The word that may ruin college football

College football is a wonderful sport--the best sport. The passion, the rivalries, the loyalty, the pageantry: everything about it gets you excited for the fall.  One of the most important aspects is the importance of every game.  Each team lives on the razor's edge week in and week out knowing that their hopes and dreams can come to an end in the blink of an eye.  One misstep; one unfortunate bounce; one bad call; one outlier performance can take an all-time great team and make them a footnote (or vice versa)...or can it?

The introduction of the college football playoff in 2014 was designed to bring parity to what was considered an unfair game.  Prior to the BCS, a non-power 5 team exploding onto the national stage was impossible.  The bowl games were determined by conference tie-ins and the National Title was voted on without any ability for an outsider to crash the party. 

In 1998, the Bowl Championship Series was introduced to make a step in the direction of objectivity. While the biased human polls would remain a major components, (more) objective computer polls and strength of schedule entered into the equation to discover the top 2 and have them determine a champion on the field in the national championship.  We began to see the rise of a few non-power 5 contenders under this system (Marshall, Boise State, Hawaii, etc.), yet they never truly had a shot at the big prize.  While this was a nice step, it was constantly being tweaked to match the desires of the (biased) human voters when the onfield play didn't agree.  Another common criticism was that only 2 teams earned the right to play for the title, even if a third or fourth was just as deserving. 

In 2000, 1-loss FSU faced off with undefeated Oklahoma for the title in which to Sooners won a defensive struggle.  Controversy arose from 1-loss Miami (who beat FSU on a last second missed FG) and 1-loss Washington (who beat Miami in the first game of the season).  The Sooners weren't controversial, but their opponent was.

In 2003, 1- loss LSU defeated 1-loss Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl.  1-loss USC won the Orange Bowl and was declared the AP champion while LSU captured the crystal ball.  This year wasn't as controversial in the sense that all three main contenders entered with 1-loss.

2004 was filled with controversy as 5 teams finished the regular season undefeated.  While non-power 5 teams finished undefeated in previous years, they had horrible schedules and had no real claim to be the top team in the land.  Now, USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Utah, and Boise State (who had been climbing the national perception polls for years) were all desirous of a shot at the title.  Once again, controversy wasn't new to the BCS (5 1-loss teams were vying in the 2003), but with 1-loss, the pundits could always play the 'yeah, but...' card.  You could have been here....if only you didn't lose. 2004 had the undefeated SEC champion left out (imagine if that happened today!).  This was the first time since the creation of the BCS that a team with a major conference schedule literally did all they could and was not given a chance.

2012 saw one of the more egregious errors of the BCS system that leads to our current predicament.  The title was between undefeated LSU and 1-loss Alabama...who lost at home in the regular season to, you guessed it, LSU.  The major problem was the lack of another undefeated contender.  Oklahoma State was the most deserving after finishing with 1-loss (a fluke against Iowa State on a Friday night after a tragic plane crash occurred with another Oklahoma State Cowboy team earlier in the day). Regardless, the team most harmed in this scenario was a team that is in the conference most tightly protected now: LSU.  Bama came at the king and missed.  Why did the second meeting matter more? Why was another meeting needed?

Fast-forward to 2014 with the implementation of the College Football Playoff.  4 teams to be selected by a committee of experts will face-off and determine a champion in the 'American way'--Settle it on the field.  What could go wrong?  No one would be 'left-out' in this new world!  Everything would be fair! But as we all know, no system is perfect.

How would this committee determine the 4? Herein lies the problem. Would they lean to the human polls and their inherent biases to the big name programs? Would they support the objectivity of the analytics and remove context? Would they focus on head-to-head? Would they support good wins, good losses? So many questions and so little transparency.  The charge to this committee would include a word that potentially threatens the tradition of the sport.

"For purposes of any four team playoff, the process will inevitably need to select the four best teams from among several with legitimate claims to participate."
From the CFP Committee Protocol: How to select the four best teams to compete for the College Football National Championship

The word is "best".  While the objectives of the committee were pure in the development of this (open) definition, they had incorporated a linchpin that may bring the whole system to its knees.  Why, you ask, would the objective of including the four 'best' teams be controversial on any level? Isn't that what we desire our champions to be? The best?  Let's circle back to the beginning; to what makes college football special: "Every. Game. Matters." All other sporting events include regular seasons (and playoffs for most) in which losses are a part of the game.  Not-so in college football.  Since the inception of the BCS, only 1 team has gone undefeated in a major conference and not had their shot.  Many smaller schools have been undefeated and not gotten the shot, but that persists in the playoff era (see UCF).  Now, to choose our champion, we have relegated the decision to a room of people whose charge is to choose the 'best'. 

