When it comes to playoff pictures in both professional and collegiate sports, most would agree the College Football Playoff (CFP) is the most exciting playoff seeding of the year. But the exclusiveness of the CFP, and the tough choices the Committee faces year-to-year often results in Committee backlash. And now that the new playoff structure is introduced this postseason, the potential for debate only increases.
This season, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) decided to expand the CFP to a 12-team playoff, marking the first change since the introduction of the four-team playoff in 2014. However, the Committee didn’t just add eight more teams to their traditional structure; there are few exceptions to seeding the top-12 teams. First off, the conference champion of each of the top five conferences (Big Ten, SEC, ACC, Big 12, and Mountain West) are awarded an automatic bid to the CFP. Amongst those five champions, the four teams that are deemed the strongest by the Committee receive a first round bye. From there, the other seven teams included are chosen in traditional Committee fashion.
With the structure and exceptions to the CFP established, it’s easy to understand why a sports bracket can cause so much disagreement. Despite having more room to make a mistake, I’d say that the Committee was nearly perfect when creating the bracket. From every team chosen to the exact seed they were given, I do not believe the Committee made a single mistake.
Due to the specifics of the seeding, the Committee had the correct four champions receiving a bye. Oregon, Georgia, Boise State, and Arizona State, seeded in that order respectfully, all deserve their given ranking. The fifth conference champion, Clemson, ended up being the lowest seeded team in the entire tournament, getting matched-up against Texas. Ohio State is set to face Tennessee, Penn. State plays SMU, and Indiana is tasked with Notre Dame.
Almost everyone would agree that the 12 teams that the Committee chose are the correct 12 teams. All of these teams, with the exception of Clemson, have a 10-win record at least. So when it came to choosing which teams should get a bid, I don’t think the Committee had much trouble. The only valid argument regarding the twelve teams that received bids would be Alabama not getting in. When deciding what team would receive the last bid, it was a clear competition between SMU (11-2) and Alabama (9-3). Although SMU has two more wins than Alabama, a lot more goes into consideration when selecting the right teams. What it ultimately came down to was SMU had 11 wins and was a conference runner-up, despite not playing any highly-ranked teams, and Alabama’s three bad losses to not-so-great teams was enough to exclude Alabama from the playoff; and I believe that was the right decision.
In regards to the specific seeds each team received, I think the Committee did an excellent job as well. After the four highest conference champions, Texas, Notre Dame, Penn. State, then Ohio State, the next four best teams, are all properly seeded. Finishing with the 9-12 seeds, Tennessee, Indiana, SMU, and Clemson are all correctly seeded as well. The only argument for a mis-seed I can understand would be between Ohio State and Tennessee, where Tennessee would become the 8 seed and Ohio State the 9 seed. While this wouldn’t change the match-up for either team, it would redetermine who gets home field advantage. I can see it both ways, but I think Ohio State’s one point loss to Oregon, and their win over #4 ranked Penn. State at the time gives them the edge over Tennessee.
As I expected, most of this year’s CFP rage isn’t about the actual teams themselves, but rather the structure. Like I said before, when playing by the specific rules and format of the new playoff, the Committee did an amazing job accurately seeding these teams. But because of these new rules, many would argue that the teams are seeded incorrectly. It’s not doubt that Oregon and Georgia should be the #1 and #2 seeds, but Boise State being #3 and Arizona State being #4 is where people find the new format to be a misrepresentation. Yes, these teams are conference champions; so by rule, they are awarded a top seed and a bye if granted by the Committee. But by doing it this way, Texas, who many would agree is a top-four team in this playoff, does not get a bye. It makes sense why people have a problem with the Committee seeding less-skilled teams higher.
In my opinion, I really like the incentive of winning your conference. Not that teams don’t want to win the conference championship, but awarding the teams that do so an automatic playoff spot adds an exciting twist. I think Clemson really benefited from this rule specifically. Without their conference championship win, they wouldn’t be playing in the playoffs, and Alabama most likely would’ve taken their spot. For me, giving conference champions a “golden ticket” to the playoffs brings more inclusion and diversity to the bracket, and gives each team that much more motivation to win their conference.
In a system where there is a lot of room for error, and also possible improvement for the future, the Committee did a great job accurately selecting and seeding the right twelve teams for this year’s CFP.
