It would be an understatement to suggest that college football has never had a successful postseason. Furthermore, even though the 2024 college football postseason expansion seems to be a success, the ruling class has established an elite rather than inclusive system. In the end, this approach may cause college football to become smaller, which would be detrimental to everyone in the long run.
Over the past 40 years, all college football fans have wanted is a better method for selecting a champion. And all that the ruling class has done is figure out ways to enrich the larger programs at the expense of maybe starving and reducing the size of everyone else who is not a member of the two biggest conferences.
Miami, a school I’ve loved since I was a kid, is a perfect example. Given their 10-2 record and a 9-3 Alabama record, it looks like the Hurricanes will not be included in the 12-team playoff field (which will be revealed on Sunday). With a smaller fan base and a lesser TV contract, Miami competes in the ACC. With a bigger fan base and a bigger TV deal, Alabama competes in the SEC. The playoff committee ranked No. 11 Alabama higher than No. 12 Miami because they had better victories and losses against more formidable opponents, even though Alabama had one fewer victory and one more loss.
Stuart Mandel of The Athletic pointed out this week that the issue with that reasoning is that the committee’s priorities vary from year to year and even week to week.
Generally speaking, a close loss is preferable to a blowout loss. However, Alabama is thought to have a better record than Miami this season, despite losing 24-3 to a 6-6 Oklahoma squad two weeks ago. In contrast, the Hurricanes have lost twice, both by a total of nine points!
However, despite having an inferior record, the committee this year determined that the Crimson Tide had greater wins.
I’m not here to argue over which measure is more important. You can debate the strength of the schedule, the number of points in the margin of victory, and wins compared to less losses. The only thing I’m requesting is that the guidelines remain consistent each year, each week, and for each team you rank.
All three of those criteria are not met by this college football committee.
Because they only applied the margin of victory to specific teams in the rankings, they have been erratic in their decisions about whether or not it matters. In the past, ten victories made the difference between a strong and a mediocre season. It seems that nine victories is sufficient these days. For the first time, three losses were not viewed as a bad thing this year.
Additionally, a subjective college football committee that has more financial incentives and connections to the SEC than any other league is choosing to place an SEC team with one more loss ahead of an ACC club for the second consecutive year.
More from Sports
-
The College Football Playoff bracket is almost set. How safe is your favorite team?
-
Manischewitz to sponsor first Jewish quarterback in BYU history
-
Are the Lakers still a championship contender? All signs point to no
You might think that the only reason I’m upset this year is because Miami is suffering as a result of this. Florida State’s one-loss performance last year infuriated me as well. I knew that Miami might easily suffer the same fate as the Seminoles this year, and sure enough, that’s exactly what occurred. It might be Iowa State, Colorado, or Clemson the next year.
We require complete transparency: state from the start of the season that the ACC will not allow a club with two or more defeats to advance to the playoffs without winning the conference championship game. Say so if you want the ACC and Big 12 to be held to a higher standard.
I understand. It’s a TV program, as my friend Tony Kornheiser likes to remark. However, it’s not entirely merit-based and it’s not a playoff. It is predicated on historical perception and fan bases.
In the end, it is detrimental to business to try to keep more conferences and teams out of the SEC and Big Ten duopoly. There will not be more college football fans overall as a result of this two-conference invitational.
My solution is as follows: Establish some fundamental measurements up front.
Only if they win their conference or there aren’t enough 1 or 2-loss teams to qualify would a 3-loss team be allowed in. I have this crazy idea that wins should always be worth more than losses. Call me insane.
Then, it’s wonderful if you want to rank the conferences according to schedule strength. The top conference may receive four teams. There are three bids for the No. 2 conference, two for the No. 3 conference, and one each for the fourth and fifth conferences.
However, the committee currently bases its ranking on the projected wins and losses at the start of the year, rather than the actual wins and losses at the end of the year.
Make the process visible regardless of whether you follow these suggestions or something else. Don’t let it fluctuate every week according to the whims of your business associates in the media or at conferences. Together, let’s elevate college football.
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!