ATHENS — The College Football Playoff model of the future — 2026 and beyond — is up for grabs.
As if there wasn’t already enough uncertainty in collegiate athletics in the wake of the House settlement, it’s mind-boggling how the primary revenue producing sport has yet to figure out how best to determine a champion.
Everyone agrees that college football needs to figure out what it wants to do with its playoff — but that’s where things gets tricky.
RELATED: New transfer portal opens on Monday, but Georgia shouldn’t be concerned
Who is everyone? Is it a matter of what college football fans want? Or is it a matter of what satisfies the overall mass of sports followers?
There’s a difference.
Is it a matter of rewarding the best teams, or is it a matter of the most deserving teams?
Again, there’s a difference.
So to achieve the goal of deciding the right format, one must first define the goal.
SEC commissioner Greg Sankey has been quite clear that he’s in favor of the best teams getting into the playoffs and ensuring the proper metrics are emphasized by the CFP committee in compiling the rankings.
“I’ve been one who has said over time, I’d give no allocation,” Sankey said last month on the Dan Patrick Show.
“So this whole 5-7 thing that exists now (five automatic qualifiers, seven at-large teams), I’d just make it the 12 best teams.”
It seems so simple one wonders how it could be anything else?
But as Sankey explained, not everyone is interested in getting the 12 best teams, so much as getting what is best for their individual wants or needs.
“When we get into rooms, we make political comprises,” Sankey said “ …. to achieve an outcome.”
That outcome last year — prioritizing equal representation over rewarding the best teams — was an abomination for many college football fans.
“Look at last year, we had two teams not in the top four that get to move up because of the political compromise , we have a team outside the top 12 that moves in , and then the teams that are displaced, look around and say, that doesn’t make any sense anymore.”
Georgia coach Kirby Smart, recognized by many as the most accomplished active coach in college football — two national titles, three undefeated regular seasons, three SEC titles and appearances in seven of the past eight championship games in the nation’s most difficult conference — has an expert opinion on the playoff.
RELATED: Kirby Smart shares biggest areas in need of improvement
Smart has a first-hand account of seeing politics at work in the CFP selection process, and correctly pegged it in 2018 when he noted “every year it’s something different” that’s emphasized by the committee.
Smart is typically not one to speak for the sake of having an opinion, but with Nick Saban moved on to the broadcast world, Smart recognizes he has a responsibility to provide a leading voice in the sport that will be heard.
Sankey, as powerful and influential as he is, doesn’t move the needle with the general masses like Smart does when it comes to newsmaker status or making headlines.
So Smart spoke up at the SEC spring meetings — something fans and media, alike, have agreed they want coaches to do more often.
“I’m not looking at it in a self-preservation mode, which happens a lot in college football,” Smart said, alluding to Sankey’s comments about the political sidebar that derailed the first 12-team playoff model.
“I have a hard time time seeing Ole Miss, Alabama and South Carolina not being in the best teams last year,” Smart said, “and that, for me, is a big part of the SEC.”
Not only was its Smart’s place to stand up for his league, but his argument also held a great deal of logic when one considers how the quality of wins scored by CFP teams Indiana and SMU stacked up against those of Alabama, Ole Miss and South Carolina.
The Tide and Rebels both beat SEC champion Georgia, while the Gamecocks beat ACC Clemson at Clemson.
The committee, instead, prioritized the teams with the fewest losses, even as their schedule difficult paled by comparison.
Interestingly enough, on a recent College GameDay podcast, Smart was criticized by ESPN reporter Dan Wetzel.
“The No. 1 thing, coaches’ favorite thing to do, is preach that you should overcome adversity,” Wetzel said. “And then they complain about adversity. The biggest pack of complainers in history. They whine and they cry, ‘Oh my God, we’re getting cheated.’ They don’t really understand the formula.”
“I mean last year, I think it was Kirby Smart, I don’t want to pick on which guy, and they all do it, so I don’t want to just cite out Kirby, but, ‘We just need more coaches that understand the SEC on the committee,’” Wetzel said. “OK, the four coaches we had and the four players we had, counting Warde Manuel, who has played at Michigan and was also the AD at Michigan, they don’t know ball.
“OK, like, we had to make sure there’s an SEC guy on there. The committee’s already too big. Somebody’s got to sit around and make a call.”
Wetzel’s point about someone needing to be in charge and make a difficult decision is valid.
But calling out Smart for “complaining” missed the mark and didn’t advance a conversation that needs to take place for the college football to get its playoff system right.
So what will it be?
The best teams? Geographical representation? Or most profitable?
Collegiate football leaders have until Nov. 30 to reach a decision.
DawgNation Stories on new college sports model
What to expect with House settlement terms in effect
Kirby Smart: lines blur between athlete and employee
Tailgate talk: knowing the new names, terms and titles in collegiate sports
What House v. NCAA settlement means for Georgia
3 possible issues Kirby Smart sees with new settlement
Power conference leaders confident in new model
