Skip to main content

What the playoff committee got wrong

For as excited as I was (and still am) about a college football playoff, I'm having a difficult time fully defending the playoff committee's final decision on the "final four."

As was noted yesterday around 12:30 pm EST, the committee's final rankings went as follows:

1. Alabama (12-1)

2. Oregon (12-1)

3. Florida State (13-0)

4. Ohio State (12-1)

5. Baylor (11-1)

6. TCU (11-1)

Here's how I would have ranked the teams:

1. Florida State (13-0)

2. Oregon (12-1)

3. Alabama (12-1)

4. Baylor (11-1)

5. TCU (11-1)

6. Ohio State (12-1)


I'm really amazed that the committee sees Florida State as worthy of only the #3 spot. Granted, they've won several tight ball games, but they're the only undefeated team left in the country. They won the national title last year, and after their ACC Championship game win against Georgia Tech on Saturday, have won 29 consecutive games. Not only that, but of their 13 opponents this year, 9 are bowl eligible, including three non-conference opponents (Oklahoma State, Notre Dame, and Florida, along with conference foes Clemson, North Carolina State, Louisville, Miami (Florida), Boston College, and Georgia Tech). Not Alabama nor Oregon can boast such a thing. The ACC is also ranked second among the Power 5 conferences in winning percentage against the other Power 5 conferences (and Notre Dame), with a 10-7 record (.588), second only to the Pac-12 (8-3). So, no matter what kind of grade Florida State received from the committee via the eye test, their overall resume gets an "A" grade from my eyes, especially that 13-0 record when facing 9 bowl eligible teams.

Oregon, in my opinion, is the only team the committee got right rankings wise. They defeated 6 bowl eligible teams, including one non-conference (Michigan State, as well as conference foes UCLA, Washington, Stanford, Utah, and Arizona), four of which are currently in the top 25 (#8 Michigan State, #10 Arizona, #14 UCLA, and #22 Utah). They also won these games convincingly, outscoring their 6 bowl eligible opponents by 147 points (24.5 average margin of victory), and outscoring their 4 top 25 opponents by 93 points (23.3 average margin of victory. Their lone loss was to #10 Arizona by 7 points. Not only that, but the Pac-12 ranked first among the Power 5 conference in winning percentage against the other Power 5 conferences (and Notre Dame), with an 8-3 record (.727).

Like Florida State, Alabama defeated 9 bowl eligible teams, and like Oregon, they beat 4 teams currently in the top 25. Their biggest non-conference win was a 10-point victory against 7-5 West Virginia. There other victories against bowl eligible opponents were against: Florida, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Tennessee, #23 LSU, #7 Mississippi State, #19 Auburn, and #16 Missouri. They won these four games by a combined 52 points (13.0 average margin of victory). The Tide's lone loss came to #9 Mississippi by 6 points. The SEC finished 3rd among the Power 5 conferences in winning percentage against the other Power 5 conferences (and Notre Dame), with a 5-6 record (.455).

While I agreed with the committee on three of the four teams that made the playoff, albeit not in the order they ranked them, the biggest controversy regarding the final selections was the committee's #4 team, Ohio State. While I had ranked TCU #4 last week, I said that if Baylor beat Kansas State over the weekend, their head-to-head victory against the Horned Frogs would vault them ahead of TCU in my final standings, and I stand by that. With the convincing win against #11 Kansas State on Saturday, Baylor finished the regular season at 11-1, and even though their non-conference schedule was soft (to put it lightly), they still defeated 5 bowl eligible teams, including the before-mentioned Wildcats, as well as: Texas, #6 TCU, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. So, according to the playoff committee's final standings, Baylor defeated two of the top 11 teams in the country. The only other team that can say that is Oregon. Baylor defeated these two top 11 teams by a combined 14 points (7.0 average margin of victory), and defeated their 5 bowl eligible opponents by a combined 90 points (18.0 average margin of victory). Their lone loss was a 14-point setback against 7-5 West Virginia in Morgantown. The Big XII finished 4th among the Power 5 conferences in winning percentage against the other Power 5 conferences (and Notre Dame), with a 4-6 record (.400).

