In light of the new college football playoff rankings, ESPN staff writer Heather Dinich wrote an interesting article today, entitled, "College Football Playoff contenders judged differently according to committee's 'eye test'" (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14101809/college-football-playoff-selection-committee-making-clear-distinctions-teams-using-own-eye-test).
In this article, Ms. Dinich contends that while the playoff committee still takes strength of schedule and quality wins into consideration while ranking teams, it appears as if the "eye test" may be the most important component of all, and I tend to agree with her. The problem with this is, though, as Brad Pitt said in the film Burn After Reading, "Appearances can be deceptive." While I've been on board with a playoff in college football for a number of years, I've tended to favor computers deciding the most deserving teams rather than people. The reason for this is that, while no, numbers can't ever tell the whole story, they're also not biased. With the human "eye test" comes subjectivity. Not only that, but as the current rankings clearly show, this very "eye test" is quite inconsistent.
Let's look at the top 15 ranked teams according to the latest playoff poll:
1) Clemson (9-0)
2) Alabama (8-1)
3) Ohio State (9-0)
4) Notre Dame (8-1)
5) Iowa (9-0)
6) Baylor (8-0)
7) Stanford (8-1)
8) Oklahoma State (9-0)
9) LSU (7-1)
10) Utah (8-1)
11) Florida (8-1)
12) Oklahoma (8-1)
13) Michigan State (8-1)
14) Michigan (7-2)
15) TCU (8-1)
Clemson has already defeated #4 Notre Dame and #16 Florida State, so it'd be ultimately difficult to not rank them at #1 right now. After that, though, is when this so-called "eye test" appears to go all over the map. Alabama may have looked impressive against then #2 LSU (now #9), however, their only loss is to a 3-loss Mississippi team that is currently unranked. Ohio State has played sluggishly at times this season, but are still unbeaten, as is Iowa, Baylor, and Oklahoma State. When comparing Alabama's loss to several others', it falls short in comparison. Notre Dame's lone loss was to #1 Clemson by 2 points. Stanford's only loss was to #18 Northwestern on the road by 10 (first game of the season). Florida's only loss was on the road to #9 LSU by a touchdown. TCU's single loss was to #8 Oklahoma State. So, given all that, why does the committee's "eye test" see the Crimson Tide as the 2nd best team in the country when their rèsumè should suggest otherwise at the moment?
Iowa may be undefeated, but they've gotten quite the lucky draw when it comes to Big Ten opponents this year (No Ohio State, Michigan State, or Michigan on their schedule). They've snuck by several mediocre teams. So why did they jump four spots from 9 to 5, leap-frogging undefeated Baylor in the process, after beating 4-5 Indiana by 8 over the weekend?
Oklahoma State has played a tougher schedule than Ohio State, Iowa, and Baylor, respectively, yet is ranked below those other three unbeaten teams. Why? What about this "eye test" suggested the Cowboys were undeserving to be ranked higher than those three other teams when their rèsumè may suggest otherwise?
Lastly, TCU has to be fuming. Here they were leap-frogged in the final week of the season a year ago and missed out on the four-team playoff as a result. Now, after a single loss, to an undefeated Oklahoma State squad no less, they're ranked 15th in the country, with next to no chance of making the playoff yet again.
Yes, there's still a lot of football left to be played, yet it still dismays me to think that human subjectivity is of greater importance to the playoff committee than strength of schedule and quality wins. If this continues to hold true, there will be more questions than answers, more controversy as a result, and it may prompt college football to expand the playoff to six or eight teams, and figure out a formula which would provide the best odds of selecting the most deserving teams in the country. When it comes to humans' eyes and raw numbers, I'm going to trust numbers. Mr. Pitt, what was that line you mentioned earlier? "Appearances can be deceptive." Exactly...
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/poll/21/seasontype/2/year/2015/week/11
In this article, Ms. Dinich contends that while the playoff committee still takes strength of schedule and quality wins into consideration while ranking teams, it appears as if the "eye test" may be the most important component of all, and I tend to agree with her. The problem with this is, though, as Brad Pitt said in the film Burn After Reading, "Appearances can be deceptive." While I've been on board with a playoff in college football for a number of years, I've tended to favor computers deciding the most deserving teams rather than people. The reason for this is that, while no, numbers can't ever tell the whole story, they're also not biased. With the human "eye test" comes subjectivity. Not only that, but as the current rankings clearly show, this very "eye test" is quite inconsistent.
Let's look at the top 15 ranked teams according to the latest playoff poll:
1) Clemson (9-0)
2) Alabama (8-1)
3) Ohio State (9-0)
4) Notre Dame (8-1)
5) Iowa (9-0)
6) Baylor (8-0)
7) Stanford (8-1)
8) Oklahoma State (9-0)
9) LSU (7-1)
10) Utah (8-1)
11) Florida (8-1)
12) Oklahoma (8-1)
13) Michigan State (8-1)
14) Michigan (7-2)
15) TCU (8-1)
Clemson has already defeated #4 Notre Dame and #16 Florida State, so it'd be ultimately difficult to not rank them at #1 right now. After that, though, is when this so-called "eye test" appears to go all over the map. Alabama may have looked impressive against then #2 LSU (now #9), however, their only loss is to a 3-loss Mississippi team that is currently unranked. Ohio State has played sluggishly at times this season, but are still unbeaten, as is Iowa, Baylor, and Oklahoma State. When comparing Alabama's loss to several others', it falls short in comparison. Notre Dame's lone loss was to #1 Clemson by 2 points. Stanford's only loss was to #18 Northwestern on the road by 10 (first game of the season). Florida's only loss was on the road to #9 LSU by a touchdown. TCU's single loss was to #8 Oklahoma State. So, given all that, why does the committee's "eye test" see the Crimson Tide as the 2nd best team in the country when their rèsumè should suggest otherwise at the moment?
Iowa may be undefeated, but they've gotten quite the lucky draw when it comes to Big Ten opponents this year (No Ohio State, Michigan State, or Michigan on their schedule). They've snuck by several mediocre teams. So why did they jump four spots from 9 to 5, leap-frogging undefeated Baylor in the process, after beating 4-5 Indiana by 8 over the weekend?
Oklahoma State has played a tougher schedule than Ohio State, Iowa, and Baylor, respectively, yet is ranked below those other three unbeaten teams. Why? What about this "eye test" suggested the Cowboys were undeserving to be ranked higher than those three other teams when their rèsumè may suggest otherwise?
Lastly, TCU has to be fuming. Here they were leap-frogged in the final week of the season a year ago and missed out on the four-team playoff as a result. Now, after a single loss, to an undefeated Oklahoma State squad no less, they're ranked 15th in the country, with next to no chance of making the playoff yet again.
Yes, there's still a lot of football left to be played, yet it still dismays me to think that human subjectivity is of greater importance to the playoff committee than strength of schedule and quality wins. If this continues to hold true, there will be more questions than answers, more controversy as a result, and it may prompt college football to expand the playoff to six or eight teams, and figure out a formula which would provide the best odds of selecting the most deserving teams in the country. When it comes to humans' eyes and raw numbers, I'm going to trust numbers. Mr. Pitt, what was that line you mentioned earlier? "Appearances can be deceptive." Exactly...
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/poll/21/seasontype/2/year/2015/week/11
Comments
Post a Comment