With the CFP National Championship set for Monday, the inaugural playoff already has been a hit among the sports media. Here’s how it’s playing:
A HOME RUN RIGHT OFF THE BAT: USA TODAY's Nancy Armour wrote the CFP "proved its worth on its very first try," and "all but the most disgruntled TCU fan has to admit after [last week's] games that both Oregon and Ohio State are worthy of the opportunity." Still, the playoff structure "isn't perfect." Armour: "As good as four teams are, eight would be better. Or 16." But it is a "huge improvement over the BCS nonsense" (USA TODAY, 1/2). In Ft. Worth, Jimmy Burch wrote the CFP already "has proven to be a huge triumph for college football fans," as the playoff process is a "vast improvement on the BCS" (FT. WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM, 1/5). In Dallas, Chuck Carlton wrote the playoff "has been all payoff and no drawbacks." Postseason interest "has never been higher," and TV ratings "are great" (DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 1/4). In Denver, Benjamin Hochman wrote the three-game playoffs are "awesome because they're simple and easy to follow" (DENVER POST, 1/2). In Utah, Dick Harmon wrote this "playoff thing is better than expected." Harmon: "Oh, there’s still a long way to go, but since I’ve been barking about it for more than a decade, I’ll shamelessly roll out the 'I told you so' line as the college football season winds down" (DESERET NEWS, 1/4).
CHASE PERFECTION, CATCH EXCELLENCE: In N.Y., George Willis wrote there has been a need for "some kind, any kind of playoff system to determine a national champion in college football." Computers "don’t always get it right," and there "has to be room for Cinderella to wear the glass slipper" (N.Y. POST, 1/2). In Salt Lake City, Scott Pierce wrote the CFP in its first year "has already proved that the abandoned BCS system was hugely flawed." The BCS "would have given us Alabama vs Florida State for the national championship," and "as we learned when Ohio State beat Alabama and Oregon crushed FSU, those were not the two best teams" (SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, 1/8). ESPN.com's Mark Schlabach wrote the "irony is that if college football were still determining its champion" in the old BCS system, OSU and UO "probably wouldn't have even had opportunities to play for a national title" (ESPN.com, 1/2). FOXSPORTS.com's Stewart Mandel wrote under the header, "Ohio State-Oregon Championship Game Is Perfect Playoff Payoff." The game "will be 'cool' because ... it’s different" (FOXSPORTS.com, 1/2). In Boston, Ron Borges wrote not only did "The System" work, but it "proved the need for a system" (BOSTON HERALD, 1/5).
BIGGER IS BETTER: In Utah, Jay Yeomans wrote while the CFP “is a better system” than the BCS, it “isn't the best solution in deciding a true winner.” The number of teams that make the playoff “needs to be expanded, and fast” (DESERET NEWS, 1/5). YAHOO SPORTS’ Pat Forde wrote four teams in the CFP “is good,” but six or eight “would be better.” In a nation of five power conferences, “simple math suggests as much anyway” (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 1/2). In Seattle, Geoff Baker wrote any lingering doubts about the new CFP format “should by now have vanished.” The on-field results from the semifinals “validated many of the complaints that forced changes to the old system.” If anything, the latest result “should increase demands to expand the playoffs to eight teams” (SEATTLE TIMES, 1/5). A CHICAGO TRIBUNE editorial stated this year’s four-team playoff “is an improvement on the old system, which relied on polls to set the title matchup.” But better yet “would be a tournament involving eight or 10 teams, with existing bowls repurposed to serve as early-round venues.” An expanded playoff “would lend excitement to the college football season, and it would afford greater opportunities to schools from every conference” (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 1/3). The AP’s Paul Newberry wrote under the header, “College Playoff Exceeds All Expectations.” Newberry: “Eight teams is a must. Sixteen would be even better.” But until then, the four-team system “isn’t too shabby” (AP, 1/3).
