When the College Football Playoff was created, many folks claimed that it would lead to better in-season matchups between top teams, because teams would be willing to take the risk to increase their strength of schedule. However, as we have gone through multiple seasons, the committee has made it clear that the top criteria they look at is number of losses. I thought I would take a look at the teams that made the CFP or just missed it, and see if a slight change of schedule would have affected their ability to be selected.
In most cases, we will be looking at teams that lost a non-conference game to a Power 5 team, and assuming that they could have replaced them with a "lesser" team that they would have defeated. In most cases, that would refer to a Group of 5 team, but in some cases, it might refer to a Power 5 team that is traditionally a bottom feeder, since some conferences have started requiring at least one Power 5 team on all non-conference schedules.
2014
CFP Participants:
-Alabama (12-1, SEC champs)
-Oregon (12-1, Pac-12 champs)
-Florida State (13-0, ACC champs)
-Ohio State (12-1, Big Ten champs)
Bubble teams:
-Baylor (11-1, Big 12 champs)
-TCU (11-1, Big 12 runner up)
Between those six teams, the only non-conference loss belonged to Ohio State. Had they not scheduled Virginia Tech, the only difference is that there would have been no question about that fourth seed.
2015
CFP Participants:
-Clemson (13-0, ACC champs)
-Alabama (12-1, SEC champs)
-Michigan State (12-1, Big Ten champs)
-Oklahoma (11-1, Big 12 champs)
Bubble teams:
-Iowa (12-1, Big Ten West champs)
-Ohio State (11-1, 2nd place Big Ten East)
2015 is not a good season for this exercise. These were the only six teams with 1 or 0 losses, and all of the losses were conference games. Michigan State had head-to-head wins over both Iowa and Ohio State. Therefore, there is nothing that a scheduling change would have affected.
2016
CFP Participants:
-Alabama (13-0, SEC champs)
-Clemson (12-1, ACC champs)
-Ohio State (11-1, 2nd place Big Ten East)
-Washington (12-1, Pac-12 champs)
Bubble teams:
-Penn State (11-2, Big Ten champs)
-Oklahoma (10-2, Big 12 champs)
This was the first season that a non-champion made it into the CFP, and really solidified the committee's stance that overall records is the most important factor in selection.
Game #1: Ohio State at Oklahoma or Houston vs. Oklahoma
This looks like we're cheating a little bit, but we have an either/or situation with Oklahoma. They easily won the Big 12, going undefeated in conference play. However, they knocked themselves out of the CFP with two early season losses. Replacing either loss with a win would have definitely boosted them into the conversation. Taking the Ohio State loss off their record should have put them into the final four, as their conference championship should have given them the edge against Ohio State. If Oklahoma was 11-1 with the loss to Ohio State, then we could see what the committee would value in a debate between head-to-head or conference championship.
Game #2: Penn State at Pitt
This game was scheduled because the two schools wanted to bring back an in-state rivalry, not so much to provide a "flashy" non-conference game. With Penn State's other non-conference games being Kent State and Temple, Pitt was a nice boost just by being a Power 5 team. In fact, this was a game that Penn State should have won. Therefore, this is more of a case that Penn State should have won the game instead of not scheduling it.
2017
CFP Participants:
-Clemson (12-1, ACC champs)
-Oklahoma (12-1, Big 12 champs)
-Georgia (12-1, SEC champs)
-Alabama (11-1, 2nd place in SEC West)
Bubble teams:
-Ohio State (11-2, Big Ten champs)
-Wisconsin (12-1, Big Ten runner-ups)
-USC (11-2, Pac-12 champs)
Much of the outrage about the CFP selection this year was about Alabama making it in without winning their conference, or even their division, as well as being the second SEC team in the tournament.
Wisconsin was undefeated in the regular season until losing in the Big Ten championship game to Ohio State. They were getting knocked for their "weak" schedule, but had they won the title game, they would have been undefeated conference champions, which would be too much for the committee to leave out.
There are two pivotal non-conference games that really affected the playoff selection.
Game #1: Oklahoma at Ohio State
This was the perfect example of one of the "big time" games that the pundits had been talking about since the CFP was started. It also perfectly shows the risk of the game, as the winner ended up in the CFP, and the loser just barely missed it. Had the game gone the other way, the teams would have been switched in the rankings at the end of the season. If the game hadn't been scheduled, then both teams would have ended the season at 12-1 and gone on to the CFP.
Game #2: USC at Notre Dame
This is a long standing rivalry game, so it probably wouldn't get dropped from the schedule. However, USC already had Texas on their schedule. If they don't have this loss, they would have been 12-1, with their lone loss coming from the conference schedule.
Now, imagine how crazy the end of the season would have been if both of these games had been scheduled differently. We would have had all five Power 5 conference champions sitting at 12-1 at the conclusion of championship weekend.
In conclusion, I feel as teams realize that the number of losses is the most important factor in the committee's decision, they are going to want to schedule games that they expect to win. Why would Oklahoma want to risk a loss to Ohio State when they could schedule a Group of 5 team that has placed in the bottom half of their conference for the last five years? That being said, the Ohio State/Oklahoma series of 2016-2017 is the only real example we have of the marquee matchups greatly affecting the CFP selection. Far too often, the teams involved in those big non-conference games can't sustain success through the rest of the season. The Alabama/FSU game from 2017 could have been on this list if FSU's QB hadn't gotten injured and their season spiraled into a 6-6 finish (or if FSU had won, thus pushing Alabama's record down).
No comments:
Post a Comment