Yes, I know what you're thinking: this is not college basketball. That is correct. I don't give nearly as much attention to CFB as I do CBB, but right now football is in full swing. Basketball, you can have your time, but please be patient and wait until January. Also, this is my blog, and I can post whatever I want on here.
As a bracketologist, I, by nature, love the art of predicting how a group of human beings in a room will rank a given subset of teams. It can be frustrating at times, especially considering that the selection committee is not immune to inconsistencies with its stated criteria. Following Selection Sunday, I wrote about exactly this. Bubba Cunningham and Keith Gill were talking nonsense, offering statements I flat out disagreed with for one reason or another. However, it could be a lot worse: enter Hunter Yurachek and the College Football Playoff Committee.
Writing on the Wall
Following rivalry week, Notre Dame fell behind Alabama in the rankings for no good reason. Although I was surprised, I didn't have a problem with it since the Tide objectively played a much more difficult schedule than the Irish to have the same record. A home win over USC does not compare to wins at Georgia, vs Vandy, and at Mizzou. When asked about the change, though, Yurachek said that the committee was impressed with their victory over Auburn that past weekend. Anyone who actually watched the game would know that Bama was lucky to come out of Jordan-Hare with a victory, while Notre Dame flew across the country and curb-stomped Stanford. I suspected that the committee retroactively realized that the Crimson Tide had a better resume than the Fighting Irish but were too chicken to admit they were initially wrong. While not ideal, I could accept this scenario.
The 11th Hour Change
This is what caused public outrage and prompted me to write this post; heading into conference championship week, the rankings from 9-12 were as follows:
9. Alabama (10-2)
10. Notre Dame (10-2)
11. BYU (11-1)
12. Miami (10-2)
After Alabama and BYU got crushed by Georgia and Texas Tech, respectively, and Notre Dame and Miami sat on the couch, here were the new rankings:
9. Alabama (10-3)
10. Miami (10-2)
11. Notre Dame (10-2)
12. BYU (11-2)
There's a lot wrong with how the rankings changed, but let's first address the gargantuan elephant in the room: Miami jumped Notre Dame with neither team playing a game. Their explanation? According to Yurachek, they dropped BYU a spot for its loss to Texas Tech, suddenly allowing them to compare Notre Dame and Miami side-by-side, for which Miami won out due to the head-to-head tiebreaker.
I cannot begin to tell you how utterly stupid this logic is.
And before you ask, no, I am not some crazy Notre Dame supporter or Miami hater. If I were in charge of this year's CFP, I would have BYU in over both for playing a tougher schedule and having a better record (even if you include their second loss to TTU). It's simply idiotic that the BYU buffer (or lack thereof) affects whether the committee views Notre Dame or Miami more favorably. If they think the Hurricanes have a better resume than the Fighting Irish, or vice versa, that should hold in the rankings regardless of whatever teams may come between them. This selective application of head-to-head leads to my hottest take...
Head-to-Head is a Poor Criterion
Now, before you start shouting slurs and swear words from your keyboard or mobile device, telling me that I am completely ludicrous, please hear me out. The committee is tasked with selecting the five best conference champions and the seven best at-large teams to fill out the college football playoff. Typically, "best" has really meant "most deserving," "best resume," or "best body of work," but this is good for the sport because it incentivizes playing the games and, most importantly, winning. I've already stated that the Cougars would be in my personal playoff, but who would I rank higher between Miami and Notre Dame?
Well, it's the Irish, and it's not that difficult.
"But the Canes played them and won," I can already hear. First, Miami won by a field goal in Coral Gables. Are we really saying that's definitive proof that Miami would win on a neutral site where most CFP games are played? Everyone knows that homefield advantage is a real thing in college football, and this could create a dangerous precedent of teams being scared to schedule road games against possible CFP competition. If the committee values the head-to-head the same regardless of where the game is played, why play it on the road?
