Why the 5+11 CFP format fails to meet objectives fans should want

Fox Sports

2 days ago

I'm starting to feel very pessimistic about what some of the leaders in college football want to do with the sport. My optimism surrounding the future of college football is waning because I'm not sensing from some of these groups that they understand what's going on, and they're not considering you — the fans.
In case you missed it, the discussion surrounding the College Football Playoff expansion took another turn this week. There was some momentum behind the push for a 16-team CFP with a format that features the five-highest-ranked conference champions getting an automatic bid, while the 11 remaining spots would be at-large bids (5+11 model).
Last week, I shared my thoughts on which direction the CFP should go with expansion. While I'd prefer a 14-team CFP over a 16-team one, it seems evident that it will be expanded to 16 teams. In that scenario, I'd like to see a format with the Big Ten and SEC each getting four automatic qualifying spots, the ACC and Big 12 both getting two automatic qualifying spots, an automatic bid for the highest-ranked Group of 5 champion and three at-large bids/Notre Dame.
However, the recent push for the 5+11 model picked up steam at the Big 12 and SEC conference meetings last week. Frankly, it's awful for college football on so many different levels.
I have a ton of respect for Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark, and I think he's a smart guy, but I also disagreed with him when he co-signed the 5+11 model while speaking with reporters last week.
"In talking to our [athletic directors] and coaches … the 5+11 model might not be ideal for the conference, but it's good for college football and it's what's fair," Yormark said. "We don't want any gimmes. We want to earn it on the field. That was the direction of the key stakeholder group, the ADs and the coaches, and I feel very comfortable with that. I feel the same way, and I've been very outspoken about it."
That doesn't make sense, quite frankly. How can you earn it on the field when the CFP committee determines nearly the entire field? The 5+11 certainly hurts the Big 12, which would in turn hurt the sport because we need more conferences to be relevant.
If we opt to go with the 5+11 model, we'd get four things: One, the entire sport is going to be determined in the boardroom and be committee-driven (which fans want that?); Two, we're going to lose valuable non-conference games; Three, you'd lose out on the possibility of having a conference championship play-in weekend (more on that here); Four, you'd have a massive amount of politicking and propaganda being pushed. (In fact, that final point was already being put into practice by the SEC at its conference meetings in Florida this past week, as it distributed an analytics packet that touted how tough the regular-season conference schedule is at its conference meetings.)
Is this what we're going to be as a sport going forward? We should take the sport out of the boardroom and define the criteria a little more clearly on what it should take to make the CFP.
The 5+11 model fails on every single level to drive the sport forward. Here are the six objectives I think must be considered when the CFP determines what format and model to use for expansion. 1. Increase fan base engagement
As I've mentioned with some of the previous models they've thrown out with the 16-team CFP, you'd increase fan base engagement by increasing the probability that your team is playing meaningful games late in the season. In the 5+11 model, we're going to have rankings every week, so we're going to minimize the number of teams that feel like they have a relevant and defined path toward getting in. That would be particularly true if you play in the "wrong conference" where your team can only lose once, while it's OK for teams from other conferences to lose four games. 2. Increase meaningful games
If we had a play-in weekend within conferences, each of the power conferences could have multiple games with a CFP spot on the line on the same weekend. If we went with the 5+11 model, we'd miss out on the idea of the third-place and sixth-place teams or the fourth-place and fifth-place teams in the Big Ten or SEC battling for one of the conference's automatic qualifying spots because of the 11 at-large bids. 3. Increase valuable non-conference games
If this sport is solely determined in a boardroom and the committee decides who gets into the CFP, we're going to have what's happened already: athletic directors and teams getting rid of valuable non-conference games. Tennessee and Nebraska just called off their series because of this. The future of USC and Notre Dame's rivalry is also in question because of this. When there's a committee involved, the idea is to have as many wins as possible. The best way to get as many wins as possible is to have as easy of a schedule as possible. The committee has never really shown a willingness to honor teams for challenging themselves in non-conference play. The 5+11 model would fail to protect teams from challenging themselves in the non-conference slate. 4. Minimize or eliminate the committee
Nobody wants all this committee-driven drama late in the year, with teams politicking and sending out analytics packets to prove their case. When nearly three-quarters of the field is made up of at-large bids, you're only going to see more of that. Having as many automatic qualifiers as possible would tone down the committee's influence beyond seeding. 5. Define a clear path
In the other 16-team models, there's a clear path for teams to reach the CFP. They know they either need to win their conference championship game, finish within a certain spot in the standings or win one of the conference championship weekend play-in games. With the 5+11 model, the only clear path to making the CFP is to be one of the five highest-ranked conference champions. If you're not one of those five teams, you're hoping the committee likes your résumé. 6. Keep more conferences relevant
This is vital for the health of the sport. It's important that the ACC and Big 12 remain relevant. Yet, if you go with the 5+11 model, the Big Ten and SEC will get more participants into the CFP. That means those conferences will continue to generate more revenue and power, further creating a fork in the road between those conferences and the rest.
Simply put, the 5+11 model fails every objective, and it falls short of the other models. Far be it from me to disagree with smart people, but I don't see how the 5+11 model is "good for college football" and "fair."
If I were Yormark or ACC commissioner Jim Phillips, I'd take a 14-team format that guaranteed my conference two spots right now. If the Big Ten and SEC really press those two conferences to accept a 16-team format, the ACC and Big 12 should ask for five guaranteed spots between the two conferences.
Ultimately, I want the sport to be better for you, the fans. If the CFP expansion meets these objectives, it would do that. I'm concerned, though, about the recent push for the 5+11 model, which certainly wouldn't.
Joel Klatt is FOX Sports' lead college football game analyst and the host of the podcast " The Joel Klatt Show. " Follow him at @joelklatt and subscribe to the "Joel Klatt Show" on YouTube .
Want great stories delivered right to your inbox? Create or log in to your FOX Sports account, follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily.
recommended
Get more from College Football Follow your favorites to get information about games, news and more