College Football Playoff Shenanigans
Here we are. Happy 2021. It is time for the college football playoff games. As the endless commercials have saturated us, “Who’s in?” and “So these are the teams?”
A New Year’s tradition since the inaugural College Football Playoff (CFP) in 2014 is my continued airing of grievances with the selection process. So here we go.
First, and I want to be completely clear regarding this, I am 100% in favor of a college football playoff. I am also in favor, as Mack Brown has indicated, of expanding it (although I would limit it to 6 teams and no more — 8 is a bit over doing it by my estimation). In fact, we had a college football playoff under the previous BCS System — it was just limited to 2 teams. I feel with the playoff expanded to 4 teams the process was thrown out with the bathwater. I do not trust the current process.
In the days pre-CFP, pre-BCS, things were a bit messy. Having “co-national champions” from different polls across the country was proving to be a very messy business. As college football fans, as Americans, we like resolutions. We as a country do not like “draw” resolutions or ties. It is why we have “sudden death,” it is why we have “tie breaker formulas” to determine playoff eligibility in any league. It is why hockey has seen several changes over the years from the introduction of a 5-minute sudden death overtime in 1983, to the introduction of 4 on 4 overtime (don’t get me started on the ludicrous notion of awarding points to teams that lose – that’s the subject of another blog post), to the introduction of 3 on 3 overtime and shootouts in the regular season. We. Do. Not. Like. Ties. So co-national champions in college football can be akin to drinking down yucky cough syrup.
The BCS process was an improvement over the previous system, which was in fact largely nothing, but as time went on from 1998 onward it certainly wasn’t flawless. I totally get that. There is nothing in this world that can’t be fine tuned. However, there was an element with the BCS had that was identified as a flaw that really wasn’t. It was unbiased. Yes, there were endless formulas and algorithms none of which us non-mathmaticians can comprehend. However, those algorithms were created by humans for the computers to number crunch what the humans had deemed important. Polls (essentially human’s bias), strength of schedule, margin of victory, etc. Pour those elements into a computer and then rank the result. That is exactly what happened. What happened next is typical of humans. They didn’t like the outcome. The outcomes never matched people’s, or more accurately conferences’, agendas. Some of the more well known conferences and universities were left out from year to year. I call that hubris. So they called out the inefficiencies of the BCS and the 24-hour sports media ran with it. Those that control the mic control the power of perceptions, and the BCS was mocked publicly. One of the criticisms was the outcome of a national champion was being largely decided by a computer and not on field play. I disagree with this. Teams play themselves into and out of contention in any sport and the BCS as no different. Strength of schedule and margins of victory in addition to a myriad of other elements were all part of the formulas within the algorithms. Just because one doesn’t like the resulting ranking doesn’t mean the human’s version more correct. I compare it to self-driving cars which will be increasing in their number in the years ahead. Are you worried about an accident? Understandable, but the self-driving cars are coming and insurance companies will love them. Remember, they don’t have to have zero accidents they just have to have fewer than their human counterparts — and that’s a pretty low bar to cross. An insurance company loves individuals who pay their premiums and file no claims. So it is true of the BCS. It doesn’t have to be 100% accurate — it just needs to be more accurate than the human’s biases. Through it all, however, I totally agreed the lack of a CFB playoff system was a glaring omission. There should be something more than just 1 championship game for all the marbles. The teams should battle together, but this isn’t professional sports. These are still colleges with end of semester finals and additional classroom work. The work for a college athlete is no walk in the park attempting to balance classroom and competition in that context. There cannot be a month long playoff system like the NFL where things are going to drag on. It needs to be concise. So, yes, I was 100% behind a college playoff format.
Then humans happened.
How stupid was I thinking the most obvious format would be ignored?
When I had heard a decision was made that they would have the top 4 teams battle in a New Year’s playoff to move onto a National Championship game I thought, great, sounds good. Then I as aghast to discover that those top 4 teams would be decided by a newly formed committee. Oh no.
