College Football Playoff Rankings - A Disgrace

 The first 2021 College Football Rankings came out last night, and while they are sure to change in the coming weeks (a lot of football still to be played) the committee continued showing their SEC bias and made one thing very clear; your losses may hurt you, but Alabama's don't count. 

I wrote a paper in my creative writing class my freshman year of college titled the B.S. in the B.C.S. highlighting all of the issues with having a computer decide who were the two best teams in college football. I didn't feel like it was a great way for one of the biggest sports leagues in the country to decide a champion. Sixteen years later and I find myself having similar thoughts, only this time it's with the limited four team playoff that the NCAA decided on in 2014, where the decisions are up to a committee. The recent rankings highlight many of the issues I have. The rankings were as followed:

Selected

1. Georgia (8-0)

2. Alabama (7-1)

3. Michigan State (8-0)

4. Oregon (7-1)

Out

5. Ohio State (7-1)

6.  Cincinnati (8-0)

7.  Michigan (7-1) 

8. Oklahoma (9-0)

9. Wake Forest (8-0)

10. Notre Dame (7-1)

If you see a few oddities there, don't worry you're not alone. Three undefeated teams left out of the top five over three one-loss teams. Alabama who lost to an, at the time, unranked Texas A&M being ranked second over an OSU team that lost to #4 Oregon, and not to mention ahead of #3 MSU who just beat their ranked #7 Michigan. It's safe to say that Alabama, who started the preseason ranked #1 would be no lower than #2 had they been undefeated - so what exactly did their loss to Texas A&M mean? According to the playoff committee - absolutely nothing. Lose to Oregon though? And you can be on the outside looking in; win all of your games like Cincinnatti, Oklahoma and Wake Forest? You don't play in the correct conference nor have the quality wins that are based on the bias belief that you don't play anyone good? Sorry, maybe next year - but probably not. 

We talk a lot about the lack of parity in FBS college football, the same teams make it to the playoffs every year and continue to dominate the sport. Do we think it could be because they are the only ones who get a chance to play for a championship? How is that not the biggest recruiting advantage and in turn, violation in history that ironically was created by the NCAA? If you don't play for these select teams in these select conferences then you have no chance to even compete for a championship, regardless of what you do on the field. 

A lot of college football fans are okay with this, primarily because their teams are the ones who benefit from it. I hear it all of the time on twitter and social media; "They play in a weak conference" "They don't play any good teams" "SOS is" blah blah blah. They're undefeated, FBS football is the only sports league in the world where we have this debate, where you can win all of your games and still not even have a chance to compete for a National Title. If you read that and your first response is "Yeah, but…" take a step back, take a breath and ask yourself "Am I being a bias elite hack?" It's okay, we both know that answer. 

SOS should not matter unless we're talking about teams with identical records. In fact, all of the metrics should be left out unless we're comparing teams with identical records. Beyond that you're just using speculation and biased opinions to justify leaving deserving teams out. 

Of course, deserving is a crucial word in my post, the playoff comittee has stated numerous times that they are not picking the four most deserving teams but rather the four best teams (they always change their narrative to get the same teams in though). So like the computers in the old BCS system we now have a group of 13 people telling everyone who the best teams are. The paper champions if you will. Games are not won on paper, they aren't won through computer simulations, eye test doesn't dictate the victor, they are won by the players on the field. And if history has taught us anything, on those special days, we've seen the underdogs take down the "better" team. 

Except we've never been allowed to experience those magical days when it matters most in FBS college football, those Cinderella stories from the NCAA basketball tournaments or the New York Giants taking down the undefeated New England Patriots in the Super Bowl. Instead we are left with the same teams doing the same things with very little difference in outcome. And why doesn't it change, how can many of us see what is so painfully obvious and yet the NCAA does nothing about it? That's a simple answer, the all mighty dollar.

Big teams bring in big money, the ‘Bamas and OSUs of the world and their large fanbases get people watching on the television screens, which in turn brings in advertising dollars and sponsorships for games. In the NCAA world, more money, no problems. Why would they give the Cincinnatis of the world, or even worse (and God forbid) the UTSAs of the world a shot when they can throw out the biggest and best fanbases and rake in the cash? In order to keep the power with those select teams there's only one thing you can do, block out anyone who doesn't fit that description. 

