The Alabama Crimson Tide is this year’s winner of the Participation Trophy
Before we get started, I just want to congratulate Alabama and its fans for getting their automatic bid based on previous accomplishments under the previously flawed BCS and “playoff” system. With that out of the way, let’s talk about this absurd committee decision that took place yesterday and what needs to be done going forward.
First of all, I know what everyone is saying out there in college sports land.
“It was a bad decision to have to make either way.”
“Neither team was impressive, so they had to look at other metrics.”
“This is why we have a committee – to make the tough decisions.”
I hear your platitudes and I raise you actual statistics...from this season. These are not entirely arbitrary numbers and the rankings are based on the committee’s own final rankings that were released yesterday. So here’s how the two teams stack up.
| Category | Ohio State | Alabama |
|---|---|---|
| Wins | 11 | 11 |
| Losses | 2 | 1 |
| Against Ranked | 3 – 1 | 2 – 1 |
| Final Rank of Wins | 6, 9, 16 | 17, 23 |
| Final Rank of Losses | 2 | 7 |
| Last Game | Win, 27 - 21 | Loss, 26 - 14 |
| Conference Champ | Yes | No |
Ohio State has three wins against opponents that are ranked higher than any single win Alabama had this year. They have also won their last four games, including wins against a ranked Michigan State team, a win against their rival on the road at Michigan, and a win on a neutral site against Wisconsin in the Big Ten Championship (with a running quarterback coming off of an arthroscopic knee surgery six days prior, no less).
Like it or not, the Buckeyes have a much better resume when it comes to games played and games won, according to the committee's own rankings. Alabama's resume could have been comparable if they had beaten Auburn.
The Second Loss
Before anyone starts screaming about the above statistics, let me add that Ohio State did take a bad loss at Iowa on November 4th. It was a 55-24 loss with lots of turnovers and not-stellar performances, from both the coaching staff and players on both sides of the ball. Quarterback J.T. Barrett threw four interceptions, including a pick-six on his first offensive play of the game. There’s no excuse for their performance. It should have never happened. It was embarrassing. It’s a really ugly scar on an otherwise great season.
However...I will say this: The Iowa game was a bit of a trap game for Ohio State.
They had a huge game the previous week against the then number two team in the country, Penn State. They won that game 39-38 in dramatic fashion in the fourth quarter after being down by multiple scores. The week after Iowa, the Buckeyes would be facing Michigan State, which was another ranked opponent and that had played them very well the last few seasons, including destroying hopes for a back-to-back conference championship and playoff run a couple of years ago. It should be noted that after taking a beating in Iowa, Ohio State bounced back immediately and thrashed the Spartans, 48-3.
Yes, it was a very bad loss at Iowa. Yes, it was their second loss of the season. But after that loss, they annihilated Michigan State and Illinois, then traveled to the biggest rivalry game in sports and won, then capped off the season by beating the CFB committee’s fourth-ranked team to take home the Big Ten championship.
The CFB committee had originally emphasized the importance of a team’s performance at the moment – not how they performed in a previous season or even early in the year. This had been a point of emphasis in previous selections, including the first playoff when Ohio State was selected, despite an early-season loss to Virginia Tech during the 2014 season. Ohio State went on to completely destroy opponents late in the year and even made the country’s “best defense” (Alabama) look like a MAC pretender. They then went on to win the national championship.
But Ohio State also won their conference championship that year, so it wasn’t really a tough decision to make. Oh, right...conference championships. Remember when those were supposed to matter?
The Ol’ Bait-and-Switch
If there’s one thing that college football presidents, ADs, commentators, and prognosticators are really good at, it’s the ability and eagerness to demand one thing from teams and athletic programs and then reward and praise another. It has been “recommended” for the committee to put a lot of weight on conference championships and strength of schedule. They wanted to encourage teams to play tougher opponents out of conference but still make a conference championship mean something. And it appeared to be working, as many big-name schools were scheduling other big-name schools. College football’s FBS division was heading in the right direction.
Until this season.
The SEC’s top teams have been notorious for scheduling really bad out-of-conference games late in the season. Alabama seems to enjoy scheduling teams like Chattanooga and Mercer in the final couple of weeks of their season. They get a late-season tune-up and can rest players before their final rivalry game.
On the other hand, Ohio State almost never schedules any “cupcakes” late in the year. They get the warm-up games over early in the season, then focus on winning the conference. This year, they even played an extra conference game in addition to their scheduled home-and-home series against Oklahoma.
Despite the Mercer tune-up game for Alabama, they lost the next week to their rival and ended up missing their conference championship game as a result. They didn’t even win their division in their conference.
Despite the tougher end-of-season schedule for Ohio State, they actually beat their rival and went on to win their conference championship.
If games and championships are supposed to mean something, then why would the committee reward failure and punish success, especially after claiming that late-season successes are supposed to carry more weight? Why punish a team that has two losses, simply because they have two losses, especially after claiming that scheduling tougher opponents and occasionally losing those games shouldn’t be the defining metric for playoff teams?
There’s no reason why a conference champion should be sitting out of a playoff while a team that couldn’t even win their division of their conference is chosen for it. If you consider the other numbers, Ohio State has better wins, more wins against ranked opponents, a better schedule both in and out of conference, and their conference title.
The Buckeyes did what college football commentators and the committee has demanded from teams for years. They beat three teams in the final top-16. They played a top opponent out-of-conference and played an extra conference game – and they picked up a second loss for doing it. And for that, they have been punished.
Alabama didn’t have the opportunity to pick up a second loss from teams like Florida State, Fresno State, Colorado State, or Mercer. They scheduled their late-season cupcake, played their eight conference games, and had one team to beat to put them in contention for their conference title and a playoff bid. They couldn’t do it. And for that, they have been rewarded.
