Biggest problems facing College Football Playoff remain — and the SEC is partly to blame
By: Dan Wetzel - Yahoo! SportsSMU edged out Alabama for the final at-large spot in the College Football Playoff — meaning just three SEC teams (No. 2 Georgia, No. 5 Texas and No. 9 Tennessee) are in the 12-team field.
This could result in the SEC demanding the playoff expand to 14 or 16 teams with four or more automatic spots for its teams.
If so, it would be taking a howitzer to a gnat.
Two things kept the Crimson Tide out of the playoff.
The first is obvious: a horrific 24-3 loss at a lousy Oklahoma team a couple weeks ago, coupled with Clemson drilling a dramatic 56-yard, final-play, game-winning field goal to steal a bid as the ACC champion.
The difference between SMU and Alabama was a matter of millimeters — and philosophy. There was no good or bad choice here. Both sides had a decent case, but also self-inflicted negatives.
The second factor, however, was that the selection committee was boxed into what it could do with its final rankings because of decisions it made in previous weeks while compiling mock rankings. Because the committee put SMU ahead of Alabama last week — in a ranking off of incomplete data and designed solely for its promotional value — there was little the Crimson Tide could do.
To move SMU down because of a championship game loss in its 13th game when Alabama played just 12 and sat at home would have been philosophically and intellectually unsound — although it has been done before. To do so would have punished SMU for reaching a conference title game and perhaps have caused future teams to try to skip it.
That shouldn’t be a factor though.
If Alabama is angry or frustrated, it shouldn’t be with the selection committee's decision on Sunday, it should be that the system was set up with great influence from the SEC itself.
Those weekly rankings prohibited the committee from making a full and holistic final decision on Sunday.
Would it have changed the results? Who knows? Again, this is very close and SMU is deserving. That said, it should have occurred.
Instead, the final rankings — and this applies to numerous seeding decisions, including Tennessee’s very strong case to host a playoff game but likely being blocked due to prior determinations — shouldn’t be impacted by marketing ploys.
It is the tail wagging the sport.
The weekly rankings need to be eliminated.
It was designed to create interest and debate in a sport that is already overloaded with interest and debate. It is a ratings burst for ESPN each week. Yet in the end, it either locks the selection committee in or risks backlash for reversing course before it should ever have to lock anything in.
SMU was protected from losing that extra, 13th game but not all games and schedules are equal. A 12-game slate can be more challenging than a 15-game slate, depending on who everyone plays. You want the full scope of data, metrics and consideration before determining anything.
The committee didn’t get that. If there was only one ranking at the end of the season, the entire field might have looked or been seeded differently. We’ll never know.
There are two other simple changes that would help an otherwise excellent system — forget the current shrieking, choosing between two flawed teams is better than leaving out 13-0 Florida State.
First off, enough with the top four seeds needing to be conference champions. Just pick the top four teams. The process is confusing and it creates imbalance in the bracket.
Boise State is ranked No. 9 but seeded third. Arizona State is ranked No. 11 but seeded fourth. Both get a bye. This is forced. Dump it. Potentially reseeding the teams each round — even though college sports loves the immovable bracket of March Madness — wouldn’t be the worst idea either.
And finally, give home field for the quarterfinals, at least.
Right now the first-round sites will be on campuses — No. 9 Tennessee at No. 8 Ohio State, No. 10 Indiana at No. 7 Notre Dame, No. 11 SMU at No. 6 Penn State and No. 12 Clemson at No. 5 Texas.
Bringing those environments into the postseason will be one of the most appealing and significant developments. The problem is it isn’t extended to the next round. Instead, in a sweet deal for the bowl industry, those games will be played at neutral sites.
That isn’t a good deal for Oregon, who because of the quirky seeding and the favor to the bowl lobby, finds that its reward for going 13-0 and being the No. 1 seed is to play Ohio State or Tennessee (the sixth- and seventh-ranked teams in the rankings) in the Rose Bowl.
Put the game in Eugene and at least the Ducks get some advantage. And yes, they do get a “bye” but they also had to play a 13th game this weekend to secure it while the Buckeyes and Volunteers stayed home and have played only 12. In the end it’s the same number of games.
Meanwhile, Penn State, which Oregon beat in the Big Ten title game, gets 10th-seeded SMU at home and then third-seeded Boise State (the ninth- and 10th-ranked teams) in the Fiesta Bowl. That’s the preferable path, at least on paper.
If college football wants to retain the value of the regular season, then extend home-field advantage and make it matter. It would also help the fans, who can’t travel to all these games.
Overall, despite the hand-wringing, the playoff is great. Don’t blow it up because it isn’t perfect. The SEC helped create this system. It can lead the way in tweaking it.