There's a power vacuum in FBS college football and it's always existed. There has never been a true national champion at the FBS level because its never been allowed to be decided on the field. Prior to the BCS you could have two teams go undefeated and never play each other and split the national championship. During the BCS, a computer decided the two best teams and many teams were left out. Just about every year during the playoff there's been a debate as to whether this team or that team should be #4. We can't just have more teams decide it on the field? How is it that the NCAA, the organization that created March Madness, that has three other divisions of college football with 16 teams in the FCS playoffs, 28 teams in the D2 playoffs and 32 teams for the D3 playoffs can't come up with a reasonable playoff to determine the champion for their FBS level? Do they even want to? If that answer is no, then why not? Other than money of course?

There are many naysayers to the expansion of the playoff, most of their arguments lack substance and are really just trying to keep the status quo because their favorite team benefits from it. But I'll go ahead and dispell some of the arguments anyways;

 "Expanding the playoffs will make the regular season less meaningful." If you expand the playoffs to 12 then the margin of error in October and November becomes even smaller for teams ranked 8-12. Yeah, you could lose one or two games and still get in if you're an OSU or ‘Bama, but that's happening anyway. Positioning to get the better match up will make the end of the year games even more interesting. In 2019, (we'll skip the COVID-shortened year) there were 10 position changes in the top 12 from week 14 to week 16 and Alabama went from 5th to out of the top 12 altogether. The games still matter, and seeding will start to have more significance. There's not a whole lot disparity from 1 vs 4 or 2 vs 3, but 1 vs 12? 2 vs 11? Now the seeding starts to really carry some weight. 

"Teams like Georgia and ‘Bama would crush the Cincinnatis and Wake Forests." Well that wasn't the case last season when Cincy took Georgia down to the wire in a 3 point game; speculation aside, doesn't that already happen in the four team playoff? Alabama 38 Michigan State 0 in 2015, Clemson 31 OSU 0 in 2016, Clemson 30 Notre Dame 3 in 2017. This is already happening, so if you're okay with it in a four team playoff - then why would matter with 12? Other than the name being Notre Dame and Ohio State rather than Wake Forest or Cincinnati? 

"Expanding the playoffs would destroy the bowl games that has been around for over 100 years." Why? Just incorporate the NY6 games into the playoffs and keep the other bowl games the same. Simple solution. 

"It's too many games and it will affect their class schedules." I'm sorry, do FCS, D2 and D3 teams not have classes as well? North Dakota State played 16 games in 2019 to win the title. But if you really want to make a difference then reduce the regular season by two games. Does Alabama really need to play Mercer or New Mexico State in November? Do those games get you jazzed up for the weekend? 

There really is no argument for not expanding the playoff, the only reason people don't want it to happen is because they want to keep the power in the hands of the teams who already have it. And why not? If you're a fan of a major college football team why would you want more teams in the playoffs, or teams like Cincy, Wake and UTSA in the playoffs? What do you gain, if you win it's expected - but if you lose - well then we start talking about a shifting of power and more parity through out the country. It's a lose-lose for those who are already at the top of the mountain. I am a purist though, and parity is what I am after. If teams are able to start making the playoffs that normally can't then that could help them on the recruiting trail and build their program into a team that can compete regularly with the blue bloods, (something I hope the transfer portal also brings about). 

This is all a pipe dream at the moment though, this year there will be four teams in the playoffs, and as it stands four undefeated teams would be left out while two teams who have losses will take their place whether they deserve it or not. Again, in no other sports league can you win all of your games and not even be allowed to compete for a title. It's a disgrace, and one I would like to see change. As long as the narrative remains "SOS" "My conference is better than yours" nothing will change. There's still a lot of football left to be played this season, and as the season has shown there will undoubtedly be more shake-ups. However, the playoff committee has already made a statement, one we've heard too many times. Your losses mean more than the SECs and no Group of 5 team will be allowed to compete. Different year, same story.