Thoughts on the selection commitee’s first rankings

For the most part, I stand by what I’ve said from the beginning.  There’s no reason to have weeks of rankings from the CFP’s selection committee, other than to give ESPN broadcast fodder.  That being said, I will reluctantly admit there may be something to glean from tonight’s effort, and, no, it’s not about Georgia.  It’s about whether we’re going to see a canary in the coalmine with regard to postseason expansion.

The first three seasons of the four-team College Football Playoff have raised some fun hypotheticals, but three always stood out above the rest:

■ While at least one of the so-called Power 5 conferences — the Atlantic Coast, the Big 12, the Big Ten, the Pacific-12 and the Southeastern — is guaranteed to be locked out of a four-team party every year, would a final bracket ever omit two of those conferences by taking, say, an independent like Notre Dame, or two teams from the same league?

■ Could a team from one of the lower-tier Group of Five conferences qualify? (This, too, would leave out two power conferences.)

■ Might a pattern develop in which it became clear that one power conference was congenitally unlikely to make the playoff, either by performance or by design?

None of these hypotheticals have become reality so far…

The fun part is that, about two-thirds of the way through the season, all three intriguing — and potentially consequential — possibilities listed above remain on the table…

But even more damning would be for the Big 12 champion to deserve to make the playoff — and still fail to get a bid. Take the Sooners, for example, who still could rip off four impressive wins to go with a September victory at No. 3 Ohio State (7-1) — and then find themselves ranked fifth or sixth, behind some combination of the SEC champion, the Big Ten champion, a one-loss A.C.C. champion (or even an undefeated one: hello, Miami!), a great one-loss SEC team and even one-loss Notre Dame.

That kind of ego-bruising, budget-blowing disappointment would not be unprecedented. At the end of the 2004 season, Auburn was 12-0 and was passed over for the Bowl Championship Series title game. Although the four-team playoff took another decade to arrive, that Tigers season is seen in retrospect as the moment it became inevitable.

If the Big 12, with tradition-rich Oklahoma boasting a deserving résumé and (possibly) a Heisman Trophy winner in quarterback Baker Mayfield, finds its face pressed against the wrong side of the glass yet again, then prepare for more changes to the way college football picks its champion.

You can skip the Central Florida talk as being a pipe dream dependent on a bunch of P5 programs falling by the wayside over the next five weeks.  (Yes, I suppose I’m saying there’s a chance.)

But another lockout of the Big 12, especially after it went and adopted its useless championship game?  No doubt that would threaten the true underlying purpose of the CFP, namely, generating more revenue for the P5 conferences.  What would exacerbate that tension even more would be if two SEC schools made the semis, along with Notre Dame.  Do I think that would be another inevitable moment for college football’s postseason, to go along with 2004 and The Rematch?  Damn straight I do.

So let’s see who makes the top four tonight.  It’s not a final rendition by any means, but it’ll indicate whether the committee is at least willing to contemplate going there.

33 Comments

Filed under BCS/Playoffs

33 responses to “Thoughts on the selection commitee’s first rankings

  1. DawgPhan

    I think that they put out whatever top 4 tonight that will cause the most trouble.

    Like

  2. sUGArdaddy

    There are so many problems w/ the current playoff system, the biggest continuing to be the beauty pageant that is college football. And the beauty pageant has moved to non-conference wins. OSU’s win over OU got them in last year, and Penn St.’s loss to Pitt kept them out. So much so that Penn St.’s actual win over OSU seemed to matter less.

    It’s not apples and apples, so picking the four is very difficult. Plus, save for a closer venue (maybe), there’s little reward for being #1 over #4 in the current system. Beauty pageants are bad for sports, and CFB has a fine, fine line.

    I’ve said for the longest time that 6 is the absolute right number. 6 means there is extreme value in being 1 or 2. You gotta get that bye. 6 means that you don’t want to be that 5th conference champion with 2 losses, meaning you’re playing a road game in the opening round. 3 and 4 get the home games. 6 means there’s always room for a Notre Dame, 1 loss Penn St. or UGA or Bama. And that’s a great debate, but if you don’t win your league you’re going to have to play on the road that first game and win 3 to win it all. A great non-conference win can bolster my ranking to get that 1 or 2 seed. But, a loss there doesn’t kill me in the grand scheme. Win my league and I’m in. Coaches would be much more open to scheduling those game. There’s great value in winning them but not that much hurt in losing them.

    My fear has always been they’ll go to 8 with 4 more neutral sites, and we’ll have greatly diminished the sport. We’ll have 3 at-larges and the debate will be mute. Us and Bama would be playing for nothing at 12-0 other than to be the 1 seed or the 6 seed. Moreover, fans just aren’t going to travel for them. My brother is a Clemson fan, and he’s about all dried up in the ‘money for football travel department’ after going to both CFP title games the last two years. 8 with 4 on-campus games is still too many teams. When this all shakes out, who are the 8 teams going to be? Are we really going to have 3 at the end of it that are deserving?