This brings me to my core argument: the Hurricanes' victory over Notre Dame is merely a staunch contributor to their body of work and does not indicate that they should be ranked above the Irish, even if their records are the same. Notre Dame beat a pretty good USC team, generally looked more dominant in their wins, and did not fall to unranked foes like Miami in the form of Louisville and SMU. My brain tells me that the Irish, in spite of their defeat to the Canes, have a better overall resume (I would also argue Alabama over Oklahoma for similar reasons, but I am more content with OU > Bama since the Sooners won in Tuscaloosa and Bama's poor championship performance).
This is further corroborated by ESPN's metrics, where Notre Dame sweeps Miami across Strength of Record (SOR), Football Power Index (FPI), and SP+. I could extend this to include Game Control (GC) and Average Win Probability (AVGWP), and the Irish would still come out on top. I don't care about Strength of Schedule (SOS) because SOR directly tells me how impressive a team's record is given their schedule, so ND performs better there as well as both teams are 10-2. If we want a non-ESPN pair of eyes, Notre Dame also ranks above Miami in FEI. While they are in a similar ballpark across all of these metrics, the fact that the Hurricanes find themselves behind the Fighting Irish in every single one is pretty telling. Let me ask you, if Miami had instead beat an Oklahoma or Ole Miss while Notre Dame lost to Utah, would we still be arguing for the Hurricanes over the Irish? I don't think so.
You could easily tell me that the committee acknowledged Notre Dame's analytical superiority across all metrics, whether results-based or predictive, and would keep them ahead regardless of head-to-head, and I'd believe it. So, why the last-minute change? It's not because committee members decided to rewatch their Week 1 tilt as Yurachek alluded to.
"The Committee Ran Out of Ways to Keep Notre Dame Ahead of Miami"
I've heard this one a lot: Twitter, YouTube, and friends (yes, they do exist). It's simply not true. Yurachek claimed that BYU's fall forced a head-to-head comparison, which, while awful reasoning, the committee had more logically sound workarounds if they were adamant about keeping the Irish in and the Canes out. Remember, the Cougars fell one spot after their blowout loss. If the committee also dropped the Crimson Tide a spot for their demolition via Georgia (which I would argue was an even less competitive game than TTU-BYU), we would have:
9. Notre Dame (10-2)
10. Alabama (10-3)
11. Miami (10-2)
12. BYU (11-2)
Conversely, the committee decided to not punish Alabama for their defeat at the hands of the Bulldogs, which I believe is also a fair process because these teams are playing an extra game by merit. If the committee applied the same logic, not punishing BYU for losing to the Red Raiders, the rankings would be:
9. Alabama (10-3)
10. Notre Dame (10-2)
11. BYU (11-2)
12. Miami (10-2)
While I would personally not have teams drop for poor performances in conference championship games, I don't blame the committee for choosing otherwise. We are human, after all, and it's difficult to not get swayed upon receiving new information. I will, however, bash them for the inconsistency. There is no reason why Alabama gets a pass while BYU gets punished. And no, being inside vs outside the projected playoff isn't a valid reason. This is about process. The committee chairman, in essence, argued that BYU's loss put Miami in the playoff over Notre Dame. Make it make sense. Something else is at play...
Collusion, Collusion, Collusion
I truly do not want to get into politics or conspiracies when discussing the rationale behind why certain teams may be in or get left out, but it's impossible to avoid with how the process unfolded. I do think a game played during Champ Week lead to the eventual swap of Notre Dame for Miami, but it wasn't the Big 12:
Meet your ACC champions, the 8-5 Duke Blue Devils.
"Jonah, how does Duke defeating Virginia put Miami in the CFP?" you might be asking. Yes, not only were neither of these teams in consideration for an at-large bid, but Miami never faced off against either of these teams. The answer is simple: ESPN (who runs the CFP) wanted an ACC team in the field, and Miami was the only viable suitor. Virginia would have slotted in as the 11-seed had they taken care of business against Duke, but the Blue Devils could not seriously be in the playoff over 12-1 James Madison, no matter the difference in schedule. It was Miami or nobody.