While I think TCU probably has a better team than Baylor, their 3-point loss to the Bears is the reason I have them ranked one spot below them. TCU defeated 6 bowl eligible teams, including two in the top 25 (#11 Kansas State, #25 Minnesota, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, West Virginia, and Texas). TCU beat their two top 25 foes rather convincingly, winning the games by a combined 44 points (22.0 average margin of victory), and defeating their 6 bowl eligible opponents by a combined 120 points (20.0 average margin of victory). Their only loss was a 3-point road loss to Baylor.

Ohio State did wind up defeating 9 bowl eligible teams, including 3 in the top 25. These included: Navy, Cincinnati, Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, Illinois, #8 Michigan State, #25 Minnesota, and #18 Wisconsin. They beat Michigan State and Minnesota by a combined 19 points (9.5 average margin of victory). The Buckeyes defeated most of their other bowl eligible opponents rather convincingly, except for a 31-24 double overtime win against Penn State in Happy Valley. OSU's lone loss this year was a 14-point home defeat at the hands of 6-6 Virginia Tech. That's the main reason I have them ranked behind both Baylor and TCU. The other reason is the fact the Big Ten ranked dead last among the Power 5 conferences in winning percentage against the other Power 5 conferences (and Notre Dame), with a 6-11 record (.353).

One problem the committee had in their initial season was with regard to announcing weekly rankings as of a few weeks ago. This then put them on the spot for changes that didn't make a whole lot of sense, and that was nowhere more evident than with their final rankings on Sunday. Following TCU's 48-10 win over Texas a couple of weekends ago, the committee moved the Horned Frogs to #3 in the poll, ahead of Florida State, Ohio State, and Baylor. Given their position in the poll, it was all but a certainty that, with a convincing win against 2-9 Iowa State on Saturday, the Horned Frogs would make the playoff. Even Nate Silver gave them a 91% chance of making the field of four, and this was after Saturday's games. So, after TCU laid a 55-3 drubbing on Iowa State, how can the committee go from seeing TCU as the 3rd best team in the country to seeing them as the 6th best team? I'd love to be fact-checked on this, but I'm guessing that at no other time in history did a college football team win a game by 52 points and fall three spots in the polls. It may have made sense for Baylor to leap-frog TCU if, like in my poll, TCU was ranked #4, Baylor was at #5, and following the Bears' convincing win against Kansas State, their head-to-head victory finally vaulted them ahead of the Horned Frogs. However, that wasn't the case at all. The two teams were separated by three spots in the poll, so it makes little to no sense for TCU to drop below them in the committee's final poll. Also, with Florida State winning another nail-biter, why did this convince the committee that the Seminoles, ranked #4 last week, was a better team than then #3 TCU? Did Florida State's 37-35 victory over Georgia Tech finally convince them they were better than a TCU team that beat Iowa State 55-3? The committee had already dropped the Seminoles two spots due to close victories. What changed their perception this time? In addition to that, what convinced the committee that #5 Ohio State was suddenly better than #3 TCU? One victory Ohio State hangs it hat is a 31-24 win against #25 Minnesota. TCU beat that same Minnesota team 30-7. Also, TCU's lone loss was a 3-point defeat on the road against the 5th-ranked and 11-1 Baylor Bears. Ohio State's lone loss was a 14-point defeat at home against 6-6 Virginia Tech. Lastly, based on such a small sample-size, why is the committee so convinced that Ohio State 3rd string quarterback Cardale Jones is the real deal and would give his team a better chance against top ranked Alabama than Baylor's proven quarterback, Bryce Petty, or TCU's Heisman trophy candidate at quarterback, Trevone Boykin? That seems like quite the gamble to take, especially for it being the committee's first season.

As I said at the outset of this writing, if it had been up to me, I would have ranked Florida State at #1, Oregon at #2, Alabama at #3, and Baylor at #4. However, with how the committee had ranked the teams last week, their final rankings made absolutely no sense. If the committee wanted to be consistent and to come across as at all credible, they would have ranked Alabama at #1, Oregon at #2, Florida State at #3, and TCU at #4 (Alabama and Oregon flip-flopping is debatable, and I only flip-flopped Florida State and TCU due to the Seminoles finishing undefeated and beating a top 15 team in the ACC Championship game), with Ohio State still at #5 and Baylor still at #6. In the future, the committee will either need to learn how to be more consistent (and sensible) with their rankings or they'll need to follow the NCAA Tournament committee's lead and announce the rankings one time and one time only - the day following the conference championship games.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"