‘Tis the season! The season for pissing, moaning, and hand-wringing has begun as the College Football Playoff is now set, and people are completely up in arms about who got in, who didn’t, and why. Since everyone who has ever watched a college football game is coming up with their own plans for “fixing” the College Football Playoff, it’s time for us here at Title Run to weigh in. Before we start, a few caveats to lay down:
There is no perfect model. We need to start with realization that there is probably no single system that will satisfy EVERYONE.
Every rankings system is subjective. Team history, brand value, and the “eyeball test” will always influence people’s perceptions of teams. It’s a simple truth and there is really no way around it. There is no such thing as a set of completely "objective" rankings.
Not all wins are equal. Beating Alabama is not the same as beating Coastal Carolina. Beating Clemson is not the same as beating Vanderbilt. Since not all wins are equal, it means not all records are equal. Not all 12-0 or 11-1 teams have equal value behind their victories.
Not all conference championships are equal. Since 2006, there has never been a three-loss SEC Champion. This year there were THREE Group of Five (G5) conference champions with at least three losses (Northern Illinois, UAB, Boise State). Not all conferences are equal in depth and quality and, as a result, not all conference championships should carry equal weight.
Automatic bids must apply to all conferences. Many have suggested automatic bids for each Power Five (P5) conference champion. That’s fine until a conference favorite gets upset in the championship game and you’re left with five-loss Pitt representing the ACC while the UCF team that beat them by 31 gets left out. If you’re going to auto-bid one conference, you have to provide auto-bids for all. If not, you might as well establish a second playoff for G5 schools because you’re blatantly telling them they have no seat at the table.
There has to be a balance between quality and inclusion. Including too many teams creates garbage matchups, but too few teams makes fans of legitimate contenders feel robbed (I.e. UGA & Ohio State fans currently).
Sometimes a deserving team will get left out. In 2004, undefeated Auburn got left out of the BCS Championship game that saw undefeated USC obliterate undefeated Oklahoma 55-19. All three teams were undefeated Power Five conference champions, and all three deserved to be in the game. Sometimes you just can’t find a spot for all of the deserving teams.
The current system is still better than the BCS. Just imagine how this season could've played out under the old BCS System. The national championship would be 1) ALABAMA vs 2) CLEMSON. No problems there. BUT...had UGA upset Alabama, it's gets really interesting. You'd be forced to choose between one-loss SEC Champion UGA, one-loss B1G champion OSU, one-loss Big 12 champion OU, and undefeated Notre Dame. That means you'd potentially leave out THREE one-loss, Power Five conference champions OR an undefeated Notre Dame. Good luck making that call.
What are the Solutions?
Nearly every solution being floated involves either expanding the field, offering automatic bids, or both. Here’s a look at how each of those playoff fields would look for the 2018 season:
Option 1 - Sixteen Teams
This option simply takes the top-16 teams in the CFP rankings and organizes them into a single-elimination bracket:
Pros:
It offers a legitimate chance for G5 schools to get into the mix.
Guarantees that the most deserving teams will be included.
First and second-round games would likely have to be played on the campus of the higher-ranked team, creating an unbelievable game-day atmosphere.
Cons:
This devalues the regular season. Teams can make the tournament with three or four losses (Texas is currently 9-4).
This would tilt heavily towards the SEC in most years. This season would include FIVE SEC schools in the top-16.
Sets up lackluster first-round games. While the name value makes most of the match-ups look good on paper, what are the realistic chances West Virginia keeps Alabama within 20 points?
SIGNIFICANTLY waters down the pool of available teams for bowl games.
Would potentially lead to as many as 17 games, more than a full NFL season. This would likely require shortening the season in some way, shape, or form.
Verdict: Two thumbs down. Too many games, not enough intriguing matchups.
Option 2 - Sixteen Teams w/ Automatic Bids
This option supplies automatic bids to all ten conference champions and SIX at-large bids to the remaining teams with the highest ranking. The G5 conference champions are shown with their affiliation and overall record next to them.
Pros:
Still offers a legitimate chance for G5 schools to get into the mix.
Allows EVERY conference to be represented.
Still guarantees that the most deserving teams will be included.
Still allows the excitement of on-campus first & second-round games.
Puts extremely high value AND incentive on winning your conference championship.
Cons:
Still devalues the regular season. At-large teams with three or four losses could still sneak in. (LSU & Florida are both 9-3).
This treats all conference championships as equal. The MAC conference championship carries equal weight as the Big 12 championship even though one conference has much stiffer competition than the other.
Creates even WORSE first-round games. Alabama vs Northern Illinois? Clemson vs UAB? Yikes.
Verdict: Two thumbs down. Representing all conferences seems “fair, ” but is it really? Is it really “fair” for a five-loss conference champion to get in over two or three-loss teams with FAR superior resumes?
