The job of the College Football Playoff Committee has never been easy, though it has often been obvious. In the four-team era, there were countless seasons with only four clear candidates; other years there might only be one decision to be made.
But despite that, the committee was routinely vilified for bias, hypocrisy and inconsistency, mainly due to the silliness of the weekly rankings shown every Tuesday (beginning in November) on ESPN.
It was there that the committee – despite limited data – had to roll out five weeks of rankings as if the “season ended today,” which it didn’t.
It caused huge controversies over issues that would resolve themselves – such as the ranking of two teams to play against each other. Coaches and fans had to try to figure out what the most important criterion was: head-to-head wins or number of losses, margin of victory or strength of schedule or strength of record or…?
A week later it would be slightly different.
The committee was deadlocked. These are thirteen well-meaning and highly intelligent people who try to follow the protocols and do honest work, but are trapped in an impossible – and pointless – task.
The show became a PR problem for the committee. It undermined the credibility of a group that should be trusted.
And those were the good old days.
The playoff now consists of twelve teams, which will require even more work and tougher decisions from this year’s committee. It’s not just about selecting the field, but also about seeding teams, including choosing who gets a bye, who gets home advantage, who gets paired with whom.
Go ahead and try to choose between the 8-seed and the 9-seed. It will always be razor thin, but one team – the one who gets to host the match – will still get a huge advantage.
There was one impactful way the College Football Playoff could have helped not only the committee members, but the sport as a whole: putting an end to the weekly rankings show.
It’s just a publicity stunt and ratings stunt. It has no other value. It’s not like college football is lacking in media and fan attention, let alone debate over who goes to the playoffs.
The real damage that will be done by fans questioning and condemning various committee decisions (all unnecessary) over the next month is not worth it.
Ranking 25 teams each week may seem like a quick and fun task, but when you really dial in, it isn’t.
This is a huge sport (134 teams) playing varying schedules that provide limited common data. This is a challenge after 13 games. The committee did it on Tuesday with only 61.5 percent of the information.
There were no major surprises in the first version of the rankings. Oregon is No. 1, which has been the case for the past three weeks in the AP poll. Ohio State is No. 2 and Georgia is No. 3. Blue bloods like Notre Dame and Alabama landed in the top 12 at No. 10 and No. 11, respectively. SMU and Texas A&M are on the outside looking in at the Nos. .13 and 14.
However, that’s the problem with doing this now. No. 15 can look a lot like #19. In the past it didn’t matter much. That’s not the case now, except that the committee — in this case, University of Michigan athletics director Warde Manuel — must explain the reasoning behind each decision, which historically is then reversed at a later date.
The decision jargon put forward by committee members has become comical – things like ‘game control’, road turnover margins, etc.
The show doesn’t help anyone, except maybe a slight increase in ESPN’s viewership on Tuesday nights.
No one wants a committee-chosen playoff, but there is no other choice. The NFL’s system only works because 14 of the 32 teams reach the playoffs, eight of them via automatic bid after a 17-game season with a slew of common opponents.
College football can’t do that.
It could create a single, public computer formula, but there is little to no confidence in that. College hockey does something like that, but it has fewer teams, more games, and more playoff spots… and it still has a committee to serve as a guardian in case the formula goes haywire.
So it is a committee. Someone has to make the hard choices. Is it subjective? Is it about CVs? Is it a combination?
There is no easy answer, only the efforts of the people willing to make the effort to make this call. The microscope used to be intense. It’s about to get even worse.
After a decade of competing under the old four-team system, the people who run the College Football Playoff would have been wise to end the weekly rankings, close the show and allow the bracket to meet just once – after the conference championship games. are complete.
Make a final decision and then walk away.
It would have saved them from the coming cries of hypocrisy and double standards, which do not benefit the product, the sport or the new playoff.
