“Ranking football teams is an art, not a science.”
That quote comes directly from the CFB Playoff’s website, the first words of a document entitled “How to select the four best teams to compete for the College Football National Championship.”
It’s college football’s equivalent of “We the People.” Only in this case, the oppressed are throwing off the shackles of the BCS, not King George.
To access it, you have to go to the “About” tab, select “Selection Committee” and then look for a link at the top of the page called “Selection Committee Protocol.”
The one and a quarter page treatise does a good job of explaining how difficult it is to rank football teams, and, of debunking systems driven by mathematical equations.
What it doesn’t do is explain how it’s possible that a committee that operates under its stated guidelines could have picked Ohio State at No. 2 in its final rankings vs. Penn State at No. 5.
To be clear, this isn’t a discussion of whether Ohio State is a better football team than Penn State. It’s a conversation about whether or not the CFB Playoff Committee applied its own rules to its own decision.
In its “unanimously” adopted words, the CFB Playoff mentions the emphasis on “conference championships won” and “head-to-head competition” four separate times. It’s even bullet pointed in the body of the document.
When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered:
- Championships won
- Strength of schedule
- Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)
- Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)
Applying these four pillars to the case of Ohio State vs. Penn State – let’s objectively take a look.
Criteria #1: Championships won: On Dec. 3, (7) Penn State beat (6) Wisconsin 38-31 in the Big Ten Championship. The Nittany Lions earn one point.
Criteria #2: Strength of schedule: Though this point is subjective, many experts give the clear advantage to Ohio State. To be fair, we’ll use Phil Steele’s “2016 Toughest Schedules” rankings (which had the Buckeyes’ slate at No. 20 vs. Penn State’s No. 42). One point to the Buckeyes.
Criteria #3: Head-to-head competition (it did occur): On Oct. 22, unranked Penn State upset (2) Ohio State 24-21. Another point to the Nittany Lions.
Criteria #4: Comparative outcomes of common opponents. Both teams played Michigan, Maryland, Indiana, Rutgers, Michigan State and Wisconsin. Ohio State beat all six of these opponents while Penn State fell to Michigan, albeit on the road as opposed to at home. This gives the slight edge to the Buckeyes.
Theoretically, the committee is faced with a tie. That is, if all the criteria are weighted evenly.
What does the document say about breaking a tie?
Strength of schedule, head-to-head competition and championships won must be specifically applied as tie-breakers between two teams that look similar.
Comparative outcomes aren’t mentioned, giving Penn State a clear edge over Ohio State 2-1. By the CFP Playoff’s own formula, the Nittany Lions should be in the Playoff and the Buckeyes in the Rose Bowl.
Again, that’s not to say that the Buckeyes aren’t the better team, or aren’t the team that proved themselves as more worthy over the course of the entire season. Instead, it’s to say that they fall short of the Nittany Lions in meeting the criteria of the selection committee.
If the aim of the CFB Playoff is to the select the four best teams in the nation to fill its coveted bracket slots, rather than tick the boxes of its own bucket list, it needs to revise its protocol to reflect that. If not, programs who have met the qualifications will continue to be disappointed. Dazed and confused, they’ll be forced to look delighted as they are shipped off to play in meaningless bowls.
If you think about it, Ohio State’s ascendancy to this season’s CFB Playoff mirrors many of the complaints spewed during former regimes charged with fielding a national championship game.
It almost seems like the system was, once again, magically tweaked so the powers that be could justify the most desirable pairings.
If you really like irony, take a look at another snippet from the CFB Playoffs “How to” guide for fielding a bracket. This one takes a shot at the BCS it was charged with replacing.
Under the current construct, polls (though well-intended) have not expressed these values; particularly at the margins where teams that won head-to-head competition and championships are sometimes ranked behind non-champions and teams that have lost in head-to-head competition. Nuanced mathematical formulas ignore some teams who ‘deserve’ to be selected.
Drop the mic.
Amy Daughters is a contributor to FBSchedules.com.
View Comments (57)
Penn State certainly has some good arguments for inclusion, but I think you are not giving the opposing point of view sufficient credit.
The guidelines state that "When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered:"
The committee decided that Penn State and Ohio State were not comparable, but rather that Ohio State was at the core better than Penn State. So they did not even have to resort to the 4 criteria factors.
It seems to me like PSU and OSU should be comparable, at least according to these factors.
One glaring thing left out of this article was the fact that OSU had 1 loss and PSU had 2. That is kind of a big deal. Would be less of a big deal if PSU had higher quality wins, better road wins, better SOS but they do not. The criteria above makes a lot of sense when you compare two teams with the same amount of losses. If we are going to make this thing simple (only conference champions are in), then we wouldn't need a committee. That's why we have it, so that they can break down the teams and not rely on simplistic rules for why one team makes it and one doesn't.
For those who want to put only conference champions in, are you putting VTech in if they beat Clemson or Florida in if they beat Alabama?
For those who rely on head-to-head as the end all be all, then every team would be out, other than Alabama. For Penn St, Pitt and Michigan would be in over them (if you ignore win-loss record). If you don't ignore win-loss record, Michigan would still be in over Penn St, but Ohio State would be in over Michigan.
