Claiming that college football has never managed to achieve a satisfactory postseason is an understatement. Once again, even though the 2024 expansion of the college football postseason seems successful, those in charge have devised a system that is more exclusionary rather than inclusive. In the long run, this could diminish the landscape of college football, […]
Claiming that college football has never managed to achieve a satisfactory postseason is an understatement. Once again, even though the 2024 expansion of the college football postseason seems successful, those in charge have devised a system that is more exclusionary rather than inclusive. In the long run, this could diminish the landscape of college football, costing everyone involved.
Fans of college football have yearned for the last four decades for a superior method to determine a champion. Yet, the authorities continue to devise ways to favor the largest programs increasingly, effectively neglecting and limiting the others not affiliated with the two major conferences.
A clear illustration is Miami, a team I’ve supported since my youth. The Hurricanes seem to be on track to miss out on the 12-team playoff (to be revealed on Sunday), despite their 10-2 record, in favor of a 9-3 Alabama squad. Miami competes in the ACC, which has a smaller fan base and less lucrative TV deal. In contrast, Alabama belongs to the SEC with a bigger fan base and a more substantial TV contract. The playoff committee’s justification for placing No. 11 Alabama ahead of No. 12 Miami, despite having one fewer win and one more loss, was that they had “superior” wins and “stronger” losses against tougher opponents.
The flaw in this justification, as noted by Stuart Mandel of The Athletic pointed out meticulously this week, is that what holds weight for the committee shifts from year to year, and even from week to week.
In most seasons, a narrow loss is viewed favorably compared to a heavy defeat. However, this season, Alabama, who suffered a 24-3 loss at the hands of a 6-6 Oklahoma team two weeks ago, is deemed to have a more impressive résumé than Miami. In comparison, the Hurricanes’ two defeats were by a total of only nine points!
This year, however, the committee has decided that Alabama’s “better wins” are compelling despite their poorer record.
I’m not here to advocate for which statistic should be prioritized. The debate can be about wins versus losses, total margin of victory, or strength of schedule. What I seek is uniformity in the rules year-round, consistency every week, and fairness in the evaluation of every ranked team.
This college football committee falls short on all these counts.
They have been erratic in determining whether margin of victory is relevant, applying it selectively to certain teams in the rankings. Winning 10 games used to demarcate a good season from an average one. Now, merely having nine wins is sufficient. This marks the first year where having three losses hasn’t been viewed negatively.
Furthermore, for the second consecutive year, a biased college football committee with significantly greater connections and financial incentives to the SEC over any other conference is opting to rank an SEC team with one additional loss higher than an ACC team.
More from Sports
You might think I’m only expressing this frustration because Miami is being disadvantaged. Last year, I was also quite upset after Florida State was overlooked despite remaining undefeated prior to the playoffs. I realized the committee’s treatment of the Seminoles could easily be repeated with Miami this year, and here we are. Next, it could be Clemson or Colorado or Iowa State facing the same fate.
What’s essential is full transparency: If the ACC is going to face challenges in getting a team into the playoffs with two or more losses without winning the conference championship game, it should be communicated at the season’s outset. If the ACC and Big 12 are held to a higher standard, then that should be stated explicitly.
I understand. As my friend Tony Kornheiser often says, “It’s a TV show.” However, it’s not truly a playoff nor entirely merit-based. It’s influenced by fan bases and historical reputation.
Ultimately, attempting to exclude more teams and conferences from the SEC and Big Ten monopoly is detrimental to the sport. Establishing this two-conference selection process isn’t going to cultivate a broader fan base for college football as a whole.
Here’s my proposal: Implement some fundamental metrics from the outset.
A team with three losses should only gain entry if they win their conference title or if there aren’t enough teams with one or two losses to fill the spots. I propose that wins should inherently carry more weight than losses. Call me unconventional.
Afterward, if you wish to evaluate conferences based on strength of schedule, that’s fine. Perhaps the top conference earns four teams, the second gets three bids, the third receives two, and the fourth and fifth guarantee one team each.
However, that ranking should occur at the end of the season, based on the actual wins and losses of that year, not on projected outcomes at the beginning of the year, which is the current approach of the committee.
Regardless of whether you adopt these suggestions or others, ensure that the process is transparent. Avoid having it shift weekly according to the whims of your business partners, whether those are within conferences or in the media. Let’s work to elevate college football to greatness.
