Probing the Playoff
Written by Chris Copeland (follow him on twitter @trackthebet)
The public has clamored and yelled about blowing up the BCS for quite a while and we have our playoff. Well, we finally got our wish but with this new 4 team format, are we really going to have fewer questions and more answers? I’m still not quite sure college football got it right.
Lets start with what we do know about this playoff system:
1) There will be a committee that determines the “most deserving” teams. However, what the hell does most deserving mean? I’m not sure I understand what that ambiguous terminology means and I’m willing to bet most of the committee members don’t either.
2) We know there will be a selection committee but who exactly is on this panel that determines the fate of an entire college football season? Names thrown around are primarily those of former coaches, AD’s, and journalists but color me skeptical. To say people with conference affiliations and ties to major universities won’t have bias is ludicrous.
3) There will be an overall strength of schedule component and conference champions will be given added consideration. Again, what does it mean when you consider last year UCLA was an upset (albeit monumental in stature) away from winning a power conference. It seems that it’s up to the committee’s discretion to weigh parts they deem fit when determining teams for the playoff, which ends up in a subjective discourse no different than scoring a boxing match or Olympic gymnastics.
Taking a look at recent history, the top 4 “most deserving” teams is pretty gray and might stir an even greater debate than naming the 2 national title participants would have the past few years.
2011
One would assume the committee would have selected the #5 ranked Pac-12 Champion Oregon (11-2) over #4 Stanford as the 4th team. However, is it a foregone conclusion that Oklahoma State at 11-1 with a loss to Iowa State was more deserving of Stanford at 11-1 whose lone blemish came against a top 5 team in Oregon? I can’t imagine the selection committee would value power numbers but considering OSU was a 27.5 pt chalk in Ames compared to Stanford as a 2.5 pt favorite vs Oregon the picture remains muddled. Bottom line last year was Alabama and LSU were the 2 best teams in the country and the BCS got it right pitting them against one another.
2010
Two years ago, Auburn, Oregon and TCU all undefeated easily earned inclusion in the 4 team playoff but who deserved the last spot? You had #4 Stanford at 11-1 (a non conference champion), Big Ten Champion #5 Wisconsin (11-1), and #6 Ohio State (11-1) all warranting consideration. There was also #7 Oklahoma (11-2) that won the Big 12 and let’s not forget Michigan State at #9 who went 11-1 and won a share of the Big Ten title which included a head to head win over Wisconsin. Not exactly a clear picture of who the 4th team should be and a situation where controversy would have been impossible to avoid.
2009
Alabama, Texas and Cincinnati all went undefeated and champions of BCS conferences seem to be shoe-ins. Yet here we go with what school is most deserving of the 4th spot. Would the committee take a 12-0 TCU squad that won the Mountain West, a 13-0 Boise State team that won the WAC, or a 12-1 Florida team whose only loss came in the SEC Title game to #1 Alabama? In the end, Florida ended up demolishing Cincinnati and Boise took care of TCU in their BCS bowls however power rankings aren’t supposed to be the determining factor since its “most deserving.” There would have been public outcries for the two teams that ended up on the outside looking in, especially if one of those teams was a 12-1 SEC squad whose only blemish on their resume came against the eventual national champion.
2008
A very tricky year indeed considering there were two undefeated teams in #6 Utah and #9 Boise both hailing from non-AQ conferences. Teams ranked 1-5 all had one loss and bodies of work that were far from airtight. OU won the Big 12, Florida the SEC, Texas was #3 but didn’t even play in the Big 12 Title game, Alabama was #4 (champions of the SEC west), while USC was #5 but champions of the Pac 12. This would really put the committee in a bind given their weighted emphasis on conference champions since OU, UF, USC would be assumed locks while both Boise and Utah appear casualties of a weak SOS. As we remember, Utah shocked Alabama but my gut says they never would have sniffed a slot in the playoff system. I’ve racked my brain and can’t see a scenario how either Boise or Utah would warrant consideration from the committee with so many blue blood programs with stronger paper resumes.
Although this is a small sample of college football history, each of the past four years created debate about who really deserved their place in the postseason. Without a concrete mathematical metric used to determine the outcome, controversy is inevitable. Sure, there are talks about the head of the committee being open with the public about why certain teams were selected and why others were not but don’t we already get that when the NCAA Tournament bracket comes out?
Every March we watch the Committee chair dodge and duck questions about certain teams, seeding of teams, and why teams were included or excluded. Will it be any better with the football chair? Will there finally be an open dialogue and a clear view as to why teams were picked? Will there finally be an explanation as to what exactly teams need to focus on in the future that will put them in a better standing for inclusion? One can only hope.
So while we think this 4 team playoff will provide clarity and answers, from where I sit, this only muddies the waters even more and leaves me asking did we really get it right?
Todd’s Take: There’s no disputing that the additional games a college football playoff provides are huge for Vegas. With increased stakes there comes a surge in betting handle and playing these games right during the heart of the NFL playoffs is a dream come true. From the standpoint of a college football fan, I echo the same sentiments of the author and believe this doesn’t give us closure but instead creates more questions. Why not establish the committee now and make the process transparent for a trial run the next 2 seasons? Seems like a plausible scenario to let everyone in college football feel comfortable with the future of the sport.
