Jesus Martinez | Main Columnist
At a first glance, the CFP seemed like a brilliant idea. However, since I am an avid consumer of the daily life of College Athletics, I decided to take into fact whether this was beneficial to College Fooball. The current system imposed by the NCAA is good, there is not many issue with this, while some may aruge that the situation with deciding the #2 vs #3 ranked teams in the nation occuring in the BCS era would reintroduce itself when the committee decides #4 vs #5 in the CFP, the board made a set of requirements a team must make in order to qualify for the Playoff. For once, the NCAA made the right move. And while I must say that 2 teams isn't good enough to determine a National Title, 8 would push its limits and force to add lackluster teams into the mix, and ultimately end up with a march madness bracket for football (which has its own set of problems which I'll get into in another article). Unlike other topics in the segment, this isn't a problem. However the requirements are, and that is why I am addressing some key issues and my overall opinion solving them:
1. Are the current requirements in order to make the Playoff reasonable?
In order to determine the set of teams in the college football playoff, there is a group committee who selects the top four teams in the nation. This commitee is responsible for creating ranking similar to the AP Poll, in which the group of 12 pick the Top 25 teams in the nation beginning Week 9 of the College Football season. The day after Conference Championship Week, they select the Top 4 and assign them to their semifinal sites. In addition, they are responsible for the New Years Six bowls. When the committee decides the Top 4 teams to play for the Playoff, the following factors are considered. The official website of the college football playoff states:
When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered:
- Championships won (Conference)
- Strength of schedule
- Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)
- Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)
This is the four main principles when looking into their protocol. While the protocol for such situations seems valid, it is not well thought. For example, if we were to look back into 2011, Alabama was seected to play for the BCS National Championship, even though they didn't win their conference (LSU - whom was in the same division - won the SEC Title). Meanwhile, Oklahoma State had a similar record [11-1] and won its BIG 12 Title, but was selected as the #3 seed while Bama was #2. Alabama was statisically the better team, as it was seen when they clobbered #1 LSU 21-0 in the Title Game. There are better teams not selected simly because they didn't win their Conference Championship, an it seems ludacrious why they are snubbed.
2. Is the selection of the committee biased?
The College Football Playoff Committee is believed to be biased solely because of Humans making decisions impacting the landscape of the playoff race. The Human factor cannot take into part the outcome of a controversial ending any better than a Computer System. If you take the Miami lateral return as an example, an agreement on the overall talent of Miami will never be reached because of the conflict within the game. Some members may argue that Duke won the game because the knee of Mark Walton was down, therefore it should be viewed as a Miami loss within the committee. Others would argue that Miami won the game outrights, as some questionable calls and a controversial TD by Thomas Sirk benefited Duke on what was a ruled at end a Miami WIN. There philosophy is that some things just can't be determined by humans. It is one bold claim stated, as the committee doesn't show a hint of biasness. Members are spread out based on occupation, their demographic, and their geography (West-Coast, Texas, etc.).
3. Does the playoff fix the BCS Buster issue?
Throughout most of the 2000's, the BCS Buster has been defined as Non AQ teams busting into the BCS Bowls. Non AQ teams are teams who aren't qualifyed for a certain bowl game [I.E: Rose, Sugar, etc.]. We see these teams mostly from the Minor Conferences in the NCAA, such as the Sun Belt, Mountain West, etc. Teams such as Boise State and TCU busted onto the scene before, but under the BCS rules, it was extremely hard for a Minor Conference team to make the National Title Game, let alone a BCS Bowl. Those system were set up so that a team had to go undefeated (and win convicingly) in order to even get consideration for entering the top ten and a quality bowl game. Under the new Playoff system, the impression was that if a Minor Conference team goes undefeated and has the resume to compete with the best, they should automatically be entered in a NY6 Bowl, and deserve consideration for the Playoff. There is already a rule taking place in which the best Non-Power 5 Conference team is guarenteed to play in a NY6 Bowl. However, the current state of these underrated teams is cloudy, as we don't know their value iin the Playoff/NY6 Game. In 2014, Marshall went 11-0 and needed one more game to be undefeated. Their ranking in the CFP rankings? #24. Meanwhile this same year, Boise State - a team who likewise Marshall didn't defeat a Power 5 team (regular season) - was selected to play in the Fiesta Bowl; altough they had two losses. Last year, Houston came off one of their best years in program history. They finished 12-1 with a #8 final ranking in the CFP Ranking. Its best stretch came towards the end of the year, where they clobbered #16 Navy, dominated vs #20 Temple, and beat #9 Florida State. If they were to have a similar result next year (12-1; loss vs OU), would they get consideration for the playoff? Or would they settle for another NY6 Bowl? This leads me to:
MY PROPOSAL
In order to institute fair ground for every team available, I propose the new committee be set up of 20 members. 12 members of theis committee will be respresentatives for each conference. That ways, we have impartiality within the committeee when picking teams. Then 8 more members can be complied of former members, coaches, Athletic Directors, congressmen, etc. The group represents diversity within the NCAA. As far as determining the top four teams within the country, I am announcing that the NCAA make the following changes to simplify such process:
-Install a 12 game regular season schuedule for every conference, including independents. Within the 12 games, have 4 non-conference and 8 conference game for each team (Notre Dame can play 5). Such games can be apread out as they choose.
-Redefine the Requirements: Strength of Schedule, Margin of Victory, Key Victories, Win-Loss Record (Head to Head if applicable) are four major components of selecting the four teams to qualify for the Playoff. At the end of the year, the committee decides based on the components. Winning the conference doesnt guarentee a spot, your record will tell.
Follow Me on Twitter @JesusMartinezXV
Follow Us: @OTS_247
