Introduction

In a heated discussion surrounding the College Football Playoff (CFP), Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark openly criticized the committee's apparent disregard for strength of schedule as a determining factor in rankings. His comments stem from a recent meeting in Chicago, where he was briefed on the metrics being utilized by the selection committee.

Yormark's Concerns

"Strength of schedule was emphasized multiple times as a key metric," Yormark stated. "But I have yet to see it being prioritized as much as it should be." His frustration is palpable as he points out the incongruity of rankings where lesser-scheduled teams, such as Mountain West's Boise State, sit ahead of Big 12 champions.

Current Rankings and Discrepancies

Boise State, currently ranked No. 10, edges out teams like No. 15 Arizona State and No. 16 Iowa State, both from the Big 12, who are set to compete in a critical "play-in" game. Yormark’s sentiments are echoed by Iowa State’s athletic director, Jamie Pollard: “If you’re 11-1 or 12-0, you’re golden. But that raises the question: should we all just play the easiest schedule?”

Evidence from Recent Rankings

Data from the latest rankings supports Yormark's argument. For instance, Texas (ranked No. 2 with an 11-1 record) has yet to secure a win against a Top 25 team but still ranks above Georgia (No. 5) and Ohio State (No. 6), both of whom have beaten ranked opponents. This trend raises a crucial question: Are teams being rewarded solely for their win-loss records rather than the caliber of their competition?

CFP Committee's Response

Warde Manuel, chair of the CFP committee, responded to concerns about rankings that prioritize records over strength of schedule, stating, “Teams can only play the schedule in front of them… but if it was solely about strength of schedule, we wouldn’t be needed.” This statement fueled further skepticism among observers; many recall that the initial CFP format was designed to emphasize tough schedules, contrasting sharply with the current committee’s methodology.

Comparison to NCAA Basketball

Pollard compared the complexities of the football selection process to that of NCAA basketball, which has a long-standing precedent in evaluating teams based on performance against ranked opponents. Pollard expressed frustration over the seeming lack of objectivity within the football committee, underscoring the necessity for consistency in their rankings.

Impact of Expansion on Selection Process

Adding fuel to this fire, some experts suggest that the CFP's subjective nature is compounded this year, particularly as the field expands from four to twelve teams. This expansion necessitates a new level of scrutiny and consistency in evaluation, which might be challenging for a committee that's experiencing significant turnover, with six new members joining this season.

Critical Decisions Highlight Inconsistencies

A recent critical decision saw Alabama (9-3) being ranked over Miami (10-2), showcasing a case where statistics played a crucial role, but it also highlighted the inconsistency in the committee's approach.

Conclusion and Future Considerations

Yormark concluded with a stirring assertion: “Under no circumstances should a Group of 5 champion be ranked above our champion.” It’s a sentiment that underscores the ongoing debate about fairness and integrity in the selection process. As the CFP continues to draw scrutiny from various angles, fans and analysts alike are eager to see if and how the committee will adjust its criteria to more accurately reflect the competitive nature of college football. Are we witnessing the beginning of a significant change in postseason selection, or will the emphasis on win-loss records persist? One thing's for certain: the conversation is far from over!