Playoff hesitation

We're still in the first season of the Playoff era.  We haven't even gotten the first set of rankings from the committee.

And yet, I'm already feeling some hesitation about this new system.  No, I'm not saying we need to go back to the BCS.  I never liked the "top 2" idea.  But I'm not sure that I like what I've been hearing so far in regards to how the playoffs will be selected.


First of all, I don't think that the computers should have been eliminated.  They should not be the sole determination for anything, but as in all aspects, computers are tools.  The various computer rankings would give us fairly unbiased ideas of how teams stack up.  They fail at picking up on intangibles, and that's why they should be balanced out with people.

In 2000, the computers probably dropped Virginia Tech in the polls after their loss to Miami.  But I'm sure that a human element in creating the playoffs would have strongly considered the injury to Michael Vick as a factor, and put VT high on the list of 1 loss teams.

Likewise, LSU in 2007 played for a national title with two losses.  The overwhelming thought process was that both of their losses occurred in 3OT.  That's a much different story than if they had just been outright beaten in regulation.  Computers might not have caught that difference.

Still, this all comes back to the committee.  I'm not so sure that a committee is the best idea, either.  Yes, it works for basketball, but that is a process that seeds 68 teams based on a season of 40 games.  It's a lot different to seed 4 teams based on a 12 game season.

Over the last few years, I've been critical of the human element.  Mainly because the majority of that human element gets the majority of their information from ESPN, who has a clear SEC bias (no matter how much they deny it).  Sports being cyclical, I'm sure that bias will shift over the next few years to the new hot conference, but the results are still the same.  Instead of 7 SEC teams in the top 10, they'll be pushing for 7 Pac-12 teams.  Or ACC, or Big 12, or whatever conference is considered dominant next.  That's why I feel we still need computers, to try to cut down on that bias.

Ultimately, I think the playoffs need to expand and there needs to be a definitive set of rules for how to get to the playoffs.  In the NFL, if you win your division, you go to the playoffs.  That's a model that NCAA needs to look at.  It should expand to either 6 teams to include all of the Power 5 conference champions, or even further to allow more Group of 5 conferences in.  Then, conference championship games would become de facto playoff games.

"But the wrong team could get in!"  That's something we'll here people cry about.  In 2005, the first year of the ACC championship game, 7-4 Florida State beat 10-1 Virginia Tech and became the conference champion.  As a Tech fan, I was upset, but those were the rules.  Again, I refer back to my argument about best team vs. champion.  There's no clear way to determine the best team.  Even if every team could play every other team, the process would take so long that other variables would creep in.  Besides, people claim to love the Cinderella team in basketball.

Right now, it's tough to definitively say what will get you into the playoffs.  You could go undefeated, but if there are 5 undefeated teams, how do the top four get determined?  You could win your conference, but again, there are 5 major conferences for four spots.  More than likely, you can't lose more than 1 game.  But there will definitely be more than 4 teams with 0 or 1 loss.

There's still too much determined off the field.  The College Football Playoff, as it stands now, is simply the first step in the process of finally getting to the ultimate goal:  a true national champion that is 100% determined on the field.