Oddsmaker on the Committee
Every Tuesday in November we’re privy to the most hotly contested debate in college sports (no, not what Mizzou administrator will get canned today); what 4 teams are deserving of inclusion in the college football playoff? Thankfully most unveilings are dress rehearsals meant to incite riots among fan bases while giving journalists plenty of fodder for their columns. The main takeaway for me every single week is how does the committee really grade the “best” teams in the land: is it win/loss record? Is it quality wins? Is it game control? Is it style points? Unfortunately the answer is YES to all of the above yet we’re devoid of a truly reliable quantitative element factored into the equation like the BCS required.
In order to create an equal playing field there needs to be that math guy balancing out the process among college football blue bloods and athletic directors. Who better than an oddsmaker to share his or her take on proper valuations of the best teams in the land. To better gauge sentiment among the college football community I turned to some of the most influential football writers and oddsmakers to get their thoughts on the idea.
“There is NO doubt in my mind that an oddsmaker would be a great addition to the College Football Playoff Committee, I’ve been saying that for several years. There is a bias in college football, especially with a committee whose average age is 57 after decades of being exposed to the bigger “brands” and older “styles” of football,” Peter Burns, SEC Network anchor, said.
The list of current committee members reads the following:
Jeff Long – Vice Chancellor and Athletic Director University of Arkansas
Barray Alvarez – Director of Athletics Wisconsin (Former head football coach)
Mike Gould – Lieutenant General Former Superintendent of the US Air Force
Kirby Hocutt – Director of Athletics Texas Tech University
Tom Jernstedt – Former NCAA Executive VP
Bobby Johnson – Former Head Coach Vanderbilt University
Tom Osborne – Director of Athletics Nebraska (Former head football coach)
Dan Radakovich – Director of Athletics Clemson University
Condoleeza Rice – Stanford Professor, former US Secretary of State
Mike Tranghese – Former Big East Commissioner
Steve Wieberg – Former college football reporter
Tyrone Willingham – Former college football head coach
Now ask yourself this question; can a group with clear ties to large power conferences and member institutions really approach selecting a field without bias? On top of that I’d have to imagine their daily responsibilities preclude them from watching a fraction of the football oddsmakers do when determining a proper valuation of every team. This isn’t a knock on the credentials of these men or women tasked with a difficult job but blood is ultimately thicker than water meaning if their schools benefit financially from certain decisions who can fault them for not entering the process without an agenda
“They would never allow an oddsmaker on the committee but if they did, it would give them all a much different perspective in the room that they don’t currently have. Essentially that’s what they were using in the BCS. Those computer rankings were basically someone’s version of power ratings so technically they have used computer “oddsmakers” in the past already,” Brett McMurphy, ESPN college football insider, said.
McMurphy makes a great point and begs a bigger philosophical question for me; how has a discretionary process neglected a reliable quantitative element? The idea that an eye test can be the ultimate determining factor is ridiculous when the room that can’t honestly say they’re able to watch every single team being considered every single Saturday during the fall. Think about the same parallel in professional sports; completely ignoring advanced analytics at a franchise’s disposal in favor of the old school scouting that became extinct with the flip phone.
“One fundamental question I would have with an oddsmaker is that he necessarily wouldn’t put as much (any?) emphasis on conference championships or losses for that matter. I think the teams have to be rewarded for winning or impacted by losing. But, of course, getting back to the BCS – that’s exactly what happened when Nebraska was blown out in its final regular season game with Colorado (62-36) but still made BCS title game, because it remained in the top two,” McMurphy added.
I don’t disagree with him on this point at all. I believe oddsmakers would need to understand how to weigh certain elements appropriately before arriving at their final decision. For me, an Oddsmaker could be used in the event of ties to make a case for team A over team B based on overall power profile if on field resumes showed no discernible edge. There’s a careful balancing act the member committee needs to take into account; are we after the best teams, the most deserving, or a combination of the two? College football fans deserve the later but I get the feeling most deserving becomes an easy crutch to use for traditional powers that need an extra boost in the polls.
