It is a good argument Why there is so much disparity in CFB... 

Would Penn State recruiting benefit from Playoff berth? If CFP was 8 teams instead of 4, it already would have | Jones

Updated Nov 05, 2020; Posted Nov 05, 2020

Just four teams have accounted 17 of the 24 berths in the 4-team tournament over its first six years.

By David Jones | djones@pennlive.com

It’s become a popular lament among college football fans that the rich are getting richer, that the same handful of programs are ending up in the College Football Playoff year after year. You’ll get no argument from me.

The facts don’t lie. Among the quartet of Clemson, Alabama, Ohio State and Oklahoma, some combination of three has been included in the past five CFP tournaments. And two were in the first one. Just those four schools have accounted for 17 of the 24 berths in the first six years of the 4-team tournament.

Why? A valid premise is actually something that the crusty old proponents of the bowl system warned against when the CFP began in 2014 – that it would become the end-all and be-all for fans. That even a conference championship and top-tier bowl would start to not be good enough for them.

And I think it’s become the same way with top-end recruits. They don’t merely want to get to the NFL and make money. They want to be able to showcase themselves in the sport’s grandest moments against the best competition in championship play.

The problem is, there are only four of those spots.

I was never a proponent of the bowl system as a means to decide a champion and am not now. But I cannot deny the probability that only making college football’s version of the Big Dance can float the boats of fans and 5-star recruits anymore. And success feeds on success. The more the same teams make the final four, the better they recruit, the more they make it, the better they recruit, and so on.

I think the problem might be that the dance only has four dancers. So many top-end talents are seeking out this handful of schools who make it that they are migrating from all over the country to sign up with those programs. And the cycle perpetuates itself.

Conversely, compared to the big four consistently in the tournament with corresponding classes at the top of the recruiting rankings, some of the big-name schools who have struggled to make the Playoff have begun to see choppy results in recruiting. Penn State (none), Southern California (none) and Florida State (once, in 2014) are prime examples.

But what it the tournament was 6 teams or 8? What if Penn State, for instance, could show recruits a pair of CFP appearances on its résumé from 2016 and 2017?

Would it help broaden recruiting if more teams made the tournament? I think so.

Maybe then, we wouldn’t see such a widening disparity of talent depth on display in games like Saturday’s Ohio State @ Penn State contest. For the first time in the recent past, at least in the first quarter while the teams were fresh, it looked like the Nittany Lions were a little shocked by the Buckeyes' athletic level, especially for their size. I had not seen that in the last several prior games.

Also, maybe then, we wouldn’t see dozens of top West Coast and Pacific Rim recruits abandoning the Pac-12 to head east and south. That’s what they’ve been doing lately, especially from California and Washington. Only the Oregon Ducks are really keeping pace recruiting at an annual top-10 national level.

So, I asked 247 Sports' Midwest recruiting director Allen Trieu: If there were 8 teams instead of 4 in the College Football Playoff, would recruiting in the country balance out some?

“Yeah, absolutely, if all the high school kids knew that four more teams get a chance to be in the Playoff. If, say, you gave an automatic bid to the winner of the Pac-12, like they do in basketball – if you win your conference, you’re in – yes, that would help the Pac-12 [recruiting].”

It only stands to reason. Who knows what the 2016 or 2017 PSU teams might have done with a crack at Alabama or Clemson? Even if they were merely competitive in a loss, it’s priceless exposure at the pinnacle of the sport.

Trieu is seeing evidence that recruits today are more apt to go wherever they can prepare for the NFL and get the big-stage exposure to build their brands, no matter whether it’s 2,000 or 3,000 miles from home:

“I do think, on some level, recruiting is more national than ever before, because of social media and the ability these kids have to look into schools that are further away. I think the chance for them to compete at those programs has led them further away from home.”

And when Clemson, Alabama and Ohio State are showing up in late December and January every year in the most prestigious games, it’s a deal-changer.

I’ve heard all the arguments against expanding the CFP, mainly that the top three teams are so far ahead of everyone else and so the first-round games wouldn’t be competitive.

But what if the puny 4-team bracket is a big part of why they’re so far ahead of everyone else? It’s a self-perpetuating system, all the glory and exposure concentrated in too small a group. Of course, you’re going to get the same teams in the tournament every year. Every 5-star kid wants to sign with those schools, not just for pro training but prestige.

Aside from the fact that a 4-team tournament in a sport with 5 major conferences is just stupid, I think if the College Football Playoff is going to be treated like the Big Dance of the NCAA basketball tournament, where 68 out of 357 make it (19%), then a greater percentage of the sport than 4 out of 130 (3%) needs to be rewarded with berths to spread the wealth.

That’s not just good for those extra schools in the tournament, it’s good for the sport.