Bottom line is this thing isn't simple, that is why there is a committee.
*Caleb Wilkes - The problem with that "opposing point of view" is that it doesn't hold water. The committee's decision that Ohio St. is "unequivocally better" doesn't apply here for the simple fact that they LOST to Penn St. ON THE FIELD. I don't know what sort of alternate dimension I woke up in this week, but where I from we go by logic. And logic would dictate that you can't deem 1 team better than another team when the 1st team lost to the second team on the field. That makes absolutely no sense, thus it doesn't fly here.
Brandon - by your definition, Michigan should be ahead of Penn St and Penn St is not unequivocally better than Pitt.
I would absolutely agree with you in your comparison of Penn St and Ohio St if they both had one loss. In that scenario, despite Ohio State having a better SOS, Penn St should be higher based on head to head and conference championship. But Penn St lost twice. The head-to-head affords them the opportunity to erase one mistake, not two.
10 years ago, Urban Meyer said: "only teams that won their conferences should compete for the National Championship".......yet the Buckeyes did not turn down their Fiesta Bowl/semi-final game invite.....hippocrites.
I expect nothing less from Urban Meyer. This is the same guy who faked a medical condition just so he could jump ship from having to play Saban and Alabama every other year and ran to a talent loaded team in a weaker conference in Ohio St.
lol you are stupid. 10 years ago we didn't have a playoff, and a coach advocating for his team is nothing new.
Ohio st. had a better overall record and that why they should of been in the big ten champtionship game
Uhh what?
Lol
The old XII method where teams with the same conference record were chosen to represent their division based on the higher BCS ranking, ahead of head-to-head. So, perhaps you're suggesting that the B1G could choose the entrants to the CCG with the same conference record by overall record.
*James - Sorry, but that's not the way teams playing for conference champions are decided. Conference wins are what decides who participates in the conference championship, and Penn St. won their division by beating Ohio St. on the field. Period.
All Penn St. fans or not. Not only did Ohio St. stink up the field. Let's not forget Rose Bowl, Penn St. LOST giving up 49 points!! No matter who played Clemson = Loss.
the system is rigged
Not only is it rigged, but it's broken.
Should have been Penn State based on head to head and conference championship. Ohio State may or may not be the better team right now, but they didn't win their conference. Conference title should be worth something.
They ARE worth something. It is the only reason Penn State is even in the discussion. But it's not everything, and certainly not enough to overcome a blowout, non-competitive loss to Michigan and a loss to a mediocre 4 loss team.
This entire argument is pointless. To me, Penn St beat OSU in the head-to-head & won the Big Ten. TV ratings dictated having the Buckeyes in the playoffs. This could all be solved easily & to the delight of fans & big media if we expand to an 8-to-10 team playoff. I'm a Clemson fan.
I get how as a Clemson fan you would rather face Washington or Penn St.
Exactly. Just ask college basketball about how easy it is to narrow down the playoff field. They take 68 teams and there's never anyone upset about being left out. (sarcasm)
Expanding the field does nothing. If we had eight teams this year, then we'd be having the same conversation only about more teams. Teams 8-13 in the final CFP rankings each have three losses. Instead of having a discussion between two or three teams (even though only four Power Five teams ended with one loss or fewer, and all of them made the playoff), we're now discussing eight. And everyone would be up in arms about the Big Ten getting four teams in. And do you really think teams with three losses deserve a shot at playing for the championship? You're all already upset about a one-loss non-conference champion playing in the playoff; you think you'll be happy with a three-loss non-conference champion?
the Committee should NOT revise their criteria.
Every year will have different teams and different nuances. This is where the BCS made mistakes. Nebraska 2001 does not win XII but gets into Championship. So let's add Bonus Points for Conf Champs. New rules all the time.
As we have learned from Basketball, the Each year there is a different Committee. One group puts greater emphasis on Non-Conf Schedule, the next emphasizes Record Over Last 10 Games, the next targets Top 50 Wins. Football Committee will eventually work that way too.
With this Committee: Ohio St wins over Okla, Wisc, Neb, Mich, carry greater weight than Penn St wins over Ohio St, Wisc, Iowa, Temple. Penn St losses to Mich & Pitt carry greater weight than Ohio St loss to Penn St.
People did not want Computers in charge, so now we have a Committee. But each Committee will have different members. There will not be consistency. The one thing that matters most: the more games you win & the fewer you lose, the better your chances.
*standing ovation*
A 4 team playoff is different than an 8 team playoff.
I can see OSU getting picked over PSU in an 8 team playoff (they would have both made it though); however, this is not an 8 team playoff. Criteria must be different.
The author tried to trick us into believing her argument was sound by assuming her conclusion. She assumed Penn State was comparable, without ever stating that. She is just hoping we are asleep enough that we don't notice that she made that assumption so she can bait us into believing her argument is valid. But as other readers pointed out, the committee explicitly said they did not view the teams as equal in terms of their body of work. In the future, please know that if we are reading your article, we are not asleep.
Oh, and you need to pick up the mic.