Let's first begin with a discussion of the good parts of the playoff system.  2004 is unlikely to happen again.  Yes, there is the possibility that all 5 power-5 champions escape the regular season undefeated but this possibility is extremely remote in today's game.  Now, it is very unlikely that a deserving undefeated team is not given a shot (sorry UCF, but stay with me). On the other hand, we now have to choose among many (many) 1-2 loss teams with more-or-less equivalent resumes. That almost guarantees a team (or two) in the playoff that one can argue does not deserve their shot after a bad loss.  On top of that, the undefeated group of 5 are an after thought....why? The interpretation of 'best'.

The national media (aka ESPN) has heaped nothing but praise upon the committee for choosing the 'so-called best' teams and ignoring the 'most deserving' moniker, but this is nothing more than proliferating an already tired narrative.  LSU is great because they beat Alabama and conversely, Alabama is great because they lost to LSU.  This isn't college football. Here's the issue: if we truly want the best 4 teams, the 2019 playoff is almost assuredly LSU, OSU, Clemson, and Bama...REGARDLESS of the remainder of the season.  Why? Recruiting! If Minnesota runs the table, are they 'better' than Alabama? Almost certainly not.  In 2017, undefeated Wisconsin entered the B1G Championship Game at 4 in the CFP rankings.  Had they beaten the Buckeyes, would they have been 'better' than the 1-loss non division champion Crimson Tide? Of course not.  In fact, based on the committee charge/logic, why did that game matter? If Bama was 'one of the four best teams in the country', why did they need Wisconsin to lose? It's nonsensical! It's illogical! It's. not. college. football. 

The wording MUST be changed on the CFP committee's charge to choose the four most-deserving teams.  2019 Bama had their playoff game already, at home....and lost (just like in 2012).  Many teams don't get that shot once, let alone twice.  Here's the deal: once a team loses (in any conference) their resume for championship contention takes a monster hit, but the committee needs to look more objectively at the merits/resumes of the teams and not the name.  This becomes increasing difficult when the talking heads are touting the wonders of Alabama football before the final 0:00 hit on the clock.  CBS literally had a graphic on the screen arguing the case for Alabama's inclusion in the playoff without a divisional championship before the game had ended.  The rankings will come out Tuesday and it is almost a 100% guarantee that Alabama will be ranked ahead of Minnesota.  There is absolutely no reason that the Tide merit a ranking above the Gophers.  Minnesota has NO losses and their best win trumps ANYTHING Bama has done by a mile.  The committee will say 'Look, Alabama almost beat #1 (projected) LSU and would likely beat most teams on a neutral field'. Here's the problem: they didn't.

Now that I've gone off the rails an most definitely repeated myself many times, I need to sum up my 'old man yells at cloud' argument. What is college football? The tradition, the pageantry, the rivalries.  Why does beating Michigan every year feel just as sweet as the first time? Because we enhanced our resume? Because a solid win against a competent program gets OSU closer to the playoff? No.  Because knowing that you have exerted dominance over your foe and ruined their hopes for future glory means something.  Duke/UNC is a nice little college basketball rivalry, but why can't it rise to the level of the game? Because the loser gets another shot.  In The Game, the loser goes home, tail between their legs KNOWING that they had their shot at greatness, and fell short.  Not only that, the winner dances on the loser's grave on the way to bigger and better things.  In Duke/UNC, it's "we'll get you in the tournament..."

 In 2017, the Alabama Crimson Tide won the National Championship thus proving to most the committee was justified rewarding a non-division winner...my perception is completely reversed.  I find this proof of an egregious error. The Iron Bowl (and SEC West Division championship) went to Auburn, who then lost to Georgia in the SEC Championship.  Alabama had their playoff game....and lost.  Their playoffs started early.  Had they beaten Auburn and Georgia, they're the number 1 team by a mile!  But, the didn't.  Yet, they were rewarded by the committee with another shot and they took advantage (over the very Georgia team that beat their rival a few week's prior in an extra game the Tide avoided!). A year in which their best win prior to the playoff was over a 4-loss LSU team.  Did they have the talent? Were they one of the 'best' teams? Of course. Did they deserve a second chance when another charge of the committee is supposed to be rewarding conference champions? The answer is a resounding no. 

We continue to hear the clamoring for an 8-team playoff, but that dilutes the pool even more.  Now, the Bama's of the world can take a game or two off and still win the championship.  Then the glory of The Game may be relegated to 'Round 1'.  While some would love the opportunity to play it twice, that ruins the mystique.  You lose The Game, you're a loser for the next 364 days (or 2908 days and counting...but who's counting).  You don't get a do-over.  Make it right, committee.  Support those who have earned the right to be there.  By supporting the 'best', you might get 3 great games in the playoffs.  By supporting the most deserving, the wonder of the greatest regular season in sports will continue for years.