The inaugural CFP concluded last night with Ohio State winning its eighth national title after beating Oregon 42-20, and the "first attempt at crowing a champion without poll voters or esoteric selection formulas was a rousing, raucous success," according to Christopher Gasper of the BOSTON GLOBE. It served as a "momentous movement forward" for college football (BOSTON GLOBE, 1/13). In San Diego, Stefanie Loh writes, "Good Riddance BCS, the playoff is way more fun." With the CFP "comes a new era," one where "we watch teams fight for national supremacy on the field instead of through computer rankings." Loh: "What a novel concept." OSU "proved absolutely that the playoff system works" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 1/13). In Baton Rouge, Scott Rabalais writes the CFP "certainly worked," as OSU under the BCS system "wouldn’t have been in the title game" (Baton Rouge ADVOCATE, 1/13). In N.Y., Dick Weiss notes there was "less controversy than there was in the past when the BCS selected the two teams to play for the national championship based on a combination of human polls and computers." There was "some debate and even thoughts of conspiracy" when OSU jumped TCU and Baylor in the final CFP rankings, but "no one is questioning Ohio State or the Big Ten’s pedigree anymore" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 1/13). CBSSPORTS.com's Jon Solomon pens an open letter to the CFP selection committee, writing, "Your selection of Ohio State as the fourth and final playoff team was a stroke of genius. ... You did something that will set a precedent moving forward: You looked at Ohio State as it stood at the moment in late December and pulled the trigger" (CBSSPORTS.com, 1/13).
EXCEEDED EXPECTATIONS: QMI AGENCY's Todd Saelhof writes the CFP "surpassed pretty much everybody's expectations, even in the football-crazy USA" (QMI AGENCY, 1/13). NBCSN's Dave Briggs: "Change is usually tough. In this case, it was perfect. There was no controversy” (“Squawk Box,” CNBC, 1/13). Radio host Dan Patrick: "I was on my soapbox for years that nobody thought that this would work. None of the coaches wanted it. None of the presidents wanted it. Nobody wanted it, and now you see what it can be” (“The Dan Patrick Show,” 1/13). Cowboys Owner Jerry Jones: “Not one thing about (the playoff system) fell short of what my imagination was as to what it would do to create excitement about the game. I think it’s an absolute home run for college football to have had this playoff" (DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 1/13).
FANTASTIC FOUR OR CRAZY EIGHT? In Detroit, Matt Charboneau writes the CFP "was a resounding success," but it is "far from perfect." Four teams is "simply not a good number." Charboneau: "Not when you have five conferences in the mix." The winners of the Power Five conferences "should get in." Add in "three at-large teams -- one can come from the other FBS conferences -- and now we're in business" (DETROIT NEWS, 1/13). In Utah, Dick Harmon writes, "Now the debate will continue. Was a four-game playoff enough? Should it grow to eight teams? If it goes to eight, should there be a bye involved for the top selection, or should it just be a duke-it-out affair?" (DESERET NEWS, 1/13).
ON THE TO-DO LIST: USA TODAY's Nancy Armour lists several ways to improve the playoff. Expansion is "going to happen sooner or later ... so might as well make it sooner." Also, it is "long past time to give the kids some of the cash they're generating." Finally, seven weeks of CFP rankings "are about three too many." Meanwhile, as for the FCS Championship, Armour writes, "Give the little guys a little love, play it the day before and bill the weekend as a twofer" (
USA TODAY, 1/13). The AP's Ralph Russo notes there are a "couple of things that will be up for discussion when the committee and commissioners start talking about whether changes need to be made to the rankings process." Those topics include whether committee members "need to meet in person every week to do the rankings" and whether the rankings "continue to be weekly." Russo: "If ESPN has a say (and it does) the answer will be yes" (
AP, 1/13).