Wherever you have humans you have corruption.
The humans would determine the rankings and who gets into the top 4. In essence it is college football aristocracy. The conferences were just establishing a formal committee to handle their affairs of state. The committee will weigh all the games everywhere (really?) and they will determine who gets in and who doesn’t. They are going to do that, huh? That processing of every game seems more like a computerized task, but what do I know. Everyone is going to have an equal chance to get in, right? Well, not necessarily.
Whenever a human is telling you they are being unfair and unbias they are lying.
According to BCsKnowHow.com (valid through the final ranking of 12/20/2020) the committee would seem to have gotten the selections correct; so what am I complaining about? The similarities are the top teams are the top teams, but what concerns me is situations like Cincinnati, Florida, and Indiana. The committee does not reward good seasons.
| BCS Calculation | College Football Playoff Committee |
| 1. Alabama (11-0) 2. Clemson (10-1) 3. Ohio State (6-0) 4. Notre Dame (10-1) 5. Texas A&M (8-1) 6.Cincinnati (9-0) 7. Indiana (6-1) 8.Oklahoma (9-2) | 1. Alabama (11-0) 2. Clemson (10-1) 3. Ohio State (6-0) 4. Notre Dame (10-1) 5. Texas A&M (8-1) 6. Oklahoma (9-2) 7. Florida (8-4) 8. Cincinnati (9-0) |
Under the BCS calculation Indiana at 6-1 had a very good season. Yes, it was a pandemic season, and not every conference played the same number of games, but the BCS rewarded that. Can Indiana suddenly go 3-9 next season? Maybe. Maybe not, but the BCS computerized calculation will manage that too. The same thing goes for Cincinnati at an undefeated 9-0. They are ranked 6th by the BCS and 8th by the committee. What is notable here is who is in front of them. Oklahoma and Florida. Not just Oklahoma and Florida specifically, but the Power Five conferences. It is what the committee does not what it says that shows the playoff worth. Expand the CFB to 6 teams instead of 4 as Mack Brown suggests. Power Five still get in under the committee’s standards. Use the BCS computerized algorithms and they have a fighting chance to get in.
The committee would say that every conference has a fair shot to get in. Guess what, they don’t. They want everyone to believe that everyone has a fair shot, but like any aristocracy it is an illusion so that you think you have hope. You don’t. Not when they control the process. It never works that way in athletics nor in life. It’s disenfranchised. This year of 2020, the pandemic season across sports, in the wild and messed up year that a non-Power Five would have had a fighting chance to get into the top 4 (or top 6 if you wanted to play the “let’s pretend” game if there were a 6 team playoff).
I get the Power Five are the Power Five for a reason. They comprise some of the best teams in the country, but that doesn’t mean they should get a free pass into the CFB every season. If the college football playoff is really going to be unbias you have to remove the human element. The 2020 pandemic season has proven that. I personally questioned Ohio State’s ranking of 3 until I saw the BCS also ranked them 3 after only playing 6 games. I think that algorithm should be looked into when examining the strength of schedule, but as I said earlier that’s another fine tuning. You never stop fine tuning to address the unexpected. However, if I were a coach and I was told the algorithm placed my team at 5 and out of the playoff I would have an easier time accepting it. The numbers are the numbers. However, if the committee placed the team I coached at #5 I would immediately call shenanigans because we’re no longer basing it on any other quantitative system other than human opinion.
Full transparency here, I love college football. I still watch, but I marvel that how entertaining it can be it is so horrifically and continually mismanaged.
Bring back some form of computerized ranking. Take the process away from the humans — it never ends well with them. Expand the CFP to 6 teams? Sure. I’m for that too, but not if the committee is involved. It will only end with the same problems all over again. It is as if the college football playoff system is an exclusive aristocratic club of the Power Five, and if you’re not part of that club you might as well de-emphasize or disband your college football program under the current system because buddy, you ain’t getting in.