Why the CFP Got It Wrong
Sunday's College Football Playoff reveal was bound to bristle fans one way or another. For starters, there was the reality that one spot was very much up for grabs. With their dominating wins in their respective conference championships, Clemson, Oklahoma, and Georgia had one foot in the playoffs. With Ohio State knocking off #4 (and previously unbeaten) Wisconsin in the Big Ten Championship, though that 4th spot was a free-for-all, with multiple teams having a valid claim to deserve it. In addition, there was the historical precedent: in the Playoff's short history, there was really only one year with a clearcut field of 4. In 2014, the inaugural edition saw Ohio State controversially included over Big 12 co-champions Baylor and TCU, both of whom had an objectively stronger resumé than the Buckeyes. Last year, Ohio State made the cut as the #3 team despite not even playing in the Big Ten Conference Championship.
This year, the controversy once again centered around...you guessed it, Ohio State, though this year it did not break the Buckeyes' way. Alabama nabbed the last spot in the playoff, in a move so surprising to many, it caused one of the prominent analysts to walk off set in disbelief.
The media mantra quickly became that it was the right call, and most lauded the committee for being "brave" enough to eschew the 'politically correct" choice and pick the more deserving team. However, many Bama-haters and myself were dismayed by this logic, and I remain convinced that it was name recognition, more so than play on the field that got Alabama into the playoff field.
I'll explain what I mean, starting with the objective aspect:
The Resumés
Below is a setup you'll often see media roundtables use in an attempt to use comparative analysis with name-brand bias. I like this way of looking at it, as bias rules college football (more on that later), though the tuned-in fans will know exactly who each of the 5 teams below are. The 'winners' in each category are in green, the lowest-rated for each in red. Here's how 5 viable candidates for that last playoff spot compared:
Now, obviously, not all of these factors weigh the same. Still, these are surely all aspects of the various candidates that the committee examined when comparing their level. At first glance, it's pretty clear Team D probably should be eliminated from the conversation, even with their conference title in hand; their weaker schedule and lack of high-quality losses did them in. However, the margin between the other 4 is slim enough to warrant a closer look. Teams A and B are the "safer" picks, in that they had only one loss, and it was a "good" loss. Apart from not winning their conference, they're rarely the worst in any category. In terms of achievement, it's hard to beat Team E, who had the strongest schedule, the most high-quality wins, and 0 bad losses...but they did have 3 of them. Team C has the bad losses, but also the 2nd best schedule strength in the country, the highest S&P+ rating, and the co-most high quality wins.
Based on that-- and even just eyeballing the green/red ratio on that chart --it would seem that Team C should be the winner of the sweepstakes, right? To nobody's surprise Team C is Ohio State.
Looking objectively at these resumés, their associated teams they probably should go in such an order:
5. Team D
4. Team B
3. Team A
2. Team E
1. Team C
There may be complaints about 3-loss Team E being ahead of Team A, and it's true that that's quite the leap. But the Division win and considerably stronger wins/schedule put it on level playing field, and when you find out that Team E actually beat Team A head-to-head, well, that's the kicker. So, in order of who most deserved the coveted #4:
1. Ohio State
2. Auburn
3. Alabama
4. Wisconsin
5. USC
The "Eye Test"
Again, we don't know which statistics stick out most to the committee, and numbers don't always tell the whole story. Thus, the oft-circulated talking point regarding the committee's rankings is the "eye test." Which team looks like the best? At the end of the day, ESPN implores us to consider, which team do you really think deserves to be in there?
There are, of course, many problems with this being a genuine consideration, not the least of which being preset bias, but sure, let's entertain the question: who looked like a Top 4 team this year? Ah, the media says, surely this is where Alabama earned their right. They were consistent. They were CLEARLY one of the best teams all year.
But, if I could speak to those pundits, I would ask: when? At what point did Alabama look like a top team? It's true they were more consistent than Ohio State and Auburn: they won more games and lost less games. But not having the lower lows doesn't mean they had the higher highs. They played three- THREE!- ranked teams all year; one of those three resulted in a 13-point loss. One resulted in a last-second win (over a 4-loss team). That leaves one win, Alabama's signature win, as being at home vs. an LSU team that also lost to Troy.
Ohio State had weeks where they didn't even look like they should be ranked, let alone in the Top 4. Namely, losing to Iowa by 31 points. But there's no question they and Auburn both looked the part of a top team when rubber met the road: the Buckeyes rallied from a 24-point deficit to beat #2 Penn State. They obliterated #12 Michigan State in a de facto Division Championship. They outplayed unbeaten Wisconsin for 75% of the Big Ten Championship. The Tigers, meanwhile, beat the brakes off two #1 teams (Georgia and Alabama) to close the season. So, if you're talking "eye test" and "looking the part of the top team", why are you favoring the team who's mantra was pretty much "Let's just not screw this up" over the teams who absolutely came to dominate on the biggest stages there were this season?
The Ramifications
The reason this decision is so nauseating for a number of college football fans isn't just the fact that we have to sit through at least 3 more hours of ESPN's shameless SEC promotion. It's the fact that there has been absolutely zero consistency or transparency from the committee 4 years in now. Matter of fact, pretty much the only consistent trend has been 'big brand bias.' When Ohio State jumped Baylor and TCU in 2014 despite having a. an identical record, b. less noteworthy wins, and c. a considerably worse loss than either, the committee's excuse was that the Buckeyes won a Conference Championship Game; TCU and Baylor didn't play a Conference Championship Game, which, you know, mattered? I guess?
When Penn State was left out for Ohio State last year despite owning the head-to-head AND the conference championship, it was that "Ohio State had the quality wins," and Penn State didn't. Fair enough.
Fast forward to this year, where Alabama has neither of those things, and Ohio State has both. This time, it's "well, the committee just never felt that Ohio State was the better team, and hey, how bout that big loss to Iowa?!? What was that about??"
The fact that these teams can play an entire season, and at the end of the day, the committee will pretty much just shoehorn in whomever they want is absolutely infuriating. For the people who decry any sort of playoff reform or expansion, saying it would "ruin the regular season"? It's ruined. Over time, nobody but the fans of the Big Boys will want to sit through entire seasons of America's best sport, only to see it ruined by America's worst possible postseason.
Last year, Ohio State's controversial inclusion resulted in a cathartic ass-whooping by Clemson. This year, #1 Clemson takes on #4 Alabama in the Sugar Bowl semifinal. Here's hoping for ass-whooping number two, one that will hopefully either spur the committee to lay down consistent signposts for inclusion, or look into new playoff plans.