Who’ll Make the College Football Playoff? [UPDATED]
The Committee has some hard choices to make.
The conference championship games produced some surprises:
- #1 Ohio State narrowly lost to #2 Indiana in the Big Ten
- #9 Alabama lost big to #3 Georgia to win the SEC
- unranked 7-5 Duke beat #17 Virginia to win the ACC
This will leave the committee some tough choices.
The rankings going into the weekend:
1 Ohio State 12-0
2 Indiana 12-0
3 Georgia 11-1
4 Texas Tech 11-1
5 Oregon 11-1
6 Ole Miss 11-1
7 Texas A&M 11-1
8 Oklahoma 10-2
9 Alabama 10-2
10 Notre Dame 10-2
11 BYU 11-1
12 Miami 10-2
Complicating matters is that, while it’s a 12-team field, the top five conference champions are guaranteed a spot. Because only three of the conference champions (Indiana, Georgia, and Texas Tech) are in the top 12, the 11th- and 12th-ranked teams will be left out of the tournament.
Because this is only the second year of this format, we really don’t have much precedent to rely on.
Under the four-team playoff, which lasted from 2014 to 2023, the conference championships were effectively a play-in. There were five so-called Power Conferences and only four spots. So, the four top-ranked conference champions usually got into the tournament, unless one of the non-champions (Notre Dame, which is not in a conference, or team that either lost or didn’t qualify for its conference title game) was considered “demonstrably better.”
With the expanded field, though, the conference championship games became a competitive liability. They were another chance to lose a game and/or get key players injured while teams that didn’t qualify could back into the tournament while resting up.
Because they are so lucrative, however, the conference commissioners wanted to save them. So, they guaranteed that the top four champions, regardless of ranking, got the top four seeds and a bye. That lasted precisely one year, as the ludicrousness of 9th-ranked Boise State and and 12th-ranked Arizona State getting byes over much stronger teams were too much to bear.
Additionally, the committee made it clear that teams wouldn’t be punished for participating in the extra game. So, when 16th-ranked Clemson upset 10th-ranked SMU in the ACC title game, thus “stealing” a bid, SMU only dropped one spot, staying in the tournament.
So, back to this year:
How far will Ohio State, the committee’s top team all year, drop?
ESPN’s Heather Dinich, whose entire beat for years has been shadowing the committee, believes they will drop just one spot to the 2-seed. Personally, I would drop them to 4th, behind conference champs Georgia and Texas Tech.
Will far will Alabama fall?
In the penultimate rankings, the committee moved Alabama, which had been ranked #10 the previous week, ahead of Notre Dame. This was interpreted as them saying that, even if Alabama were to lose, they would still remain in the tournament, dropping to no lower than 10th. (Remember, the 11th- and 12th- ranked teams will be left out in favor of much lower-ranked conference champions.)
Alas, Alabama lost by three touchdowns. (Granted, the last was a function of a desperation 4th-down attempt failing, giving Georgia an incredibly short field.)
Realistically, Alabama showed it doesn’t belong in the playoff. Even granting that several key players were injured, it’s just not the same team it was earlier in the season.
But there’s also the fairness issue: Alabama had to play an extra game that Notre Dame, Miami, and three teams that finished behind them in the SEC standings (there was a four-way tie at 7-1) didn’t. Punishing them for the loss seriously undermines the value of making the championship game.
Will the committee reassess Notre Dame and Miami?
Notre Dame lost a close game to Miami early in the year. They have the same record. Yet, in every rankings release, the committee has judged Notre Dame to be a significantly better team than Miami on the basis that Notre Dame lost two close games to top-notch opponents (including Miami!) while Miami had worse losses. It’s quite possible that the Alabama loss re-opens that conversation, giving Miami a chance to make the top 10.
Will 5-loss Duke make the playoff over a second Group of 6 team?