It makes perfect sense; all ACC games are on ESPN, and there's even an ACC Network. In terms of favorite children, they're next up for ESPN after the SEC: the Big Ten is all FOX, the Big 12 is mixed, and no other conference approaches power status. I fully believe that panic ensued after Duke won the ACC, and ESPN was scrambling to find a defensible way to sneak one of the conference's teams in. The network may have fooled some people, but I was not one of them.
Clear Brand Hierarchy
At the end of the day, college football is a business from all angles. ESPN wants the biggest brands in the dance so that they can make the most money. I get it. This raises another question: if it's about brands, why was Miami put in when Notre Dame is as notable, if not a larger brand?
The answer lies in comparing teams to teams and teams to conferences. ESPN realizes that few teams are more recognizable than the Irish, and, while they may have more sway than Miami on its own, they do not have more influence than the entire ACC. This is further cemented by Notre Dame's TV contract with NBC rather than ESPN. Thus, the committee decided it was more important for a P4 conference to have CFP representation than a singular, albeit influential brand.
If we look back at the rankings, it may explain why Notre Dame was in the projected bracket up until Sunday; there was always a projected ACC team in the CFP, so the committee had no problem leaving Miami out until Duke became the champion. Again, Notre Dame has more recognition than Miami, not the ACC. Go back a week further, and the Alabama-Notre Dame swap makes more sense: the committee realized that Duke could win and wanted to set up a Miami-Notre Dame swap in such an event. Imagine how much more awful a look it would have been if the Fighting Irish fell behind multiple teams (including one that lost by 21 points) en route to being bounced from the playoff.
Let's not forget about the surrounding teams: Alabama, while deservedly in the top 10, trumps them all. This was evident by moving up after an unimpressive win at Auburn and failing to fall after a disastrous loss to Georgia. I can easily reason that the committee did not want Alabama to miss the playoff in favor of the Irish, so they made that little swap in the event of a BYU victory. As for the Cougars, they are clearly last in the pecking order. You could easily make an argument for them to be slotted at 8 ahead of Oklahoma, for they had a stronger SOR and FPI heading into Champ Week, with both teams having suffered a convincing defeat to a ranked team from Texas. BYU's body of work wasn't terribly far off from those of Texas A&M and Ole Miss, making brand the only logical explanation for not only their CFP exclusion, but their drop post-Champ Week while Alabama remained stagnant. While I don't think the Cougars are one of the ten best teams, they were clearly one of the ten most deserving.
Moving Forward
Where do we go from here? I'm not sure what exactly will change since the NCAA appears powerless, but I expect there to be no more weekly CFP rankings. You can justify the outcome, but not the process. There would not be nearly as much outrage had there only been one ranking after the conference championship games with these 12 teams. They could have one preview show a month out from the final rankings, akin to college basketball's Selection Sunday preview, but nothing more.
As mentioned, I also expect teams to be more hesitant to schedule CFP-caliber opportunities on the road. For fairness, teams may negotiate a home-and-home, so the benefit is felt by both teams, but I expect to start seeing more high-profile neutral site non-conference games. Otherwise, some teams may realize this and heavily pound the table to play the game at their venue while more clueless institutions fail to understand the subtle benefit.
Lastly, I anticipate that expansion is not done. Whether it's to 16 as has been proposed, 24 like the FCS, or any other number, more teams = more money. No matter the number, teams barely on the outside will always complain that they should have been in, perpetuating a cycle of expansion for all eternity. While I would rally for BYU, others have gone to bat for Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, and even Texas. This was a pretty abnormal year with the top 15 teams (I didn't forget about you, Utah) all having reasonable at-large cases in any given year with a 12-team playoff. This will only accelerate expansion talks, even if it's only fair that some playoff-caliber teams get left out since they didn't do enough during the season to warrant inclusion.
At the end of the day, college football can and will do what it wants. Very interested to see the direction of the sport in the future.
Comments
Post a Comment