But not everybody out there agrees with us. Take the talking heads at ESPN. Out of the 20 polled, all 20 agreed to put Alabama at #1 and Clemson somewhere 2 - 4, but the consensus ended there. 17 had Washington, 15 had Ohio State in, 7 had Penn State, and 1 had, well, you'll have to excuse Desmond.
You might notice that nobody had the Big 12 anywhere near the playoff. Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby sure noticed, and while he didn't go all Art Briles and accuse the committee of putting in teams based on brand name alone, he feigned some confusion about why the committee picked the teams it did (I hope he's feigning; I'd hate to throw him in with Desmond). After all, Ohio State didn't win their conference, and Washington scheduled three wet paper sacks as their non-conference opponents. How will Herman and the 'Horns ever redeem the Big 12's honor when they can't predict what the committee wants?
The answer is quite simple. The committee wants the four best teams. How do you determine the four best teams? Look at the teams with the best wins against the best opponents, and the fewest losses.
That's it.
Somehow, in the last two years, too many people (including yours truly) lost the forest for the trees. We saw the committee's tiebreaker criteria and treated them like prerequisites:
- Championships won
- Strength of schedule
- Head-to-head competition
- Record against common opponents
What we forgot is that these are tiebreakers, used to distinguish "comparable" teams that "look similar."
Do Clemson, Ohio State, Washington, and Penn State look similar?
On their faces, no. You are your record, after all, and Clemson, Washington, and Ohio State each have only 1 loss, while Penn State has 2. This isn't Major League Baseball; every loss in college football is devastating when you only play 12 - 13 games a year. But not all wins and losses are created equal (the boat can only row so far, Broncos). Let's look at each team's wins, from most to least impressive.
Best four wins:
For Clemson: @Florida State, Louisville, @Auburn, Virginia Tech
For Ohio State: Michigan, @Oklahoma, @Wisconsin, Nebraska
For Washington: Colorado, Stanford, @Utah, @Washington State
For Penn State: Ohio State, Wisconsin, Temple, Iowa
Ohio State is leading the way, with Clemson following close behind. Penn State's not doing much to close the gap so far. They have the best overall win, to be sure, but no good road wins, and their second best win is a pale shadow of Ohio State's third. It's never a good thing when your quality nonconference win is Temple. Washington doesn't have any quality nonconference wins, but they do have four wins over Pac-12 teams with 4 or fewer losses.
Next best four wins:
For Clemson: @Georgia Tech, vs. Troy, @Wake Forest, @Boston College
For Ohio State: Tulsa, @Maryland, Northwestern, Indiana
For Washington: Idaho, @California, @Arizona State, @Oregon
For Penn State: Minnesota, @Indiana, Maryland, Michigan State
The only separation here is Washington fading fast. No bowl-bound Power 5 vanquished foes in this tier. But it's not like Penn State's slate is moving the needle either.
Remaining wins:
For Clemson: NC State, South Carolina, Syracuse, South Carolina State
For Ohio State: @Michigan State, Bowling Green, Rutgers
For Washington: Oregon State, @Arizona, Rutgers, Portland State
For Penn State: @Purdue, Kent State, Rutgers
My, my, how will Ohio State and Penn State compete without that 12th win over an FCS team? Clemson gets a point here for a win over bowl-bound NC State and a real live SEC opponent in South Carolina, and for not playing Rutgers.
And now, the losses:
For Clemson: @Pittsburgh
For Ohio State: @Penn State
For Washington: vs. USC
For Penn State: @Michigan, @Pittsburgh
So, by pure quality of wins-and-losses resume, the order seems to be something like this:
Ohio State > Clemson (better wins and better loss)
Clemson >>> Washington (much better wins)
Washington >> Penn State (1 loss vs. 2 and similar enough wins)
Ohio State and Clemson are clearly ahead of the pack. Washington and Penn State aren't "similar" to Ohio State and Clemson, so no tiebreaker is going to knock them out of being #2 and #3 in some order. Penn State would have the strength of schedule tiebreaker over Washington, but again, their resumes aren't similar enough for the tiebreakers to kick in.
So, Bob Bowlsby, what's a team to take away from the committee's decision this year?
DON'T LOSE. IF YOU MUST LOSE, DON'T LOSE TWICE.
An undefeated Power 5 team has never missed the playoffs. A Power 5 team with 2 losses has never made it in when sufficient undefeated and 1-loss teams were available. I don't see this trend reversing anytime soon.
Bad objections:
But what about Penn State's B1G title and head-to-head win over Ohio State?
As stated above, these are tiebreakers used to differentiate similar teams. Ohio State and Penn State do not have similar resumes. Also, Penn State has a conference title in large part because of their head-to-head win over Ohio State. Penn State didn't have to do anything that Ohio State didn't in order to lock down the title. They finished tied atop the East standing, and then Penn State beat a team at a neutral site that Ohio State already beat on the road. Making a big deal out of "Penn State, Big Ten Champions" is practically counting their head-to-head win over Ohio State twice.
Washington didn't challenge themselves out of conference and still made the playoff. Why should any Power 5 team bother to schedule a big name conference opponent? Isn't there an inconsistency in Washington making the playoffs when Baylor didn't in 2014?
First of all, Penn State, you didn't exactly go for the gold in scheduling Pitt. Yeah, Pitt's not Rutgers, but there's a reason nobody's particularly impressed with your loss. Yes, if Penn State schedules Villanova instead of Pitt, they probably go to the playoff instead of Washington. But by the same token, if Ohio State schedules Youngstown State instead of Oklahoma, maybe they don't make the playoff. Putting together a weak schedule is a bet that the other guys will schedule hard and lose. Putting together a strong schedule is a bet that the other guys will schedule easy and win. There's an element of gamesmanship to the process. But there's no way before the season starts to know whether the weak schedule strategy will burn you (2014 Baylor) or save you (2016 Washington). And there's no way before the season starts to know whether the big name you scheduled will be 1-11 California or 10-2 Oklahoma.