Almost everyone thinks the answer to this is No. But it’s also true that the ACC is a far, far stronger conference than the Sun Belt and the American. It’s absurd enough to include one of Tulane and James Madison. Are we really inviting both?
Best vs. Most Deserving?
Since its establishment at the advent of the four-team playoff, the committee has been charged with selecting the “best” teams rather than the “most deserving.” In reality—and, righly, in my view—it has split the difference. The games have to matter, so the fact that a team with multiple losses has a better roster and would be favored by Vegas against a team with no losses can’t be decisive. At the same time, we all understand that not all conferences or schedules are created equal. So, there’s inevitably subjectivity involved.
Dinich’s prediction:
- Indiana
- Ohio State
- Georgia
- Texas Tech
- Oregon
- Ole Miss
- Texas A&M
- Oklahoma
- Notre Dame
- Alabama
MiamiBYU- Tulane
- James Madison
How I’d rank them (given the requirement for five conference champions):
- Indiana
- Georgia
- Texas Tech
- Ohio State
- Ole Miss
- Texas A&M
- Oregon
- Oklahoma
- Miami
- Alabama
Notre DameBYU- Tulane
- Duke
I honestly don’t think there’s much separation among the top four teams; a case could be made for ranking them in any order. Indiana played a weaker schedule but is undefeated. The narrow win against Ohio State (which lost on a missed chip shot field goal) should and will give them the top seed. I’d rank the conference champs ahead of Ohio State.
The next four are similarly interchangable. I’d rank Oregon lower than the committee (and Dinich, who is predicting, not ranking) on the basis of schedule strength.
Notre Dame is almost certainly a better team at this point than Miami and Alabama. But the head-to-head against Miami has to matter. And, while Alabama now has a third loss, I’m not punishing them for playing a game neither Notre Dame nor Miami had to play.
Finally, the James Madison Dukes are arguably more deserving than the Duke Blue Devils, who are likely better. But they played zero ranked teams and, indeed, only one Power Four opponent, Louisville. And they lost that game by two touchdowns. Meanwhile, while Duke has played a Power Four schedule and won their conference championsip. They actually lost on the road to Tulane, so I’d seed them last.
How I think the committee will decide:
- Indiana
- Georgia
- Ohio State
- Texas Tech
- Oregon
- Ole Miss
- Texas A&M
- Oklahoma
- Alabama
- Miami
Notre DameBYU- Tulane
- James Madison
While Dinich has far better insight than I do to how they’re thinking, I do think they will value Georgia’s dominating performance in the SEC Championship—which avenged their only loss of the season—and catapult them ahead of Ohio State. While I think Texas Tech deserves to move up, too, I don’t think that will happen.
While the committee has said all year that they think Notre Dame is better than Miami despite the head-to-head, I think the pressure is mounting to flip that. And, again, I don’t think they’re going to drop the SEC Championship Game loser out of a 12-team field that includes three SEC teams that sat home watching the game.
And, no, I don’t think they’ll vote a five-loss Duke team into the tournament.
We shall know not long after noon.
UPDATE: The committee wound up with a hybrid of Dinich’s and my predictions:
After being on the outside looking in last year, Alabama and Miami can breathe a sigh of relief as the Crimson Tide and Hurricanes were the last at-large teams selected — ahead of Notre Dame — for the 12-team College Football Playoff field announced Sunday.
Undefeated Big Ten champion Indiana (13-0) earned the No. 1 seed, while two Group of 5 teams — American Conference champ Tulane (11-2) and Sun Belt victor James Madison (12-1) — were selected to the CFP field.
In addition to the Hoosiers, No. 2 seed Ohio State (12-1), No. 3 Georgia (12-1) and No. 4 Texas Tech (12-1) were awarded first-round byes, guaranteed to the four highest teams in the rankings.
