With Clemson, Alabama, Michigan State and Oklahoma, there is a "playoff four that makes a whole lot of sense" for college football, according to Steve Greenberg of the CHICAGO SUN-TIMES. The teams "should sound right to anyone." Their precise order of seeding "might not please everyone, but that’s hardly controversial by college football postseason standards" (CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, 12/7). In N.Y., Marc Tracy writes the CFP selection committee "did its job extremely well," as it "selected the best four teams and placed them in compelling matchups, so that the national champion will be nearly indisputable" (N.Y. TIMES, 12/7). In Chicago, Teddy Greenstein writes every team "is where it should be." It is "all so perfect, it just doesn't seem right for a sport in which fans and power brokers like [Big Ten Commissioner] Jim Delany could never agree on a postseason." Greenstein: "Can we now all agree that four is the perfect number?" (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 12/7). In Miami, Linda Robertson writes, "Let’s hope the semifinals and championship game offer more drama than Sunday’s ranking revelation." Then again, college football "can always use a break from the annual pecking-order controversy" (MIAMI HERALD, 12/7). In N.Y., Zach Braziller writes the BCS "never had it so easy." Admittedly, these teams "aren't the sexiest." But matchups and styles make games, and these two showdowns "promise to hold plenty of intrigue" (N.Y. POST, 12/7). In L.A., Chris Dufresne writes the more the committee members "get this right, the more they get it, well, different." Sixteen years of hairpin turns under the old BCS "have parted way to calm, order and fairness" (L.A. TIMES, 12/7).
BIG FOR THE BIG 12: In Dallas, Chuck Carlton writes the inclusion of Oklahoma "represented welcome news" for the Big 12, as it "validated the decision to bypass a title game or expansion, or any other quick fix" (DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 12/7). In Austin, Kevin Lyttle writes the Big 12 "made the big-boy list after getting snubbed last year" (AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN, 12/7).
TRUST THE PROCESS? In Ft. Worth, Gil Lebreton wrote the idea of initiating a four-team playoff at first "was a grand notion." But the process of choosing those teams "in two short years has already shown its inadequacies and flaws." Lebreton: "For such an august group, where’s the transparency? Let’s see the rules, the criteria. ... I sorta feel for [CFP Committee Chair Jeff Long], who is well-liked and has to somehow summarize the myriad of opinions he must hear each weekend." But in so doing, Long "has left the unavoidable impression that the 12 committee members are simply making it up as they go." Lebreton: "Now please do college football a favor and disband" (FT. WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM, 12/6).
EIGHT WOULD BE GREAT: In Columbus, Bob Hunter wrote it will take an eight-team playoff "to eliminate most of the controversy." The four-team playoff "is twice as good" as the BCS. Unfortunately, however, the math "was flawed from the outset because five doesn’t go into four," so at least one major-conference champion "is always going to be left out." Going to an eight-team playoff "solves this" issue, and with "most of the controversies eliminated, few will clamor for a 16-team playoff that would bring more-radical changes, such as the end of conference championship games and the bowl structure as we know it -- or both" (COLUMBUS DISPATCH, 12/6). In Phoenix, Paola Boivin writes Sunday's pairings announcement "inspired little more than a shoulder shrug thanks to a process that still needs refining." Eight picks "would have improved chances that the right teams had a shot at a title, without putting too much burden on the student-athlete" (ARIZONA REPUBLIC, 12/7).
PLAYOFF PAYOFF: Fanatics, which operates the e-commerce business for all four CFP teams, saw strong upticks in merchandise sales over the past week. Alabama now ranks No. 1 among all colleges. Oklahoma saw sales of its gear jump 200% year-over-year, while Michigan State and Clemson saw 100% increases (Austin Karp, Assistant Managing Editor).
