Precedents Established in The CFP

By Kris Mead

Last night I had the pleasure to watch four men converse about nonsense for twenty-nine minutes. ESPN’s College Football Playoff Selection Committee Show (“CFP Show”) is a thirty-minute TV airing that could be better done without being a show all by itself. The TV program’s purpose is to provide the American people with the College Football Selection Committee’s Playoff Rankings for each week. The most important rankings are the last rankings – after all the conference championships are covered. ESPN would be better off simply posting the ranking online like a high school basketball coach posting the list of players who made the team does on the outside of his office door.

The first sixty seconds are worthwhile since that’s when America gets to see what America has been waiting for – the Committee’s revised top 25 ranking. More importantly, especially as the season gets near the end, America only cares about the top 6 – those who have a shot at making the College Football Playoffs. After this critical sixty seconds is up, the four commentators will then commence with their 29 minutes of slippery slope illogical fallacies. In this installment, the main discussion was whether number 6 Ohio State would make the playoff over number 5 Oklahoma. Jesse Palmer, a Canadian, turned University of Florida quarterback, turned star on ABC’s show The Bachelor, believed that Ohio State was the better team because of how they played against, at the time ranked number 4, Michigan. Palmer believed that that single game was enough for Ohio State to discredit all of Oklahoma’s accomplishments. However, Palmer wasn’t the only pearly white toothed, well groomed, fitted suit wearing, former SEC football player, mid thirty-year-old, who could muster an illogical fallacy as David Pollack wanted to give his take on the Oklahoma v. Ohio State debate too. Pollack believed, almost as if someone (possibly a producer??) told him to pick the opposite side of Palmer, stated that Oklahoma should beat out Ohio State as they have proven consistently that they can play effectively against good competition, albeit never played as complete a game as what Ohio State displayed against Michigan. Then the last commentator is the man who always seems upset with his “own” opinions, as if he might not really believe his own opinions but really takes the side that ESPN has instructed him to argue, in  Joey Galloway. I believe Galloway realizes that what he is about to say is either obvious or obviously stupid, but knowing ESPN writes his checks, Joey has no choice but to abide by their senseless nonsense (as an aside, Galloway resembles how most Americans feel at work). In this episode Joey decided to let everyone know that because Alabama is so good, and the fact that last year Alabama got into the playoffs without even being in the SEC conference championship game, that that was enough for Alabama to rightfully get in this year. As much as Joey’s opinion is obvious, as even Pollack and Palmer agreed with him, his reasoning is sound – as it rests upon past precedent or, stare decisis.

The CFP Show will become less and less necessary so long as (1) the College Football Playoffs stay at a relatively small number, such as 4 and (2) more past precedent is established. The very first College Football Playoff was, and as anticipated, unpredictable for the very fact that nothing like this had been tried in college football before. However, the same debate occurred then as is occurring now – a fight for the number 4 slot. In 2014 it was a three-way fight between Baylor, TCU, and Ohio State. The precedent that was established was that a conference championship game, which the Big Ten had and Ohio State won (handedly as they beat Wisconsin 59-0), and the Big 12 did not have, keeping TCU/Baylor out of the playoff. This precedent made sense as the other three playoff teams were conference champions as well – Alabama (SEC), Oregon (PAC-12), and Florida State (ACC). This precedent caused the Big 12 to apply for a conference championship game, which required the Big 12 to receive a waiver from the NCAA, since a conference must have at least 12 teams in order to have a conference championship.

In the 2015-2016 College Football Playoff year the “confusion” was minimal, but the results were dismal. The four teams to make the playoffs were all conference champions: Clemson (ACC), Alabama (SEC), Oklahoma (Big 12), and Michigan State (Big Ten). However, the semifinals were anything but eventful. Clemson devoured Oklahoma 31-17 and Alabama routed Michigan State 38-0. These games were so brutal that ESPN gave $20 million back to advertisers because viewership was so low. So, whether the NCAA wants to admit it or not, another precedent was set: make sure the playoffs are competitive. So, if conference champions don’t determine whether a team is competitive, what does? A la the 2016-2017 College Football Playoffs.

In the 2016-2017 College Football Playoffs there was unpredictability as one of the four playoffs team was not a conference champion – Ohio State. The playoff participants were: Clemson (ACC Champs), Alabama (SEC Champs), Washington (PAC-12 Champs), and Ohio State (Big Ten). Penn State, who won the Big Ten and beat Ohio State in the regular season, was left out of the playoffs. Ironically the Selection Committee noted that the choice was not between Ohio State and Penn State, but rather Washington and Penn State. The Committee noted that both Washington and Penn State had weak out of conference schedules, but because Penn State had a loss to Pittsburgh and Michigan, that that was the reason why they were left out. It’s still hard not to notice the elephant in the room – Ohio State. Ohio State was the anomaly.  The committee believed that although Ohio State failed to win its conference and its division, it was still more talented than its conference champion, and a team that beat Ohio State head to head, in Penn State. However, the semifinal results were still not inspiring – Alabama easily defeated Washington 24-7 and Clemson destroyed Ohio State 31-0. However, viewership was up, albeit not as much as it was for the first college football playoffs.  It did help that the semi-finals were not on Thursdays. Precedent: talent overtakes conference champions and head to head wins don’t matter.

So, if the 2015-2016 committee can be considered the most “conservative,” and 2016-2017 the most “extreme”, then the 2017-2018 committee can be considered the most “pragmatic.” In this playoff selection the committee would use precedents from the past to come to their conclusions. First the playoff teams were: Clemson (ACC Champs), Georgia (SEC Champs), Oklahoma (Big 12 Champs), and Alabama (SEC). Here the committee did two things. First it strictly picked the best four teams.  This is exemplified by the second factor – that the committee chose two teams from the same conference – the SEC champion, Georgia, and Alabama. Notice, that the runner-up in the SEC, or the team that lost to Georgia in the SEC championship, Auburn, was not included in the playoffs. The precedent was set: that past success in the playoffs, holds equity. This precedent would pay off as the semifinals and the championship were competitive. Alabama beat Georgia, in overtime, to win the national championship.

So, let’s turn to the present. Currently there are six teams in contention for the four playoff spots: Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Ohio State. The issue that the CFP Show focuses on is whether Ohio State or Oklahoma should get in. This argument assumes that Georgia will lose to Alabama in the SEC Championship game, however, it depends how close the loss is. For instance, if Georgia only loses to Alabama by less than seven points, would either Oklahoma or Ohio State be able to (1) beat Alabama but, more importantly, (2) keep it so competitive that they are within a score of beating Alabama? If the answer to either of these questions is no, then even with Georgia’s SEC championship loss they would still be the “best” team to play any of the other teams ahead of it. So the precedent would be: not all wins are created equally, neither are all losses.