The final rankings were:
1 Indiana 13-0
2 Ohio State 12-1
3 Georgia 12-1
4 Texas Tech 12-1
5 Oregon 11-1
6 Ole Miss 11-1
7 Texas A&M 11-1
8 Oklahoma 10-2
9 Alabama 10-3
10 Miami 10-211 Notre Dame 10-2
12 BYU 11-2
20 Tulane 11-2
24 James Madison 12-1
So,
- Ohio State (as Dinich predicted) only dropped to the 2-seed despite Georgia and Texas Tech being conference champs with the same record
- Alabama (as I predicted) dropped not at all, despite a blowout in a game others didn’t have to play
- Miami’s (as I predicted) head-to-head ultimately doomed Notre Dame
- And (as we both predicted) James Madison took the final spot over ACC champ Duke
In no world does a three loss Alabama team deserve to be in the playoffs. Espeically given how thoroughly dominant Georgia was in the game yesterday. Alabama never had a chance. And they DO NOT deserve to be in the playoffs. No three loss team should be in the playoffs.
@EddieInCA: I agree that they got dominated yesterday, and it wasn’t a fluky game like the Oklahoma loss. But, again, do we really want to punish a team for making the championship game of one of the two elite conferences while rewarding teams that sat at home? That includes three SEC teams, not just Notre Dame and Miami.
We are a happy family today about the outcomes (I went to IU and two of my kids went to Tech). However, I wonder if geography may play into the decision making. I mean, can’t have two teams from Indiana be chosen. Which leaves ND out. I notice no one talks about Texas which lost 3 games but beat A&M and Oklahoma. There will be some bitching about that.
I posted about this on the open thread.
Perusing a Reddit thread about this early this AM, I was struck by the ludicrous nature of much of the discussion.
You had people comparing the losses of ND and MIA, and the point margins in common games. They rated ND’s losses as better, because MIA and A&M are better than the two teams who beat MIA, Louisville and SMU. All the while ignoring that one of ND’s losses was to the comparison team. That is patently absurd.
Something that was pointed out descriptively once or twice was that the Miami’s win against ND wasn’t that close until the end. They did not claim that Miami dominated. More that they were in control for most of the second half of the game, and Cristobal’s conservative play calling on defense allowed the Irish to come back late. But here is a quantitative model that supports that view:
ESPN’s win probability model.
Miami started the second half with a 69.2% WP. It peaked at ~90%, and never dropped below 70% until late in the 4th, bottoming out at 55.9% with 3:21 left when ND tied it.
Sure, there is (near-)consensus among both subjective and quantitative advanced metrics rankings systems that ND is better, but the largest gap is still quite small.
Miami won the matchup by 3 at home, roughly the value of home field advantage. And I saw that sportsbooks would install ND as a 4-6 point favorite on a neutral field now.* But the difference in rankings and hypothetical point spread are not strong enough to overcome a H2H loss.
*I also suspect that people err when they assume that sportsbooks do not incorporate expected volume and gross dollar amounts when establishing the opening lines. Miami is certainly a storied brand and historically significant program, but ND is as public a team betting-wise, roughly equivalent to Dallas in the NFL. I doubt that in this sort of matchup, the opening price is solely based on the relative strength of the teams.
@James Joyner:
No. We punish them for LOSING the championship game – after two other losses – in a fashion that showed they didn’t belong on the field with Georgia. They don’t deserve it after being beaten so badly. Had they lost in overtime, or on a last second field goal, it would be a different conversation.
Having said that, I fully expect the committee to place them ahead of other, more deserving, two loss teams, putting them in the playoffs.
“The games have to matter.” Yes. And considering who would be a betting favorite is a corruption of the process. That said, Alabama’s loss in the conference championship game, essentially a post-season game, should not count against them (and I’m not normally an Alabama fan).
Drop the veil and let the money people behind the sports betting industry make the decision. The football teams for the powerhouse schools have almost no connection with the academic mission of the schools. If I’m hiring a young person for my business enterprise, I certainly look at their credentials from university, and the football team strength is not a factor. I would look at a kid from Carnegie Mellon more favorably than Texas Tech. Participants in college sports are way outside the spectrum of undergraduates. College sports are a arm of the gambling industry.
