I was in favor of a four-team college football playoff. Here's why I was wrong

The college football season has kicked off and let's save everyone the suspense: Either Alabama or Clemson will win the national title. Or possibly Ohio State or Oklahoma. But definitely one of those four teams.

Yeah, yeah, I know what you're thinking. Thanks for the insight, Sherlock.

That is precisely the point. There is more suspense in a low-budget horror flick than predicting how a college football season will end.

For all its charm and beauty, college football remains too top-heavy. The lack of parity in crowning a national champion is a byproduct of a system in which teams replenish talent by recruiting, not drafting. The best teams get the best recruits, creating an uninterrupted cycle that has a negative impact on overall interest in the product. College football should never, ever be cast as stale or boring.

This is one reason why, to the surprise of many, college football power brokers unveiled a 12-team playoff model that seems inevitable at some point.

The No. 1 motivating factor behind talk of expanding the playoff from four teams to 12 should be obvious: Money. A larger bracket would create a much larger windfall for conferences.

Commissioners, however, recognize that a "stale" perception exists even among those who love the sport. That perception practically mandates the creation of a new model that gives more teams access to the playoff, even if, realistically, the semifinals and championship likely end up in the same exact spot: With only a handful of teams hogging the podium.

Initially, I favored the four-team model because I wanted to protect the excitement of the regular season. The fear was always that an expanded playoff might strip away some of the authentic weekly drama. It won't.

An eight-team playoff seemed like a logical compromise, but the proposal takes it a step further. The 12-team field would feature the six highest-ranked conference champions and six at-large teams. The top four conference champions would receive a first-round bye.

Here was the 2020 playoff field: Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State and Oklahoma.

And here is how the playoff field would have looked in a 12-team format based on final rankings: 1) Alabama, 2) Clemson, 3) Ohio State, 4) Oklahoma, 5) Notre Dame, 6) Texas A&M, 7) Florida, 8) Cincinnati, 9) Georgia, 10) Iowa State, 11) Indiana, 12) Coastal Carolina.

Which one looks more appealing? Easy, right. Certainly nothing stale about a Coastal Carolina vs. Notre Dame matchup in the first round.

Adding more teams won't cure the parity problem. It's hard to envision a Cinderella team pulling off the kind of magic that frequently happens in the men's basketball tournament, but making the playoff more accessible to teams outside the top handful is a logical step.

Expanding the field will lead to more investment in the sport in different markets. One loss won't necessarily doom a team. Interest among casual fans should increase with a bracket that looks more like a true playoff. And, yes, revenue will grow exponentially.

Every season will still begin with Alabama and Clemson as the odds-on favorite, but seeking to freshen things up is a necessary pursuit.

Five more thoughts