“If it comes down to Notre Dame and an SEC team, the
selection committee is probably going to think about that 2012 BCS title game
against Alabama.” – Jesse Palmer, on College Football Live
That's probably
the dumbest thing Jesse Palmer has ever said. Unfortunately, it is also the
most illuminating.
As the debate has
raged on all offseason about scheduling for the college football playoff, very
little has discussed the fundamental problem that college football has in
determining a champion, or even a playoff field.
There are not
enough games to create a sample size t large enough to accurately compare
teams.
This will get
infinitely worse as the Power Five conferences, following the lead of the SEC,
appear to be set on playing 9 and only 9 games against other Power Five
competition. That means most teams are on-board with playing three cupcake home
games to make money. That's a full quarter of the season wasted.
This scheduling
fiasco has reached such absurd levels that the Alabama athletic director had
the nerve to say he was finding it "difficult"
to find a 12th game in 2015. As if teams don't want to play Alabama, which is
the same school that recently cancelled
a series with Michigan State to avoid the horror of a true nonconference
road game.
We are left,
then, with very little to determine how good these teams really are. It is
going to take a difficult job for the selection committee and make it downright
impossible. When teams only play one quality team, if that, out of conference,
how are you able to accurately compare conferences?
Instead, we are
stuck in what Jesse Palmer described because if the playoff
spot comes down between Notre Dame and, say, LSU, the only recent data point
we have is that Alabama-Notre Dame title game. Palmer is right because I
believe that committee will think back to that game and incorrectly assume
Notre Dame is behind LSU. It would take place for all teams because, due to
weak scheduling, as many teams will only have a tough nonconference game in the
past 12 months in the previous season’s bowl game.
It's incorrect
for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is that a one-game sample
size is not really representative of anything. Also, the game took place two
years ago! Why should anything that determines the fate of the 2014 season be
even remotely related to the 2012 season?
We've seen this
in college football before. Is there any doubt Alabama got the nod over
Oklahoma State in 2011 in part because of Alabama's recent track record of success?
Look at 2004, when Auburn was left behind two teams that started 1-2 based on
the results of 2003.
The biggest
problem facing college football in terms of creating
a playoff that actually works is forgetting the past. Each season is a new
season and, man, it feels ridiculous I even have to write that. But it feels
like every season in college football is a continuation of the prior one.
Somehow, college
football has become the only sport where past results with different players
and rosters affect the current season's results. Take college basketball, which
also has a selection committee, and see how that tournament is largely
unaffected by prior season results. Let's look no further than UConn, which won
the national title behind the
greatness of Kevin Ollie despite being dealt with an 7 seed. They beat a
Kentucky team, two years removed from its own title, which was seeded 8th.
Neither team received any benefit.
Yet in college
football, it happens every year. Florida went 4-8 last year. Yet they started
the season ranked in the top 10 based on the 2012 season. Early in the season,
they lost to Miami. At the time, it appeared to be a good victory for the
Hurricanes. It wasn't. Florida sucked. Yet Miami kept climbing in the rankings
until they were in the Top 10 themselves – boosted by the victory against a
now-terrible Florida team – that, in turn, boosted Florida State to the top
spot with a "Top 10" victory over a team that was never Top 10
material.
Yet, yet, yet –
there are so many more examples but the Miami one is the best in showcasing how
college football, throughout its history, has never stopped and reevaluated
what the slate looks like. If anyone with a brain looked at Miami before the
Florida State game, they would have wondered how they were ranked #7 despite
beating zero teams that would finish the regular season with a winning record.
The onus should
be on teams, each season, to schedule aggressively and play the best teams.
Instead, they are circling the wagons to ensure that the money stays in house
and the top teams keep chasing that elusive 0 in the loss column.
Let's revisit the
SEC's decision to remain at 8 games. Is there any doubt that going to 9 games
would have dramatically improved the entire league's strength of schedule?
Wouldn't have playing 10 games against Power Five competition do infinitely
more than 9?
The SEC believes that
its "reputation" will carry at least its champion into the four-team
playoff every
year without fail. Maybe that champion will deserve to be in the playoff.
That doesn't mean a team's reputation, or a conference's reputation, should
ever come into play.
There is one very
easy solution, which the basketball folks figured out years ago, and that is to
put an added emphasis on strength of schedule out of conference and scheduling
aggressively. We saw the committee exclude Larry Brown's SMU, despite a Top 25
ranking in the polls, because they played no one of consequence in the non-conference.
Will the football
folks have the guts to leave out a 11-1 Alabama team, whose only nonconference
"test" is a weak West Virginia team in Atlanta, over a 10-2 UCLA team
that played at Virginia, hosted Texas and dealt with 9 conference games?
Once that happens
– once the selection committee proves that only this year's results matters –
then college football can move closer to crowning a true
champion from a real playoff and we can get the scheduling improvements we
thought would accompany the new playoff.
If that doesn't
happen, Jesse Palmer will look like a soothsayer. That is not good for the
sport.
Follow me on Twitter
Comments
Post a Comment