The committee has sent the message loud and clear to FBS schools: Just have a better record at the end of the season. It doesn’t matter who you schedule or beat, as long as the loss column is less than 2. Because if we have learned anything at all about this process, there are no “tough decisions” being made. There are safe decisions – and the safe decision has been to simply reward better records.
And Alabama.
For the record: This precedent was set last year when Ohio State failed to win their division in their conference, but was selected to participate in the playoff anyway. The statistics were a little different and a lot more clear-cut for why Ohio State was chosen, but it opened the door for more arbitrary criteria to take precedence.
How About a Real Playoff?
College football’s top division has always been a bit of a disappointment for me. It’s the only major sport where championships are not decided on the field. Yes, they claim to have “championship games” in the FBS division but the teams playing for those “championships” have always been selected by people or computers, or both.
Imagine if the NFL’s Super Bowl match-up was decided every year by a vote from a group of people like Jerry Jones, Bill Cowher, John Elway, and Bob Costas. The games are still played all season long. Division winners are still decided on the field, but instead of putting them in a playoff against each other, this Super Bowl committee simply picked two teams and declared them “the best.”
Would anyone believe that this was a good or even a fun method for determining a football champion? What if they chose four teams from the eight divisions? What if they chose teams that didn’t even win their division? Would this add more or less legitimacy to the process and the ultimate “champion?”
If we can see how much of a farce it would be for the NFL to select champions this way, why is this the default method for college football? Oh, wait...it isn’t.
Did you know that every other division of NCAA football has a playoff? And that these playoffs are actually sanctioned by the NCAA?
You read that correctly. The NCAA backs the legitimate playoff for the other college divisions, such as the FCS – which, humorously enough, is called the Football Championship Division. Why is that funny? Because the headlining division, the FBS (Football Bowl Subdivision) obviously lacks a true championship and the current “playoff” format is not sanctioned by the NCAA. The FBS has been unable to figure out what the FCS has been doing for decades, which is to pit conference champions against each other in a playoff to determine a national champion.
With a legitimate playoff system, there’s virtually no guess-work. If you win your conference, you’re in. It’s pretty self-explanatory. It’s how every other sport with a conference setup works. There’s no room for complaints or claims of unfairness. There’s no dispute about who is “more deserving.” There’s no contradictory nonsense about several teams being essentially the same caliber one week and one of them magically becoming “unequivocally better” the next, without even playing a game...because they lost the opportunity by losing on the field.
Now, before anyone starts complaining about how many more games would be needed for an actual six or eight-team playoff, let me remind you once again that this has already been happening for years. In fact, the FCS playoff currently includes 24 teams and five rounds. They’ve had at least a 16-team playoff format since 1986. For over 30 years, these schools, coaches, and athletes have figured out a way to make it work and they apparently like it.
The FCS schools that worry about academics (the Ivy League) simply choose to not participate in the playoff. Is that not ideal? If you don’t want to play, you don’t have to. It’s beautiful. Allowing the schools to choose whether or not they want to participate in an extended season seems like the best option. I don’t see how that could be considered unfair in any way. As a matter of fact, if an individual player wants to choose to not play more than the regular season games, they should be free to make that decision as well.
This isn't a valid excuse for not wanting an actual playoff format. It can be done, and it can be done easily.
So what would a legitimate playoff for the FBS look like this year with an eight-team format? The committee could still exist, but their role would be changed to one that is similar or identical to the FCS committee that chooses the playoff participants that are not conference champions.
If the rules were simple, the playoff teams could be selected as follows:
- Power-5 conference champions
- Highest-ranked conference champion outside of the Power-5
- Two wild-card teams based on committee rankings
If these rules were applied this season, these are the match-ups that we would see for the FBS playoff, based on the final committee rankings.
(1) Clemson vs. (8) Wisconsin
(2) Oklahoma vs. (7) Alabama
(3) Georgia vs. (6) Central Florida
(4) Ohio State vs. (5) Southern California
As a fan, those would be some pretty interesting and fun match-ups and would make for an exciting semi-final round as well. I'm pretty sure most college football fans would agree.
The only arguments that can be made would involve rankings and the selection of the two wild-card teams. But with the conference champions already in, there would be very little to criticize. The obvious answer to any gripes would simply be: “Win your conference.” If you can’t do that, then you’re at the mercy of arbitrary rankings, and I don’t believe that this would be a major cause of concern.
This system would still have the element of subjectivity and the impact of rankings, and the surrounding discourse, but it would also have the integrity of pitting actual conference champions against each other, as sports championships should be. Those conference titles will actually mean something and great out-of-conference match-ups during the season could become the norm.
It’s the best of all worlds, so it’s surprising to me to see this option never entertained. There are solutions everywhere, including in the college football division one step lower from the FBS. It’s time to pick one that makes sense. And a true playoff makes sense.
And one last thing, which is probably the most important for school presidents and athletic directors alike...
Did I mention that an eight-team playoff would include more games...which would also include more sponsorships, more exposure, and...more money?
I’m sure this will happen at some point. I just can’t figure out why the FBS powers-that-be think that their coaches and athletes are such special little snowflakes that they can’t handle deciding national champions on the field.
But if enough money is there – that eight-team playoff will be coming soon.
In the meantime, we’ll see what Alabama does with their participation trophy this year. Because truth be told, no college team is invincible. Anyone in the top-20 could probably beat anyone else in the top-20 in any given week. Alabama doesn’t have more championships recently because they’re “unequivocally better” than any other school. They just happen to be selected to play for national titles more often.
Let’s reward on-field victories, not last season’s or last decade’s best teams. Play your season. Win your games. Claim your conference title. Play against others who have done the same.
That’s how true champions are decided.
