseed after every round.

More sports

• Derek Watt increasingly becoming bigger part of Steelers’ offense
• How have the Penguins replaced defenseman Kris Letang so far?
• Secret to Pitt's success during 5-game win streak: 'The ball doesn't have any eyes'

Lastly, one complaint is that under the current model, the conference championship games seem like useless annoyances. In the case of Georgia, Michigan and TCU, apparently there was no risk at all in losing, especially since TCU didn’t slip after its defeat.

Maybe if Michigan had won and Georgia had lost, the No.1 seed could have changed hands. But would the voters had just made TCU the four seed anyway to avoid an Ohio State-Michigan rematch in that scenario too?

At least in the new format, the top four seeds are given exclusively to conference champions. So not only would Clemson (ACC) and Utah (PAC-12) be in the bracket come 2024, they’d get byes too, since they would be the third- and fourth-highest rated conference champs.

Hey, that new system is going to be far from perfect. Fans will kvetch over teams such as Clemson and Utah being over-seeded. We already talked about going with a hard bracket, instead of reseeding. And, financially, some schools may actually prefer to be a five to eight seed, so they can host a first-round playoff game, whereas teams Nos. 1-4 don’t get to suit up until games move to a neutral venue.

Then — per usual — there is the Notre Dame question. They never would face the hurdle of needing to win a conference title, but even if they finish the regular season 12-0, they’d never have the chance of getting a top four seed and a bye without claiming a conference title.

Although, if history has taught us anything, if there is a way to benefit, Notre Dame will figure it out.

Those problems to me seem less galling. Also, arguing who should be the seventh at-large team that gets left out in 2024 versus the fourth team (including all conference champions) overall in ‘22 seems like a significantly lesser issue.

So I embrace the 12-team format. It’s more inclusive than the four-team model, if somewhat watered down. Eight would be cleaner and more elite. Six teams — just the Power 5 conference champions and the top-ranked “Group of Five” rep — is the most deserving model (two byes and the four other conference champs battle it out in the first round in with seed Nos. 3 to 6 squaring off).

But it’s only taken us a century or so to get this far. Maybe we’ll get closer to perfect during the next 100 years.