Well…apparently after not having much to say this year, I have a lot to say now. Or maybe I’ve had a lot to say but haven’t felt the pull that I do now to put it into the webiverse.
_________
The College Football Playoff committee messed up the final four IMHO.
First, I’m going to tell you this now…I’m in the camp of not penalizing teams for playing in their conference championship. I do realize the irony of saying we should reward those who win their conference championships, but not penalizing the losers. Saying it anyway. Here’s why. Champions should be rewarded; they clearly did something that none of the other 8/10/12/14 teams in their conference (don’t get me started on the conference make ups). However, when someone loses a championship game, they should not be ranked below someone who wasn’t good enough to play in theirs.
This week, after the conference championship games, the committee moved USC from #4 to #10, Ohio State from #5 to #4, and left TCU in #3. They also moved Utah from #11 to #8, and Kansas State from #10 to #9.
Let’s break this down: USC lost to the same team (Utah) twice this year, once in the regular season and once in the conference championship. Their record regular season was record was 11-1. Ohio State’s regular season record was 11-1 also; they lost badly to Michigan and did not play in their conference championship. The real inconsistency is that TCU (regular season 12-0) also lost badly in their conference championship to Kansas State and yet they remained at #3.
Even crazier to me, the committee moved Utah (9-3 regular season) from #11 to #8, ahead of USC AND moved K-State (9-3 regular season) ahead of USC, but NOT ahead of TCU. Really crazy – Utah moved from behind K-State to ahead of them. So let me get this straight. Utah beats USC and they are now better than K-State, who beat TCU, but TCU is still better than all of them, and USC is now the worst? DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.
It really makes me wonder about the bias in that room. The math doesn’t add up to me. This looks like serious bias…and sadly makes me think the discussion, maybe not in the room but definitely part of the consideration, was “what will sell better”. The rankings don’t pass the “smell test” for me. I’ve heard before that if something doesn’t seem right, follow the money and you’ll find the truth. Things that make you go “hmmmmm”.
What do I think should have happened? They should’ve left the same top four as before the conference championships. They had three 12-0 teams and two 11-1, and had selected USC over Ohio State prior to those games. I suppose there could be some argument that USC’s loss to Utah (again) exposed their weakness, and Michigan’s win in their conference championship made Ohio State’s loss to them look better, but if that was true, why did they move Utah up so high, including over the team that beat TCU and yet left TCU? Again, I am in the camp that they penalized USC for being in their conference championship, and more so, that someone in the room was vocally biased.
The only reason to use the conference championship games, to me, would be one, to break ties (i.e. to decide between two teams playing each other in their championship game) or two, if the playoffs always included conference champions (which they don’t now but will in 2024-25).
From my perspective, there is way too much room in the College Football Playoff process for human error, bias, and backroom deals.
Ladies' First and Ten 