The former Bowl Championship Series will be replaced by the College Football Playoff starting this winter. The change, announced in the summer of 2012, is unquestionably the sport’s most innovative transition in decades. The new format pits the nation’s top-ranked team against the fourth-ranked school in either the Rose Bowl or the Sugar Bowl on New Year’s Day, while the second and third-ranked teams will play in the other Bowl. The final two teams then face off in the National Championship Game on Jan. 12 in Arlington, Texas.
College football fans pled for years to change the old, flawed BCS. However, as the chaotic scramble to choose the final four playoff teams continues, the new system is showing its inefficiencies.
The best way to determine a national champion is a large-scale tournament – like college basketball’s March Madness. Since a 68-team tournament is clearly not a viable option for football, the best alternative is an eight-team tournament. If eight teams made the playoffs, there would be a perfect level of competition and enough room for a massive upset. Additionally, judging a top eight would arguably be even easier than judging a top four.
The top two teams, according to the College Playoff Committee, – the No. 1 University of Alabama, and the No. 2 University of Oregon – will remain unchanged, assuming they win their respective conference championship games. The fourth spot, though, is still undecided.
Currently, Texas Christian University holds the No. 3 seed and Florida State University has the No. 4 seed. TCU was in the No. 5 slot before last week’s game, but a dominating performance over the University of Texas lifted them past the Seminoles in the rankings. FSU was previously No. 3 but has been consistently slipping in the rankings, despite being undefeated, due to unconvincing performances against inferior teams. Ohio State University and Baylor University are the nation’s only other teams besides TCU with one loss and have strong cases for a spot. As such, they should not be overlooked for the fourth playoff spot that currently belongs to FSU.
TCU lost to Baylor 61-58 on Oct. 11, and the two teams will not play again. So, why is Baylor not ranked higher than TCU? Isn’t a head-to-head matchup undoubtedly the most effective way of measuring a team’s strength?
On a professional level, consider the NFL Week 11 matchup between the Denver Broncos and the St. Louis Rams on Nov. 16. Denver has not left the top five of ESPN’s power rankings all season long. St. Louis has yet to break 21. Still, though, the Rams handled the Broncos with ease, limiting one of the NFL’s most potent offenses to just seven points. There is little debate over which team is better when discussing the Rams and Broncos. However, in a head-to-head matchup on that specific day, St. Louis punished Denver.
At the collegiate level, consider No. 3 (at the time No. 1) Boston University men’s hockey. Though top-flight BU has compiled a better record this season, it recently lost to an unranked Dartmouth College team. To the Terriers’ credit, it was BU’s fifth game in 10 days. If these two were to play 10 times, BU could win nine of the matchups. This time, Dartmouth got the better of the Terriers.
The bottom line is that the better team does not always win a given game. This fact requires analysts to base their decisions on what would “most likely happen” in a completely neutral environment.
Additionally, the rest of the AP Rankings will surely be shaken up after last weekend’s rivalry action. No. 16 Georgia Institute of Technology knocked off rival No. 9 University of Georgia 30-24 in overtime. No. 11 University of Arizona held on to defeat its nemesis No. 13 Arizona State University by a score of 42-35. Unranked Stanford University pulverized No. 8 University of California – Los Angeles, 31-10. Most importantly to the rankings, though, No. 4 Mississippi State University fell to No. 19 University of Mississippi 31-17.
Members of the selection committee base their analysis on review of game video, statistics and their own expertise. They will stress obvious factors like win-loss records, strength of schedule, conference championships and both head-to-head and other common opponent results.
The College Football Playoff is a significant improvement over the BCS, but it is still not perfect. Ranking the rest of the top 25 will be a struggle, as it always was with the BCS and as it always will be with the CFP. In reality, the rest of the standings do not matter in the examination of the CFP’s new format. However, an unavoidable conflict still remains because a four-team playoff does not allow for enough separation among teams.
The fact that the BCS is now history is a huge leap forward for college football. The CFP, though a huge improvement over the BCS, is far from flawless. Although the current CFP model is under contract until 2025, do not be surprised to see talks of extending the four-team playoff to an eight-team one. It would not only increase revenue, but also intensify competition.
The main problem with the BCS was that teams could be voted into the National Championship game without a high-pressure contest to send them there. The CFP adds a new competitive dynamic that the BCS lacked. I never liked that a team could just be “voted in” to the National Championship Game. Now, the top four teams compete to truly earn their chance at glory. The only way the CFP could get any better is if more teams competed against each other.
I agree with you completely. The CFP is much better than the BCS system. And, especially your last sentence, “The only way the CFP could get any better is if more teams competed against each other.”
Oh . . . wait . . . TCU and Baylor did compete against each other this year and Baylor WON!
If you want to call yourself a “journalist” then keep your story straight and consistent!