College football is a complete mess right now. Upon the playoff selection committee's declaration that 9-1 BYU should drop 8 spots from 6 to 14, one fact can no longer go ignored. The 12-team playoff format was designed to give more teams--and more conferences--a chance at the national championship.
It's clear now that the playoff committee favors brand over resume. It's clear that bias plays a major part in ranking the top 25. It's clear that double standards, dishonesty, or ignorance have saturated the decision-making powers at the top of the sport.
College football is broken, and fans should feel cheated.
Take a look at the current top 15 of the newly-revealed playoff rankings.
1. Oregon 11-0 (Big 10)
2. Ohio State 9-1 (Big 10)
3. Texas 9-1 (SEC)
4. Penn State (Big 10)
5. Indiana 10-0 (Big 10)
6. Notre Dame 9-1 (Independent)
7. Alabama 8-2 (SEC)
8. Miami 9-1 (ACC)
9. Ole Miss 8-2 (SEC)
10. Georgia 8-2 (SEC)
11. Tennessee 8-2 (SEC)
12. Boise State 9-1 (MWC)
13. SMU 9-1 (ACC)
14. BYU 9-1 (Big 12)
15. Texas A&M 8-2 (SEC)
The current playoff field would house nine teams from the Big 10 and SEC, leaving three spots for the ACC, Big 12, Mountain West, and anyone else.
Be honest with us, playoff committee. When the current playoff is 75% Big 10/SEC, you're sending a clear message to the rest of the sport: college football belongs to those two leagues, and you'll make up any lie to avoid outright saying it.
The handling of the ACC and Big 12 Conference has been disrespectful and disgusting all season. BYU and SMU, each one-loss teams and frontrunners in two of the top four leagues in the sport, are sitting at 13 and 14. On the outside looking in.
BYU plummeted from the top 10 after losing a conference game to Kansas last weekend and fell behind an SMU team that the Cougars beat outright in a head-to-head matchup in week 2. The argument for this oversight? SMU has a better loss than the Cougars. It's just that their loss was at the hands of BYU.
Head-to-head has to mean something. I'm sorry if you disagree, but there is no more damning evidence of a team's standing in comparison to another than the result on the field. When the resumes are otherwise similar, disregarding BYU's victory over SMU is disingenuous at best.
Speaking of SMU, the Mustangs should likewise feel disrespected by the playoff committee. The top team in the ACC and the favorite to win that conference championship game. And yet, while SMU's lone loss is to BYU, Miami remains in the top 10 after losing to a now 6-4 Georgia Tech team. Why is Miami ahead of SMU?
Taking a look at the strength of schedule, strength of record, and game control metrics, it's obvious and apparent that BYU is underrated.
NO. 8 MIAMI
— Tom Fornelli (@TomFornelli) November 20, 2024
Strength of Schedule: 54th
Strength of Record: 9th
Game Control: 19th
NO. 12 BOISE STATE
SOS: 76th
SOR: 15th
GC: 17th
NO. 13 SMU
SOS: 86th
SOR: 14th
GC: 16th
NO. 14 BYU
SOS: 53rd
SOR: 8th
GC: 15th
BYU rates highest in every one of these metrics, beat SMU, and…
"BYU rates highest in every one of these metrics, beat SMU, and is ranked below all three. Pretty clear [the committee] don't want to risk two Big 12 teams getting in."Tom Fornelli
The committee's bias against BYU and the Big 12 as a whole was apparent when Warde Manuel, chairman of the CFP selection committee and AD at Michigan, responded to a question clarifying BYU's fall.
Moderator: I wanted to ask you a little bit about BYU. Obviously a pretty big drop after just one loss, about
eight spots there. What went into that ranking, and
how much of it was also not just the loss but the fact
that BYU had some great escapes over the last couple
of weeks, as well?
WARDE MANUEL: That is the answer. They had a close
win against SMU. They had a great win against Kansas
State but then a close win over Utah, a close win over
Oklahoma State, and then they had a tough loss against
Kansas at home. It was just something the committee had
been monitoring all along.
Look, we give a lot of credit when teams win, and so we
don't penalize teams for winning close or winning too big in
other words, but we do value wins, so that's where we saw
BYU. But given some of those games that they played and
the close wins that they had, it just was an indicator that
some of the teams that were below them in the rankings
last week should move ahead of them in how the
committee assessed BYU.
In the same breath, Manuel said that they value wins, and winning close games is insignificant... unless you're BYU. They've been "monitoring" the Cougars, or in other words, waiting for a chance to drop them out of the top 12. BYU lost, and they pounced.
But it's all lies. If who you beat is important, why is Texas number 3? Was it their mighty victories over Vanderbilt and Arkansas?
What about Penn State? Did their thrilling victories against Washington and USC amaze the selection committee?
Was Miami's one-point triumph over Cal or four-point demolition of Virginia Tech that impressed the powers that be?
On the other side of this issue, what of the teams that not only escaped close games but lost? Alabama lost to Vanderbilt. Notre Dame lost to Northern Illinois. Ole Miss lost to Kentucky. Miami lost to Georgia Tech.
Many argue that early season results aren't as important as recent results, but though that could explain why SMU is ahead of BYU, that same sentiment hasn't impacted Boise State, who nearly beat Oregon in week 2, but hasn't done anything since, aside from escape upset bids against Nevada and San Jose State.
The inconsistencies are infuriating. How have so many 2-loss teams usurped 1-loss BYU, SMU, and Boise State? How has Tennessee fallen so far below Alabama, a team the Vols defeated a few weeks ago?
Brand name rules all, and the committee is working to favor the "rulers of the sport" in the SEC and Big 10. Does it matter that the Big 10 has no depth beyond the top 4 schools? Does it matter that the cannibalism that plagues the Big 12 likewise afflicts the SEC?
How is it that we're treating these late season rankings the same way we treated preseason rankings--through hypotheticals and contradictions.
The sport is broken. The 12-team format that was supposed to save the sport has already become corrupted and is forcibly becoming all about the nation's two money-making leagues. This level of deceit, lying, and blatant favoritism is why the 4-team playoff was horrible. The expanded playoff isn't an opportunity for the underdogs, it's 8 more spots for the Big 10/SEC alliance.
Conference realignment and money are leading the charge, and it's killing the sport. Sorry SMU, sorry BYU, sorry Army, you're not on the list.