College Football Playoff: What The Committee Did Wrong

So far, I have covered whether the new College Football Playoff Committee worked, and what they did right. Now it’s time for what is wrong with it. If you don’t like things that fall somehere in the spectrum from constructive criticism to outright negativity, you should probably click the ‘next post’ button at the bottom of the page now.

They relied too much on metrics:

This is apparent by the inclusion of Ohio State in the four spot. If we wanted something that ignored results and didn’t watch games, we never would have dismissed the BCS in the first place. I can come up with a whole laundry list of reason why Ohio State should not be in here, but I will focus on the basic and blatant ones.

First, the common opponent that they shared with TCU was Minnesota. TCU beat the Gophers by 23 points. Ohio State won by seven in a game that David Cobb left with an injury. Yes, it was at Minneapolis, but that only accounts for about seven points of that.

Second, they are getting way too much credit for beating a Wisconsin team that was in no way, shape, or form the number 13 team in the country. Now, Ohio State’s defense did a terrific job in shutting down Melvin Gordon, but it’s not that hard to do when you don’t have to guard against pass plays longer than eight yards. Wisconsin lost to Northwestern, who isn’t even going to a bowl game, and the number five team in the SEC West. Their signature win was against a Nebraska team that people close to the situation thought was bad enough to fire their coach. There is no way that the Badgers were in the top 15. They probably weren’t even in the top 25.

Third, and this is the big one, they are getting too much credit for scheduling Virginia Tech. Just for scheduling them! They lost to the Hokies – at home – by two touchdowns. Virginia Tech, by some miracle, managed to win five more games to get to a bowl. But anyone who watched them more than that one game against the Buckeyes will realize that this is not a very good team. If you take a look at the other one loss teams, the Buckeyes have by far the worst loss of the four. Hell, you can even argue that Marshall has a better loss than the Buckeyes. They lost to a Western Kentucky team in overtime that is likely better than Virginia Tech.

Add to that the fact that the Big 12(10) was a tougher conference than the Big Ten(14). There were three top 12 teams in the Big 12. The Big Ten had two. Wisconsin and Minnesota helped out the middle of the Big Ten, but there was a steep drop after that. The Big 12 had a bunch of teams in the middle tier with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and West Virginia. Comparing Texas Tech, Kansas, and Iowa State to Purdue, Illinois, and Michigan seems pointless.

We covered in the last column just how and why TCU was (rightfully) ranked ahead of Baylor. The body of work should count for more than head to head. It always has.

The metrics ended up robbing the Big 12(10) perhaps more than anyone. Oklahoma’s choke job against rival Oklahoma State started a metric chain reaction. First, it boosted Florida State. The Seminoles beat the Cowboys in the first game of the year. It was looking like that was going to count as a win against a sub-.500 team. But with their come-from-behind victory over the Sooners, that now meant that FSU had beaten another bowl eligible team. This also hurt both Baylor and TCU, who had Oklahoma as one of their better wins of the season. Obviously, this was not the case. But the Sooners losing yet another home game to a unranked team hurt both TCU and Baylor. Metrically, combined with Ohio State’s domination of Wisconsin, doomed the Big 12(10).

You can also argue that the committee took the easy way out. Ohio State is more of a household name that TCU or Baylor. Add that to the fact that you can market Ohio State vs. Alabama much easier than Alabama vs. TCU, and you have why they did what they did, metrics or not.

The weekly rankings were a farce:

If TCU were really the number three team in the eyes of the committee and not just the computers, they would be in the playoff. They beat Iowa State by 49 points and fell three spots! Something is wrong there. They even let of the gas against the Cyclones. Of course, Ohio State did against Wisconsin too.

Another thing to consider: TCU beat Kansas State by 21 points. Baylor beat them by 11. The advantage again goes to TCU, yet the Horned Frogs still dropped below them. Something is wrong with this.

To me, it looks like the whole weekly ranking thing meant absolutely nothing if Florida State struggled to win against Georgia Tech and still gained a spot. What is the use of ranking them in the first place if they are that fickle? It looks suspiciously to me like the committee is just a figurehead for computer rankings. If that is the case, then fine, but don’t mask the computer rankings with a faux committee.

Wouldn’t it be more fun just to listen to the talking heads try and figure out who is where without the rankings? Joe Lunardi has made millions of dollars doing this for the NCAA basketball tournament. Why not let someone have a chance with football?

The Playoff is too small:

I touched on this a bit in the first piece. You simply cannot have a four team playoff with five major conferences. Especially this year, when all five conference winners had a legitimate claim to a spot.

This year, an eight team playoff would have worked. There were eight team from major conferences that had two losses or less. Now, it won’t be like this every year, but I can guarantee you that the backlash from leaving out Mississippi and letting in Michigan State would be much less than it is for leaping Ohio State over TCU.

I can’t believe that I am actually in favor of this, but the fact that the playoff is here to stay has me in favor of expansion. Slight expansion. It needs to be eight teams, but NO MORE THAN EIGHT. Anything over that will cheapen the regular season to the point where there is no distinction between college and the NFL. That should be the last thing that the NCAA wants.

Just for fun, let’s take a look at the matchups if this were an eight game playoff:

(1)Alabama vs. (8)Michigan State: How is this for drama? Saban against his roots!

(2)Oregon vs. (7)Mississippi State

(3)Florida State vs. (6)TCU

(4)Ohio State vs. (5)Baylor

To me, this holds just as much, if not more, excitement than the matchups for this bowl season.

I won’t go quite as far as to say that the system works, but I will concede that at least for this year, the committee is a good thing. You simply can’t justify leaving out either Alabama or Oregon like the BCS would have. Add to that the fact that the committee chooses the bowl matchups, and you can say that the New Year’s Six games will be better than any round of BCS bowls ever was.

They relied too much on metrics:

The weekly rankings were a farce:

The Playoff is too small:

More from FanSided