    If they want to make this fun:

    -Make 1 and 2 mean something
    -Make every conference game and championship game mean something
    -Make 3 and 4 mean something
    -Have 2 bananas on campus games in the first round.

    Like

    • Uglydawg

      Good post, SD..but I can’t go along with the 6 with byes argument. A bye in college football is worth so much..especially at the end of the season when everyone is beat up and bruised..that it would be grossly unfair.
      This is supposed to be about which team is the best. If a bye-given team wins by one point, the other, unrested and less prepared team was probably almost certainly better on an even field.
      It isn’t a tournament..it’s a playoff. In a playoff you can’t give certain teams an advantage like that.
      Eight will be the right number. Anytime it is increased it will have to be doubled to keep out of even numbers in future weeks as the field is winnowed down.

      Like

      • sUGArdaddy

        That’s the point. 6 teams highly, highly values an undefeated regular season, which is darn hard to do. With 8 teams, 1 and 8 are basically the same.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Dolly Llama

          And they should be. Let’s use this year as an example and assume (just for the sake of argument) that Alabama wins out and finishes the season number one. You’re telling me that you’d like to see them and the #2 get a week of rest, scheming and film while they watch the other four teams beat the hell out of one another on TV? In what universe is that fair? This isn’t basketball or softball or any other non-contact sport.

          Like

          • Mayor

            Also, in a 6 team playoff with the first 2 getting byes you would see some real machinations from the committee to make sure that the “right” teams (read: tOSU and ND) got the byes.

            Like

      • The pros have 6 and 6 in the playoffs with a bye and they only have 53 on the roster. 85 plus walk-ons can provide a traveling roster of 70.

        I support an expansion to 6 and would only support 8 if it were champions only.

        Like

        • Dolly Llama

          Are you really holding up the NFL playoff system as a model for the college game? Their bye weeks may be the worst, most unfair aspect of the NFL.

          Like

          • I don’t believe in any expansion, period, unless it’s to an 8-team champions only format (which will never happen for many reasons). If the playoffs were to expand, I would only support 6.

            Like

            • Sanford222view

              Soooooo…which is it? Six or Eight you support?

              Like

              • Neither. I would prefer it to stay at 4 in the current structure of the sport. My real preference would be for 8 teams champions only, but that would require such change to the structure of college football that it’s unworkable. Using that as a backdrop, 6 would be as far as I would be willing to go. Teams 7-16 rarely if ever have a real claim to be national champion in a given year.

                Like

              • Dolly Llama

                Eight here.

                Like

    • Otto

      Muting debate would lower ratings. Beauty pageants make more games must see. Under the BCS most of many of friends would be watching Clemson on Friday night, but with the playoff there is no need to watch the game. If UGA wins they are in.

      I do agree that 6 is the magic #. You still get debate but it includes the contenders, and puts pressure on strength of schedule. I would not have conference champions automatically qualify.

      Like

    • ChiliDawg

      Good post, I was going to say the same, I think six is the right number.

      Like

  3. PTC DAWG

    I’m fine with the system the way it is. Has an undefeated power 5 team champ ever been left out? …The big boys can obviously earn there way in…

    Like

  4. Keese

    Music to my ears. Make it 8 teams

    Like

  5. Uglydawg

    Thoughts on the “Beauty Contest”….
    It’s sickening.
    Take the asshole human decision sellers out of it and let a computer pick THE 4 BEST TEAMS…even if they AREN”T the one’s Herbie has a stiffy for. The Senator is exactly right on this..these early releases are fodder for the butthole-talkers on ESPN.
    They will spend hours on TV espousing their memes and themes to get their precious teams in. Reading today how OK’s win over OSU doesn’t mean much. Had Georgia lost to the NE Pats by a missed extra point, it would be used as a hammer by ESPN to deny. tOSU could lose to the Little Sisters of the Poor and it would be excused.
    They wanted this instead of the BCS for this very reason..they can influence their chosen teams for three months leading up to the selection.

    4 best teams..IDGAS if they’re ULM, ARK St, Montana St, and The U. of Kodiak…let a fair computer program pick them and make it fair.

    Like

    • Got Cowdog

      I disagree. I don’t want to watch Arky State and Central Florida A&M during the regular season, much less in the CFBCG. Methinks most Joe Schmoe fans (like myself) feel the same way. You’re kidding yourself if you think that the folks selling airtime don’t know it. That’s why I think your comment above is spot on, but it won’t happen due to butthurt. CFB is about money anymore and an 8 team playoff gives them more add slots to sell.

