Viewpoint: 4 reasons not to settle for a 4-team playoff

While the move to a four-team playoff is a significant step in the right direction, it does not solve many of the original criticisms of the BCS.

After years of controversy it finally looks as if college football’s national champion will be determined by a playoff. All of the pieces are in place for a four-team playoff to become a reality as early as 2014.

While this move is a significant step in the right direction, it does not solve many of the original criticisms of the BCS. Here are four reasons why college football should not settle for a four-team playoff, but instead adopt a seeded 16-team playoff with automatic bids for conference champions.

1. Access for non-BCS teams

While the four-team playoff does allow two additional teams the chance to play for the national title, it is questionable whether an undefeated team from a less powerful conference would be able to supplant a one-loss team from a major league.

An undefeated non-BCS team would likely miss out on the new playoff and, with two BCS games being taken by the playoff, would possibly miss out on a BCS game entirely. While the four-team playoff gives two more teams a chance to play for the title, it does not give consistent opportunities to unblemished teams from lower leagues.

2. Money

The four-team playoff system is expected to generate between $350 and $400 million a year in television rights, up from the $125 million currently generated by the BCS.

However, according to a study presented in the book Death to the BCS, a 16-team playoff could generate over $750 million, which -- when added to the projected revenue from the bowls operating independent of the playoff -- brings the total value of the college football postseason to a whopping $880 million a year.

This is a huge amount of money and could be used to ease the budget pressure felt by universities and students across the country.

3. Every game counts

While the BCS has long claimed that the best thing about college football is that, unlike in other sports, every game counts towards determining the champion. However, even the most casual fan of the sport can tell that historically, this is simply not true.

This would change with a 16-team playoff.

All conference games would be critical as every conference -- even the lowly Sun Belt -- would have a bid up for grabs.

Seeding would also be paramount, as one loss for a major playoff-bound program could be the difference between facing a soft 16-seed and spunky 13-seed.

This would also allow powerhouse schools to finally schedule respectable non-conference games, as the threat of a loss would not be overwhelming as it is now.

Overall, not only would the excitement of the average regular season game be dramatically increased, every game would truly count in determining the national champion.

4. More (better) football

As an avid fan of college football it is hard to argue against a system that would provide 15 additional thrilling games to cap off each season.

Not only would a 16-team playoff do this, but it would also be key in ridding college football of many of the unpopular bowls showcasing teams with 6–6 records or worse. I'm looking at you Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl.

Granting playoff access—and therefore playoff money—to all conferences would also bring long awaited conference stability, hopefully ending the dreaded mass extinction of storied rivalries.

While a four team playoff is better than the BCS, until college football adopts the 16-team playoff it will never live up to its true potential.

J. Christopher Proctor is a Summer 2012 USA TODAY Collegiate Correspondent. Learn more about him here.

This story originally appeared on the USA TODAY College blog, a news source produced for college students by student journalists. The blog closed in September of 2017.