A (premature) review of the College Football Playoff committee's logic

On Sunday, a group of people will gather in a conference room and most likely make the choices we all expect them to make. This will leave many people unhappy, almost certainly including me.

That group, of course, is the College Football Playoff committee, and as it culminates the fifth season of a new era in the sport, we have come to understand that it operates according to certain patterns: that strength of schedule tends to matter above all else, that statistics play some kind of role — even if there’s still no actual statistician on the committee itself — and that Group of Five teams are essentially locked out no matter what they do.

The committee seems to believe that its charge is to choose the four “best” teams rather than the four “most deserving” teams, a distinction that once again will loom large when the conference championship games take place on Saturday. In an ideal world, those conference championship games would be stricken from the schedule in place of an eight-team playoff, as Yahoo’s Dan Wetzel has proposed. But for now, those conference championship games will prove essential in whittling a potential pool of seven teams down to four.

It is not our ultimate role as journalists to work for change within the system; it is our job to pass judgment on things and perpetuate "The Argument" that drove the sport into the mainstream decades ago. The problem with a committee is that while it can pool its collective wisdom, it can also be subject to group-think. So here, then, from an admitted contrarian, are some thoughts on where the committee's seemingly overarching logic makes sense — and where it might go astray, all rendered in the style of the ultimate form of haughty judgment: a Pitchfork album review score.

Alabama is in the top four, no matter what. Here’s a thread that holds up whether you go by either the “best teams” or the “most deserving teams” philosophy. Remember when the collective whine was that Bama hadn’t played anybody? According to the website Team Rankings.com, Alabama is currently fifth in the country in strength of schedule, and that number will leap after the SEC Championship Game against Georgia. I’m not sure how you could elevate an Ohio State team that lost convincingly to Purdue, even if Alabama were to lose convincingly to Georgia, which seems about as likely as Nick Saban oversleeping. On a 1-10 scale of “Are they pumping nitrous oxide into the vents of the committee’s meeting room” to “Hey, I’m cool if Ronnie Lott’s cool,” I give this a 9.3.

Clemson is in the top four, no matter what. This one gets a little more dicey, given that a defeat in the ACC Championship to a five-loss Pitt team would be kind of like topping a filet mignon with coffee grounds. But let’s be real about this: Clemson is the closest thing we have to an Alabama firewall this season, so I’m cool with it. I’ll give this an 8.4.

Notre Dame is in the top four, no matter what. Funny how for decades Notre Dame benefited from a very real Northeast media bias. And now the Irish have the opposite problem: Because they went undefeated playing one of their softest schedules in years — and because the last time we saw the Irish on the national stage, they laid an egg against Bama — we assume they’re not in the same class. I’m assuming that Notre Dame probably isn’t in the same class as Bama or Clemson, but they went undefeated. They’re in. This gets a 9.9.

Oklahoma is better than Ohio State, and both teams are better than UCF. And here is where the whole caboodle begins to unravel: There are three teams that look like locks, and there are three others that can make a legitimate case. But one of those teams, UCF, has been penalized for two reasons: A.) because it played the schedule it was given and won every game (heading into this weekend’s AAC Championship game against Memphis), and B.) its best player, the quarterback, suffered a catastrophic knee injury. The case for UCF is based largely on the “most deserving” philosophy rather than the “best team” philosophy, but here’s the rub: How in the hell are we ever going to know if a team like UCF is one of the four best teams unless it’s given a chance?

Is Oklahoma (presuming it wins the Big 12 Championship game over Texas) better than Ohio State (presuming it beats Northwestern in the Big Ten Championship game)? Is Oklahoma more deserving than Ohio State? Given that the Sooners have one of the most efficient offenses  in the history of college football and given that Ohio State spent much of the season sleepwalking before snapping awake a week ago against Michigan, I’m cool with that aspect of the committee’s logic. (I give it a 7.6.)

Is Oklahoma better than UCF, presuming they both win on Saturday? Here’s where the trouble lies: It may be that Oklahoma is better if judging by sheer talent — and I happen to think Kyler Murray might be the most talented quarterback in the country, even ahead of Alabama’s Tua Tagovailoa — but UCF won only one game by fewer than 12 points (to Memphis, its opponent on Saturday). Oklahoma had five wins by fewer than 12 points and one loss (to Texas, its opponent on Saturday). If both teams blow out their opponents, I imagine Oklahoma will still get in based on…well, I don’t know what, except cult of personality. I give this reasoning a 0.4.             

If Oklahoma, Ohio State and UCF all lose on Saturday and Georgia loses to Alabama by 40 points, some completely undeserving team will secure the No. 4 seed. This is where the Playoff committee would be stuck without a good choice. Therefore, I will not subject this to a score here, but I will offer a suggestion: I’m pretty sure Mount Union is available.