Round 1 to the CFP - 12/9/14

Now that the dust has settled, let's take a look at what the Selection Committee has given us for the inaugural College Football Playoff.

(1) Alabama will take on (4) Ohio State in the Sugar Bowl while (2) Oregon will face (3) Florida State in the Rose Bowl. Those two semifinal matchups may be the best possible outcomes in terms of football and storylines for the first go of the CFP. The brand recognition is off the charts and I'm sure that many casual fans will be thrilled with these matchups. I am not a big Ohio State fan but as much as I hate to admit it, the committee got this one right...based on what they were given/presented to us as criteria for selection. It was also a thrill to see CFP Committee chair Jeff Long (AD at Arkansas) live on television explaining the process to the nation. That transparency is important and it also provides legitimacy to this whole deal while setting a clear set of expectations for future versions of the CFP. That being said, there are many in Fort Worth and Waco who will be complaining all the way to next September. I believe that both sides have fair gripes and could have been the fourth team in just as easily as Ohio State. So, let's vent.

Starting with Ohio State: What Ohio State has done with three different quarterbacks this season has been nothing short of impressive. It's hard enough when you lose one Heisman Trophy-caliber quarterback (Braxton Miller) but to lose another (J.T. Barrett) and still end up winning the Big Ten is quite the feat. Regardless of what the committee says, I believe the Buckeyes got a huge boost from their 59-0 pasting of Wisconsin in the Big Ten Championship Game. I don't believe their "body of work" (the catchphrase that has been introduced to the college football lexicon this year) was what got them in. I wonder if Ohio State hadn't been as impressive against Wisconsin, would they have been invited to the big boy table. I know everyone says it's about the "body of work" but the human element naturally lends itself to being a bit swayed by that last impression. Plus, Ohio State was number six in the most recent ranking heading into Championship Weekend. I understand that a win doesn't necessarily hold serve like it does in the poll but I'm not sure about this. Ohio State was on the outside looking in the entire time and then manages to jump to number four in the end. TCU falls from three to six. Baylor sits at five. Based on all we have seen, it's just very hard for me to believe that Ohio State was rewarded for their body of work and not just on that last impression in the Big Ten Championship Game. That being said, Ohio State's body of work does look pretty solid. Their strength of schedule (45th) was the highest among the three teams fighting for that last spot (TCU 53rd; Baylor 59th). Ohio State also has a 7-1 record against the Top 60. That's a pretty nice body of work but their loss to Virginia Tech, even though it was in September, is still a sizable blemish. Of the three teams in question, Ohio State's loss is easily the worst. We are talking about a Virginia Tech team that lost to Wake Forest 6-3...in overtime. Even worse, that loss was at home in "The Horseshoe." Not exactly a completely forgivable slip-up for a playoff team.

Let's move on to TCU: The Horned Frogs were an impressive 11-1. Their strength of schedule was 53rd and they had a 6-1 record against the Top 60. TCU also had the best points-per-game differential in the country, beating its opponents by an average of 26.5 PPG. Further enhancing the Horned Frogs case is the fact that their loss (at Baylor) was easily the best among the three teams in question despite the fact that TCU blew a 21-point lead in that game. Losing to the #5 team in the country by three isn't the worst blemish on your record. TCU gets hurt by the fact that they were declared co-champions of the Big XII. This hurts because the reality of the situation is the Baylor beat them head-to-head so anyone who exhibits the slightest bit of common sense would tell you that the Horned Frogs are not the co-champions of anything. That being said, if you've watched them play at any point over the last month and a half, you would be hard-pressed to find a better football team in the country, Alabama included. Also, how does your "body of work" put you at #4 and then #3 for a good chunk of the rankings and then all of a sudden drop you to #6?

That brings us to Baylor: Baylor was 5-1 against the Top 60 and had a strength of schedule that ranked 59th, not terrible numbers but a bit short in comparison to both Ohio State and TCU. The Bears also strengthen their argument with the reality that they are the Big XII Champions. They beat TCU head-to-head. It's as simple as that. The "human element" of this whole thing should have been able to see right through the Big XII and Commissioner Bob Bowlsby's declaration of "co-champions." Baylor also plays a style of offensive football that would be very attractive to the television networks and the casual fans. They were second in Division 1-A (or FBS) to TCU in points-per-game differential, outscoring their opponents by an average of 24.7 PPG. Their one loss (at West Virginia) was not devastating as one might think. Yes, West Virginia wrapped up at 7-5, fading down the backstretch with losses in three of their last four games. However, they played Alabama tough on national television, played TCU and Kansas State within one score, and battled Texas in the midst of the Longhorns' hot streak. The thing that hurts Baylor (besides the whole co-champions nonsense) is their soft non-conference schedule, ranked the worst in the nation. Playing SMU, Northwestern State, and Buffalo in your non-conference slate when the CFP committee made it clear there would be a premium value placed on non-conference matchups was a huge mistake for the Bears and something they need to look into in the future. However, I would like to point out that the SEC never gets punished for playing cupcakes.

After poring after the numbers, you really could make a case for any of these three teams to be in that fourth spot. At the end of the day, it pains me to say it, but the committee did get it right. Ohio State's resume has the fewest holes and the Buckeyes were rewarded accordingly.

I do have one other concern though. I understand the concept of ranking the teams regardless of record but I just can't justify Florida State not being number one. It doesn't matter how you slice it, the bottom line is that the Seminoles have beaten everyone in front of them and they are the ONLY undefeated team in the country. Whether you like them or not, that is fact. If they're the only undefeated team in the country, then how are they not number one? Alabama and Oregon are strong but they have flaws. There is no clearly dominant team this year like Miami in 2001 or Alabama in 2009 or even Florida State last year. Nick Saban has put together another impressive squad in Tuscaloosa but they certainly didn't look dynamite in the Iron Bowl. Auburn moved the ball at will and Ole Miss certainly didn't have a problem putting points on the board either. Alabama is very good. I'm not arguing that. They also may very well be the number one team in the country but the fact remains that they did not win all of their games and should not be rewarded as such.

All things considered, if this is the biggest gripe we have with this year's CFP field then kudos to the committee. A job well done in Year One. Can't wait to see how this all plays out on the field. Needless to say, I will be rooting for whomever comes out the Oregon/Florida State game. No doubt about it.

I'll save my "Why does the SEC never get grief for playing cupcakes" and my "Why would the Big XII actually declare co-champions" rants for another time.

-Meech