One solution would be to add a wins requirement. For example, you must have at least 10-wins to guarantee your automatic bid. This year that would mean Northern Illinois would be left out and their MAC bid would be converted into an additional at-large bid.
Option 3 - Twelve Teams
This option simply takes the top-12 teams in the CFP rankings and organizes them into a single-elimination bracket. The top-four teams receive a first-round bye. Teams with a bye are shown in red.
Pros:
Still offers a legitimate chance for G5 schools to get into the mix.
Still guarantees that the most deserving teams will be included.
Rewards the most dominant teams; play your way into the top-four and you’ll be rewarded with a bye
Creates more compelling first-round match-ups -- very few games look like blowouts on paper.
Still allows the excitement of on-campus first round games.
Cons:
Still adds up to four extra games to the schedule.
Still significantly cripples the pool of quality bowl teams.
Decreases the chances of G5 school making the cut. It’s rare for ONE G5 school to finish in the top-12, so getting two or more seems like an impossibility.
Verdict: One thumb up. The 16-team models sacrificed quality for the sake of inclusion. This model offers less inclusion but only slightly better quality. It also requires up to FOUR extra games which isn’t appealing for ANY model.
Option 4 - Twelve Teams w/ Automatic Bids
This option supplies automatic bids to all ten conference champions and TWO at-large bids to the remaining teams with the highest ranking. The top-four teams receive a first-round bye. Teams with byes are show in red.
Pros:
Still offers a legitimate chance for G5 schools to get into the mix.
Guarantees every conference will be represented.
Puts extremely high value AND incentive on winning your conference championship.
Allows room for the best one or two loss teams to get in.
Incentivizes the dominance of the top-4 teams.
Still allows the excitement of on-campus first round games.
Cons:
Still devalues the regular season. At-large teams with three or four losses could still sneak in.
Still treats all conference championships as equal.
Michigan, LSU, Penn State, & Florida get bumped for three and five-loss G5 conference champions. Somehow that just doesn't seem quite right.
This still sets up potentially awful first round games. On paper, one would expect Ohio State and UGA to roll over Northern Illinois and UAB. That may not happen, but if people expect that to happen, they won’t watch. Those match-ups just don’t generate much buzz.
Verdict: Two thumbs down. This model is inclusive, but generates yawn-inducing first round matchups that don’t really move the meter. The potential Round of Eight games are intriguing, which begs the question -- why not just start with eight teams to begin with?
Option 5 - Eight Teams
This option simply takes the top-eight teams in the CFP rankings and organizes them into a single-elimination bracket.
Pros:
Still guarantees that the most deserving teams will be included.
Creates incredibly strong match-ups. Every single one of those games offers a high level of legitimate intrigue.
Allows room for every Power Five conference champion AND the best remaining one or two-loss team.
Leaves room for a Cinderella G5 school.
Cons:
While there may be room for a G5 school, there is next to ZERO chance of G5 schools actually making the cut. Last year UCF was No. 12 going into the bowl season and this year they enter at No. 8. If a team on a 25-game winning streak barely cracks the top-eight, it’s hard to see many G5 schools actually getting in.
Verdict: One-and-a-half thumbs up. This model still allows for all of the P5 conference Champions, the best remaining one or two loss teams, AND a cinderella G5 team. This year's bracket would generate four absolutely killer first-round matchups, but that isn’t the case every year.
For example, the 2016 first round would’ve yielded (1) Alabama vs (8) Wisconsin and a rematch of (3) Ohio State vs (6) Michigan. That’s not nearly as compelling as the (2) Clemson vs (7) Michigan or (4) OU vs (5) UGA games we would get this year. This model makes it more likely to get hit-and-miss games in the first round, but it’s still a solid mixture of inclusion and quality.
Option 6 - Six Teams
This option simply takes the top-six teams in the CFP rankings and organizes them into a single-elimination bracket. The top two teams receive a bye. They are shown in red.
Pros:
Creates incredibly strong match-ups.
Rewards the most dominant teams with a bye.
Allows room for every deserving Power Five conference champion AND the best remaining one or two-loss teams.
Doesn’t significantly lengthen the season.
Cons:
Provides next to ZERO chance of G5 schools making the cut.
It still runs the risk of a deserving team being left out (one-loss, No. 7 Ohio State in 2015 & undefeated No. 8 UCF in 2018).
Verdict: One and three-quarters thumbs up. This model still isn’t perfect, but it provides the best blend of quality and inclusion. It guarantees good matchups, rewards especially dominant teams, and prevents debacles like 2014 when TCU and Baylor were BOTH left out, and 2016 where B1G champion Penn State was passed over for Ohio State. The biggest flaw is that this model doesn’t provide much hope for G5 schools, and that doesn’t appear likely to change with G5 cinderella UCF seemingly hitting the glass ceiling at No. 8 slot.
コメント