Advertisement
football Edit

A Group of 5 Playoff is Still a Bad Idea

A week ago, the College Football Playoff selection committee released their final rankings for the 2020 season. There wasn’t much of a surprise when the Playoff field was set. Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, and Notre Dame were chosen as the top four teams that will compete for the title. None of them are new to the Playoff, and they are all top-tier name brands in today’s game.

One might think that a Playoff ranking with the usual suspects at the top would seem routine, and in a normal year, it probably would. However, as you are surely tired of being reminded, 2020 is not a normal year. Schedules have been radically altered, and some teams only played half as many games; Ohio State is in the playoff field at only 6-0. In contrast, Cincinnati is 9-0, and Coastal Carolina ended the regular season at 11-0. This year, quantity is a quality all its own. Given the season’s irregularities, there should be surprises; teams outside of the Power 5 conferences should have a better chance at making the Playoff field than ever before.

Instead, we got more of the same. Cincinnati finished at #8, behind both Oklahoma and Florida, who had five losses between them. Coastal Carolina’s resume included wins over two ranked teams, but they were ranked only 12th. Iowa State also had two ranked wins but added three losses. One of those losses was to Louisiana, a team that Coastal Carolina beat. The Cyclones were ranked 10th and will be headed to the Fiesta Bowl. Based on the criteria that the committee is supposed to be using, one could argue that BYU, Louisiana, and San Jose State deserved more respect than they received as well.

This is a feature of the committee, not a bug. The conceit that the group exists to set the field for a national championship tournament is flawed. The BCS system, with its combination of polls and computer-generated rankings, could have done that much. The problem is that under the BCS, teams outside of the power conferences would occasionally punch through to the top four. In 2010, TCU (then a member of the Mountain West) finished 12-0 and was ranked #3. The top six in 2009 included #3 Cincinnati of the Big East, #4 TCU, and #6 Boise State. These aren’t the brand names that ESPN wants to see when they’re spending $460 million per year for the Playoff’s broadcast rights. Part of the committee’s job, then, is to protect ESPN’s investment in a way that the BCS rankings could not. They are not tasked with simply choosing the four teams most worthy of playing for a national championship. Instead, their job is to assemble the four best name brands whose seasons were credible enough to give the Playoff a national championship legitimacy.

(This dynamic isn’t limited to just the Power 5 vs. Group of 5, either. In 2014, the fourth playoff spot came down to a choice between Baylor, TCU, and Ohio State. The Buckeyes got the nod. Tie goes to the brand.)

Every season, we see the committee rank who they want, then invent criteria afterward to justify their decisions. There is no consistency from year to year, week to week, or even within the same ranking. One team gets measured by its quality wins, another by overall strength of schedule. “Game control” is important for some; the “eye test” for others. About the only thing that is consistent is that Power 5 teams are graded differently from teams in other conferences, with a ceiling applied to the Group of 5.

None of this is a new development. Those who follow Group of 5 programs have been pointing these things out from almost the beginning. What is new is that more high-profile, mainstream writers are joining the chorus.

Advertisement

Each season has its routine debates about who should make up the top four, but criticism of the committee has never been this fundamental concerning its purpose. I’m not sure what has changed; perhaps the unique circumstances of the 2020 season created too many data points to be explained away. In any case, the Playoff has become the dominant force shaping modern college football, and the committee is the instrument through which it works. The more people shining a light on its practices, the better.

That is not to say that every element of this increased coverage is a positive one. While there are varying opinions on the extent of the Playoff’s problems, there does seem to be a consensus among the sports media that the committee is inconsistent in how it ranks teams. Their proposed solutions, though, are all over the place, and one of the most popular suggestions is also one of the worst:

Unfortunately, this most terrible of ideas has gained new life. It needs to be crushed. A Group of 5 playoff would be a disaster for the schools it is supposed to help.

From a practical standpoint, there simply wouldn’t be any money in a Group of 5 playoff. Last year, the College Football Playoff distributed $462.43 million in revenue, with nearly 20 percent— $91.4 million— going to the Group of 5 conferences. What exactly would a Group of 5 playoff be selling to television networks? What’s at stake? A newly-created “Group of 5 national championship?” How much money is a second-rate title with no history worth? Is there any television network willing to pay $100 million per year for it? Every Group of 5 television contract combined is worth less than $150 million per year, and nearly 60 percent of that comes from the American Athletic Conference alone. Thinking that there’s a windfall waiting at the end of a G5 playoff rainbow is completely unrealistic. Not only that, but codifying the Group of 5 as a second-rate group playing for a second-rate championship would have consequences the next time these conferences’ television contracts are up for renewal.

The practical considerations are only the tip of the iceberg, though. Sports fans and sports media think about a G5 playoff in sports terms. At its core, though, this is not a sports issue.

The decision to participate in athletics at the highest level is a strategic move by a college or university. It is an investment whose return is not measured in direct dollars. Athletics, especially football, is how regional schools gain a national profile. Consider some of the schools that are familiar to avid college football fans, like Boise State, Appalachian State, or UCF. If not for football, how many people would even be aware that these schools exist? That's not a knock on those schools, either. The same could be said about Notre Dame. There are 200 Catholic colleges and universities in the United States, and Notre Dame is the flagship. It is not the oldest of those schools, nor is it the largest. It does, however, have a long legacy of football success that made it a household name. Athletics, especially football as the most popular college sport, drives interest in schools as their proverbial "front porch." As former Appalachian State chancellor Kenneth Peacock once said, “people have liked the front porch. They’ve stopped and looked.”

Participation in Division I athletics conveys a sense of quality and mainstream legitimacy. It's aspirational; university presidents want to associate with other schools that match the visions that they have for their own. Maybe the MAC will never be better than the Big Ten, but that's not the point. The notoriety gained from playing at the FBS level sets them apart from, say, the Missouri Valley Conference.

And this is why a Group of 5 playoff is a terrible idea. Having a separate playoff would sever that association. Group of 5 schools would be sacrificing the strategic investment they made in top-tier athletics. If the purpose of athletics is to promote the university, then it is better to fall short on the field against the most visible competition than it is to separate from it. Would Vanderbilt be better served by dropping out of the SEC? Their football team may never win the conference, but that isn't the point.

There is something cathartic about the idea of a Group of 5 playoff, about taking your ball and going home when you're being treated unfairly. Unfortunately, catharsis doesn't pay the bills. For better or worse, college football operates under a particular system. Choosing to leave that system means being left out of the conversation. Even if the effort is futile, there is more to be gained by fighting for changes within the system than leaving it.

Advertisement