The author didn't try to trick anybody. It's based on the criteria posted on the CFB playoff's own website.
I agree with Rick. The author assumed the teams were comparable to trigger the four criteria she discussed. But the committee repeatedly state they did not view them as comparable. End of story (or drop the mic).
Notably, to prove her point, the author doesn't even discuss each team's out of conference schedule and results. This ignores 1/4 of the whole season.'. The author fails to discuss Penn State lost to Pitt and Ohio State beat Big 12 champion Oklahoma the road. The author fails to consider that two-loss teams almost never get in over one-loss teams. The author fails to consider that Penn State did not beat a single team on the road who had a winning record. In stark contrast, Ohio State beat two 10-win teams on the road and one, Wisconsin, had a bye week to prepare for Ohio State.
This post is not meant to detract from the Penn State's successful season. To start 2-2 and then finish with nine straight wins is no mean feat. I, for one, hope they stretch it to 10 with a win in the Rose Bowl.
Rick and WW taking care of the dirty work for me.
People are upset that the TWO LOSS Penn State team didn't get the benefit of their three point head-to-head win over the ONE LOSS Ohio State team. Shouldn't you be upset that Michigan doesn't get the benefit of their 39 point head-to-head victory over PSU? Especially considering both teams had two losses. Why is no one upset about that? Michigan also boasts three wins over teams ending the year in the top 10 (PSU, Wisconsin, and Colorado) compared to PSU's two (Wisconsin and Ohio State).
Ohio State is in the CFP (ranked ahead of Penn State) because of the eye-test. The CFP Selection Committee gave itself this loophole by including in their protocol “flexibility and discretion to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country.”
But this goes against the committees own “beliefs that the regular season is unique and must be preserved; and that championships won on the field and strength of schedule are important values that must be incorporated into the selection process.” This belief that the regular season is unique is the “Ethos” of college football.
The eye-test or better talent—perceived—shouldn’t be used as a selection criterion. Ohio State was ranked higher than Penn State in the final CFP rankings through a back-door.
It is the regular season that matters (“based on beliefs that the regular season is unique and must be preserved”). Even the talking heads at ESPN sell/promote their broadcasts by stating that “every game matters” and “who’s in”.
This loophole needs to be eliminated as it contradicts the CFP Selection Committee’s Protocol. They repudiate the Polls for doing the same thing they have just done. “Under the current construct, polls (although well-intended) have not expressed these values [College Football’s Ethos]; particularly at the margins where teams that have won head-to-head competition and championships are sometimes ranked behind non-champions and teams that have lost in head-to-head competition. Nuanced mathematical formulas ignore some teams who “deserve” to be selected.” This contradiction is the fundamental part of Amy Daughters article and why it’s titled “Should the CFB Playoff Committee revise their selection criteria?”
Penn State and Ohio State aren’t “at the margins” or “comparable”. Penn State won the Big Ten. Ohio State did not. Teams “at the margins” and “comparable” are Washington compared to Penn State or Clemson compared to Western Michigan.
My question, why on earth play a conference schedule, have a Conference Championship game, and end up with a Conference Champion?!? “Based on beliefs that the regular season is unique and must be preserved” this part of the regular season is equivalent to the first round, second round, “Sweet 16” or quarterfinals in a playoff system.
Every Game Matters.
The CFP Committee doesn’t release rankings until November, which allows them to incorporate conference games into their equation. The committee values conference play. They even say being Conference Champion matters.
Someone in a comment asked that if Florida had defeated Alabama would you leave Alabama out. You bet I would! Alabama was the best in the SEC West, Florida the best in the SEC East. How would you decide which is better other than playing the title game (the only way might be record vs. common opponents)? If you’re worried about your Conference Champion not being “deserving” because they’re not the perceived “better team” you shouldn’t have two divisions and be playing a championship game.
Don’t Lose.
Should we be determining Champions on the field or though polling?
Ohio State shouldn’t be in the CFP final four because Penn State eliminated them! I don’t care if you win by luck or a fluke.
How to whittle down the ten conference champions (or the FBS Independents) is really the question. Who gets into the four team playoff among Temple, Clemson, Penn State, Oklahoma, Western Kentucky, Western Michigan, San Diego State, Washington, Alabama, and Arkansas State OR Appalachian State? Every other FBS team lost their regular season “playoff game” and was eliminated.
The only way is head-to-head and, unfortunately, Strength of Schedule (a system driven by a mathematical equation, which the CFP protocol rails against). SOS assumes Team A would achieve a better record than Team B playing Team B's schedule.
But after you eliminate everyone but Conference Champions is a touch easier.
To paraphrase Captain Picard...
" THERE ARE TWO LOSSES!"
.
You don't lose to Pitt, and lose badly to Michigan, and expect to pass a team whose only loss is a fluke loss to you. Plus, Penn State didn't face Nebraska, nor Wisconsin (until now). Penn State isn't even close.
(Nor did Penn State beat a conference champion, viz. Oklahoma.)
Should Oklahoma be in the equation? They lost to Houston, who at best are the 4th or 5th best in the AAC.