@Eusebio:
Uh…. horseshit. A conference championship is part of the regular season. NOT “essentially a post season game.” That one game is your ticket INTO the post season. So.. no. And they got their ass beat. yesterday. It wasn’t close, despite the score. Alabama was helped in their one touchdown by two penalties – one which was horseshit. They do not deserve a playoff spot with three losses.
They chose correctly between Miami and ND.
I think ND probably should have been in over Alabama, but I see both sides of the Bama question. They got their asses beat yesterday, but they also previously beat UGA in Athens. I have no answer for the 3 loss issue, though.
On the other hand, several things caused all of this bullshit.
Stupid ACC tiebreaker rules (seriously, a five loss team over multiple teams with better records?) and non-uniform procedures across the entire sport.
Too many teams in the premier division.
Inconsistent evaluation criteria not only between years, but between different teams within the same damn year.
And, of course, Notre Dame refusing to join a conference. Again, uniformity is good. If conf. Championship games are part of the criteria, teams eligible for CFP should be required to be in a conference.
@EddieInCA:
A second game against Georgia was not on their preseason schedule, and I stand by what I said. Yes, they got their ass beat yesterday, but they also beat Georgia earlier this year, and my overarching message is that the games matter. I’m not crazy about a 3-loss team making the playoff when a 1-loss team and a good 2-loss team get left out, but that’s just how the season went this year–for Alabama it was an opening loss to a mediocre Florida State followed by good season against a murderer’s row of opponents.
Speaking of FSU, it was a travesty that they weren’t in the playoff a couple of years ago under the previous system. It’s the games that matter, and perceived changes in the strength of teams at the end of the season due to injuries and personnel changes should not factor into the playoff berths.
@EddieInCA: The mentality has changed with the move from 4 to 12. Then, it was a play-in game, with the default being that the four top ranked P5 champs would get a spot. Now, it’s seen as an extra data point for seeding but with the proviso that losing shouldn’t put you out of the field if you were already in. Otherwise, it’s a competitive disadvantage to make the game.
Alabama was the top seed, but only because of arcane tiebreaker rules, in the SEC. Ole Miss and Texas A&M, which had the same league record, got to sit home and rest. They risked neither injury nor loss and were guaranteed a spot in the field. It would have been perverse to leave Alabama out, even though the performance was woeful.
@Eusebio: The committee was in an impossible position that year. For the first time in the history of the 4-team playoff (ironically, already known to be in its last year), six teams deserved a spot. Michigan, Washington, and FSU were undefeated conference champs. Alabama beat a Georgia team that was back-to-back defending national champions and hadn’t lost a game in two years in the SEC title game; both deserved to make the field. But Texas, 1-loss champion of the Big 12, had given Alabama its lone loss of the season.
Georgia was likely the easiest omission, even though they were arguably the best team. FSU’s injury situation gave the committee an excuse.
Should’ve been 16 team format anyway, after previous debacles.
If the SEC championship was a “essentially a post-season game” and Alabama lost it resoundingly, then their season should be over, as happens when you lose in the post-season. As usual, SEC apologists want to have it both ways. And get to.
I dislike Notre Dame as a committed USC fan so whatever tho lol
The basis of schedule strength is somewhat tenuous when you consider how much of that metric depends on teams in a competitive power conference like the SEC playing each other. There are 5 SEC teams in this year, but I have a hard time looking at the bracket and seeing any team not named Georgia making the semi-finals based on their play on the field the last month. OTOH, it would only take a minor upset (5 seed over 4) to find 3 Big Ten teams playing for the 2 slots in the National Championship.
The College Football Playoff Committee also has to decide who the nominees for the College Football Peace prize are, and how the competition will be run.