“The definition of best is always a conversation this time of year and people have a hard time understanding a team with a loss could be better than an undefeated team. There are some great power ratings and metrics out there now which could be of use but the committee doesn’t use them. And as a result, the “most deserving” argument prevails. In 2012 , did anyone truly think Notre Dame was the best team, as the polls and bcs standings had them pegged? They won all of their games, so they deserved to be there but Vegas had Alabama as a substantial favorite and we saw what happened on the field,” Chris Fallica (AKA the Bear) College Gameday gambling guru, said.
Bear’s 100% spot on with his assessment. Even the subtle insinuation that Iowa, simply because they’ve won all their games, belongs in the same conversation as Alabama, Ohio State, or even Stanford is preposterous. Naturally Iowa fans feel slighted but if any other team, say a Houston from a non-power 5 conference, had the same unblemished record against their current schedule we would banish the notion of their playoff inclusion. This is where the committee needs to use common sense, rewarding teams playing difficult schedules or the end result becomes a college football landscape littered with non-conference lay-ups and unbalanced conference schedules creating apples to oranges comparison.
“Inclusion of an oddsmaker would add to the process a nonpartisan college football expert devoid of affiliations or external agendas. An oddsmaker could provide the committee a ranking that is more objectively quantified. Who do you think watches more college football and analyzes more teams during any given season? An oddsmaker who’s job depends on the accuracy of predictions or the athletic director who eats and breathes big-box football?” Scott Cooley, oddsmaking consultant for Bookmaker, said.
Cooley highlights the same though that all of us have, even members of the college football journalism community. Jay Kornegay, veteran oddsmaker at Westgate Superbook took Cooley’s thoughts one step further.
“I’m still trying to figure out what it is exactly that the committee is trying to do. Are they picking the most popular teams, the most deserving teams, or the four best teams? I believe an oddsmaker will help them select the four best teams. Oddsmakers can bring an objective view to the process eliminating ties to a specific conference and/or team. A Las Vegas perspective will not include history, teams names, or rankings. It would be a truly analytical driven decision,” Kornegay said.
While Kornegay and Cooley come from the oddsmaking background like myself and trust in the value of their craft, most rational humans should see the element an oddsmaker’s power ratings would add to the process. There are no ties to member institutions, no zeroes attached to checks for individual conferences, and no concerns about filling large stadiums with fan bases that will travel. Making room for a Vegas type power rating profile could assist committee members immensely when trying to figure out how to differentiate teams. Having seen the painstaking effort that went into grading every single player and every single team working alongside a legend in the field Kenny White, I believe those close to the college football community would see the added value instantaneously.
“Oddsmaker addition to the committee is 100% necessary. In fact, I’ll even go a step further, I think Vegas oddsmakers should pick the playoff field,” Clay Travis, founder of Outkick the Coverage and college football contributor for FS1, said.
Kornegay did raise a valid point saying there could be a potential conflict of interest with an oddsmaker. To avoid that happening if college football was serious they’d need to identify a person that is well versed in oddsmaking with a clean reputation that wasn’t considered a professional handicapper. That person also couldn’t be active in the industry currently and would need to show a demonstrated track record in the field while agreeing to remove him or herself from wagering on games entirely.
While a number of trusted voices in college football feel an oddsmaker adds a valuable element to the process, there is a school of thought that says maybe it’s not entirely in the sport’s best interest.
“I don’t think it would be a good idea at all. USC, for example has lost several games as a double-digit underdog and probably would be significant favorites over several Top 15 teams but simply don’t deserve to be in any discussion based on what they’ve done this season to be higher,” Bruce Feldman, accomplished author and columnist for FS1, said.
Feldman is right in his assessment that teams with multiple losses can end up as favorites over sides with better records. Every weekend during the fall we see this. His point harkens back to using a blend of criteria to arrive at the optimal result. Even Vegas wouldn’t want to see 8-4 teams fighting it out for a national championship if their power profile was worthy yet on field accomplishments weren’t up to snuff.
We all know college football isn’t turning to Vegas to fix their problems. It’s an interesting debate that will continue to rage on without a simple solution for identifying the top 4 teams in the land.
“It won’t happen (too much political correctness & no one to answer to, as the final vote on the 4 Teams in the CFP is the “law” & not reversible!). It would certainly give the little guys better representation however there’s better odds on us having a gourmet meal at a 5 star restaurant on Mars tonight than an oddsmaker joining or advising the Selection Committee!” Danny Sheridan, long time USA Today columnist, said.