      Like

  6. Hogbody Spradlin

    I’ll be re-arranging my sock drawer.

    Like

  7. Sanford222view

    I have been bouncing back and forth between 4 and 8 as the best number and have decided 8 with the conference champions getting in is too many. You will have years when teams with mediocre records qualify because they either pulled an upset in the conference championship game or have 2-3 losses because the conference beat each other up. I think there are rare cases when a 2 loss team is deserving but don’t ever see a 3 loss team deserving a chance at a National Title.

    I think 4 is about right but could live with the 6 team scenario even though I think the bye for the top two seeds could be too great of an advantage. You also still have the issue of a team with a mediocre record getting in if they pull the upset in the conference championship too but at least this set up would make the risk of not winning your conference really big since you may not be the at-large selection with only one slot available.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Sanford222view

    I do think tonight has some intrigue but not so much with who the initial top four are. What I am curious to see is where they rank Iowa State versus the other two loss teams since they have two really good wins. I also am curious to see how they rank Oklahoma versus Ohio State versus Notre Dame versus Clemson and Penn State.

    Finally, I am bit curious (although I don’t want it to happen) to see if they put UGA-1 and Bama – 2 based upon resume. Bama’s best win is TAMU and only other wins against winning teams are those outside the Power Five conferences. All this being said. I don’t plan to watch it and will just look at the list online after the announcement most likely.

    Like

  9. Goose all

    6 or 8, either is better than 4.

    If six, have all play in the first round. The highest ranked survivor of round one gets a bye while the other two first round winners play in round two. You would have at least 2 weeks until round 3 or championship game for both teams to heal and rest negating any advantage.

    Otherwise play 8 teams.

    Like

  10. Fooseball is the devil

    6 or 8, either is better than 4.

    If six, have all play in the first round. The highest ranked survivor of round one gets a bye while the other two first round winners play in round two. You would have at least 2 weeks until round 3 or championship game for both teams to heal and rest negating any advantage.

    Otherwise play 8 teams.

    Like

  11. Jared S.

    I agree with the beef with a 6-team playoff: a bye is too valuable. Then you’d have endless controversy and griping from teams 3-6 who didn’t get a bye….

    For me eight is too many because in 98 out of 100 years you are NOT EVER going to have a full 8 teams that are deserving of competing for a national Championship. I don’t think this year is any different….

    We’ll be putting multiple two-loss teams in the CFP during many years. Give me a break.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mayor

      Plus the upset factor–remember a couple of years ago when a 10 win regular season NY Giants team beat the Patriots, the best team in football that years, in the Super Bowl? Do we really want a lesser team in the playoff and give them a puncher’s chance to win it all? That would devalue the entire regular season.

      Like

  12. One thing that could be fun and help solve things on the field is to have a massive inter-conference scheduling agreement that goes down around late October. Much like how NFL divisions play some rotating divisions by opponent seed the previous season. In this case, we pause conference play around week 8 and the SEC and Big 10 play each other, 1vs1, 2vs2, 3vs3 in the CURRENT SEASON’S STANDINGS……the formatting of home and away is set up in advance so everybody is prepared to host or travel well in advance.

    A really ballsy move would be to play all SEC games in week 1-9 and leave November for 2 home, 2 away games for every team vs the other 4 power conferences. Hell you wouldn’t even need a playoff after that.

    Like

    • It would be damn fun to sit there in early October knowing you were going to a game at Sanford Stadium in 2-3 weeks but still having no idea if the opponent would be Penn State or Ohio State.

      Like

  13. Dolly Llama

    And in case y’all haven’t noticed, we’re #1.

    http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/21242205/cfp-georgia-bulldogs-alabama-crimson-tide-notre-dame-fighting-irish-clemson-tigers-top-four-teams

    I smell a new thread coming soon. Deserves one after all this talk.

    Like

  14. Macallanlover

    I am all in on chaos, anything to get this to a true playoff with every conference champ getting the first five tickets, conference champ should never be disrespected. Each league should have a representative where subjective voting deprives that conference representation. Then add the 3 best others and get it on. Eight is the number, no more, no less. Will be the best playoff in sports.

    Like

    • Mayor

      If you include the Group of 5 teams, then maybe. But UCF is undefeated and ranked so far down there is no way they would get in any playoff. That’s how the powers that be control things–by ram
      nking the teams/conferences they want to win at the top and the others way down. Until they lose I’m saying that UCF is better than a whole hell of a lot of 1 loss teams in the Power 5 ranked ahead of the Knights. I am reminded of the 1998 Tulane team (that still has yet to lose a game) that IMHO would have beaten UT, the BCSNCG winner that year, but never got the chance.

      Like