Dan Wolken points out the obvious.
On one hand, had Oregon indeed scheduled Montana State on Sept. 3 instead of traveling three time zones to play the defending national champions, the Ducks would almost be in a position to control their own destiny. (More on that in a moment.) At the same time, you can’t simply ignore the impact of one game in a relatively short season, especially when that result suggested such a wide gap between Oregon and another playoff caliber team.
But this is why the committee exists in the first place, to balance those ideas and debate what one loss in a difficult season opener says about a team that has clearly improved week by week.
It would be foolish to simply write Oregon off because of the Georgia game. Not only were the Ducks up against it in terms of opponent and venue, it was the first game for 36-year old Dan Lanning, Oregon’s third head coach in the past six seasons. That isn’t an excuse, but it has to be a factor in how Oregon’s total season is viewed.
If we already had a 12-team playoff, it wouldn’t matter at all. As long as the Ducks won the Pac-12, they’d be in. But the standards to get in the four-team playoff are much higher.
Since its inception in 2014, only two teams have gotten in with a loss by two touchdowns or more. One of them was Ohio State, which recovered from an early season 35-21 loss at home to Virginia Tech. The other was Georgia in 2017, which got rolled at Auburn 40-17 but was able to turn the tables on the Tigers a few weeks later in the SEC Championship Game. [Emphasis added.]
That is another example of how playoff expansion waters down the impact of the regular season. Again, that may not matter to those who prefer a larger CFP field, but that doesn’t mean it ain’t true.
You must be logged in to post a comment.