The smart money is on Donald J Trump, 47th President, winning in the end, although a dark horse candidate of Donald J. Trump, 45th President (whose policies of peace are having great dividends this year). A joint winner is entirely possible, with both the 45th and 47th President getting a trophy.
But, they still need to have a full roster of nominees.
I humbly proffer The Department of War as a possible nominee for the College Football Peace Prize.
@DK:
Waaaiiiit a minute. USC?
Not UGA?
Is it a rip out all non-family Georgia roots kind of thing?
I know it must be difficult for someone with your pedigree and allegiances, but damn do you seem resistant to giving the Hoosiers their due.
Indiana played a weaker schedule than whom? Please be specific and show your work.
It’s interesting how you characterize their win over Ohio State: “narrow” and caveated with a weak parenthetical.
How very magnanimous of you.
note: All the above was written in playful font. I don’t much care about this stuff and have been blessedly divorced from it this year while living on the other side of the planet.
@Kurtz: Well it’s not random, I graduated from USC.
Obviously as a native Georgian I look down on Alabama as state with requisite snobbery, and have a soft spot for Georgia sports teams. But I don’t actively dislike Bama, more a mild irritation.
Notre Dame, however, can rot. Flames on the side of my face.
Best case scenario for my fandom is Alabama losing badly in the playoffs (win), Notre Dame reacting to that with rage (win lololol), and UGA winning it all (win). And Lincoln Riley resigning, but that’s a different plotline.
@Mimai: I should like to see Indiana do well in the playoffs just to stick it to the smarmy Paul Finebaum. That guy has done the impossible, eclipsing Skip Bayless as the second-most insufferable sports-industrial-complex talking head. Kept only from the top spot because the cartoonishly annoying Uncle Tom sleazebag Stephen A. Smith is in galaxy of his own.
When we say professional sports is Drag Race for straight men (and yes, NCAA football is a pro sports league) these loudmouths are who we mean. But I guess when you get overpaid by tens of millions to talk about games, taking yourself and your games way too seriously comes with the territory.
@Mimai: I think Indiana was the clear #1 as the undefeated Big Ten champ. I’d have moved Georgia and Texas Tech, conference champs with the same record, ahead of Ohio State.
I think Cignetti has done the most remarkable job in the recent history of the sport. But Indiana also scheduled all non-power conference teams in the non-conference and, by luck of the draw, only played Oregon in the regular season, missing most of the better Big Ten teams. Ohio State (Texas), Georgia (Tech), Alabama (FSU, Wisconsin) and others at least scheduled name brand opponents.
@DK:
Ha! I will defer to your discerning palate (together with your professional judgment) when it comes to ranking these characters.
In this domain, I am an abstinence-only advocate.
@James Joyner:
[insert mirror emoji]
@Mimai: These games are usually scheduled years in advance, so it’s not possible to know how good they’ll be. But Texas and Ohio State, Notre Dame and Miami, Alabama and FSU, and Alabama and Wisconsin had every reason to think they were scheduling qualify opponents when they scheduled home-and-homes. If you schedule three non-Power Conference opponents, you’re trying to build cupcakes (and home gate revenues) into the schedule.
Alabama has done a bit of both, There has traditionally been one or two games against opponents a championship contented no business playing and two against a name brand opponent: Texas, Florida State, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Oklahoma State, Notre Dame, etc.
@DK:
I figured you attended USC, but did not feel the need to ask. You have revealed enough over the years that it seemed reasonable.
I was born in Cali. But inherited the Falcons from my dad, who adopted them for reasons that have never been clear to me. By happenstance, we ended up in Georgia after a few other places.
Old enough to have not picked up a Southern accent; young enough that I spent most of my non-college schooling was there.
I have no rooting interest in any particular college team. I mostly follow the NFL, but pay some attention to NBA and MLB, I’m Kings and Dodgers there. Never those despicable Giants. (Mays gets a pass).