Advertisement
football Edit

Holding the Playoff Committee Accountable

American Athletic Conference commissioner Mike Aresco has been in the news quite a bit over the last few weeks talking about what he calls a "double standard" in how his teams are being treated by the College Football Playoff committee. Aresco has made the case that a two-loss AAC champion would be more deserving than other Group of Five champions for a New Year's Six bowl berth based on their resumes. Recently, he has compared the resumes of Memphis and Baylor to ask why one was considered a Playoff contender while the other is not.

Aresco has a point. Group of Five teams appear to be measured differently when it comes to the Playoff and the media. While three- and four-loss teams in Power Five conferences are routinely ranked higher than Group of Five teams by virtue of schedule strength and quality wins, such considerations are not given to Group of Five teams ranked against each other. Among the G5, the only thing that seems to matter is the number of losses.

Advertisement

Consider the following resumes:

Team Record  Schedule Strength* Key Wins** Losses

Memphis

11-1

71.2

Cincinnati, Navy, SMU

Temple

Cincinnati

10-2

50

UCF

Ohio State, Memphis

Navy

9-2

59

SMU, Air Force

Memphis, Notre Dame

Boise State

11-1

89

Air Force

BYU

Air Force

10-2

85.6

Hawaii

Navy, Boise State

Appalachian State

11-1

109.8

Louisiana-Lafayette

Georgia Southern

Iowa

9-3

23.4

Minnesota

Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin

Minnesota

10-2

56.8

Penn State

Iowa, Wisconsin

USC

8-4

11

Utah

BYU, Washington, Notre Dame, Oregon

Virginia

9-3

77

N/A

Notre Dame, Miami, Louisville

Oklahoma State

8-4

28.4

N/A

Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma

SMU

10-2

71.2

N/A

Memphis, Navy

*Average SOS ranking between former BCS computers Sagarin, Colley Matrix, Billingsley, Anderson & Hester, and Massey. **Wins over teams with nine or more wins.

Now look at this week's Playoff rankings:

Table Name
Rank Team Record

16

Iowa

9-3

17

Memphis

11-1

18

Minnesota

10-2

19

Boise State

11-1

20

Cincinnati

10-2

21

Appalachian State

11-1

22

USC

8-4

23

Virginia

9-3

24

Navy

9-2

25

Oklahoma State

8-4


Does this make sense?

Iowa, at 9-3, is ranked ahead of 11-1 Memphis. Both have a comparable win (#18 Minnesota, #20 Cincinnati), and while Iowa has more losses, they all came against ranked teams. Memphis lost to unranked Temple. Where Iowa separates themselves is in their much stronger strength of schedule. Iowa, therefore, gets the nod over Memphis in the rankings.

Whether you agree with this ranking or not isn’t the point. What matters here is that the committee has established a precedent; a team with more losses to better teams should be rewarded if they have marquee wins and a better schedule. However, if that’s the case, and the committee is justified in ranking Iowa ahead of Memphis, then the rest of the rankings make no sense at all.

Let’s apply the Iowa logic to Cincinnati and Boise State. The Bearcats have one more loss. However, both of their losses were to ranked teams, including #1 Ohio State. Boise State lost to unranked BYU (7-5). Both teams have a comparable signature win, but Cincinnati’s strength of schedule is nearly 40 spots higher. The scenario is almost identical to the Iowa/Memphis comparison, except that Cincinnati and Boise State are even closer in the loss column. In this case, though, it is the team with the weaker resume— again, according to the Iowa/Memphis precedent— that is ranked higher.

There are plenty of other examples. Navy and Appalachian State are separated by one loss. The Mountaineers have a loss to 7-5 Georgia Southern and a schedule that is 50(!) spots behind Navy’s. Navy has more quality wins, and their losses came against two ranked teams. By the precedent set with Iowa, Navy should be ranked ahead of Appalachian State. As fine of a season as they’ve had, it is debatable whether the Mountaineers should be ranked at all if examined objectively.

Appalachian State, though, isn’t the worst example. That distinction belongs to Virginia. The Cavaliers have more losses than Navy, and unlike the Midshipmen, they have two losses to unranked teams (Miami, Louisville). Navy has two wins over ten-win teams, while Virginia’s best win came against 8-4 Virginia Tech. On top of all that, Navy’s strength of schedule is nearly 20 spots higher, yet it’s the Mids who are looking up at the Cavaliers in the committee rankings. Both Air Force and SMU have a better case to be ranked than Virginia. Maybe even Indiana.

A similar argument can be made about Oklahoma State. The Cowboys are 8-4 with questionable losses and no wins of note. Should they be ranked ahead of Air Force and SMU? They are, by virtue of their overall schedule strength. However, Group of Five teams aren’t given the same consideration when compared with each other.

One would think the national media covering college football would take the Playoff committee to task for these kinds of discrepancies. Instead, many of them are providing cover. This was The Athletic's Stewart Mandel earlier this week:

Consider what Mandel is saying here. He says that Cincinnati would have "no case" to be ranked ahead of Boise State. No case. And how does he justify this position?

Since when is "P5 win" a Playoff selection criteria? The committee wouldn't consider a win over 6-6 Florida State to be a quality win for anyone else. Why would it count for Boise State? Cincinnati's win over UCF is a far better win than one over the Seminoles by any measure. By citing Florida State as a quality win, Mandel is proving Aresco's point. The Playoff rankings are supposed to place all teams on an equal footing to provide a dispassionate assessment. The P5 and G5 aren't supposed to be treated differently, yet in treating Florida State as a more significant win than UCF, Mandel very clearly does.


(If Boise State's win over Florida State is considered a quality win, shouldn't SMU's win over TCU be considered a quality win as well?)


Furthermore, if the Bearcats beat Memphis, that's also a better win than Boise State's win over Air Force, which speaks to another point.

These "power rankings" are awfully close. If Cincinnati wins the American by beating a highly-ranked Memphis team, they could quite plausibly jump Boise State in both systems. What then? Would that argument still be relevant to Mandel? Cincinnati would have better wins and a significantly better strength of schedule. Boise State's loss to 7-5 BYU would be considerably worse than Cincinnati's loss to #1 Ohio State and #16 Memphis, the latter of which would have been avenged. Yet we are to believe that there is no case for the Bearcats to play in the Cotton Bowl? If three-loss Iowa and Auburn teams can be ranked ahead of one-loss Memphis because of better wins and a tougher schedule, then how is there no case for Cincinnati? The only answer is that Aresco is correct: there is indeed a double standard.

One can understand how frustrating this is for the American's commissioner. The league has done everything it could, both on and off the field, to position itself as the top Group of Five conference. They are 17-1 this season against the other Group of Five conferences and non-Notre-Dame independents. They have three ten-win teams in one division. They have, by far, the highest attendance in the G5 as well. Six AAC teams averaged more than 30,000 per game this season. The Mountain West had two, and no other G5 league had any. The American has done everything it is supposed to do, which ironically might be part of the problem.

Aresco is the only Group of Five commissioner speaking up about the Playoff committee. There is a reason for this. Aresco is right to point out that it is ridiculous for a conference like the American to be lumped together with the Sun Belt, a league that objectively is not of the same caliber. However, the Sun Belt— and the rest of the Group of Five— benefit from the lack of distinction. The American is only going to get better as they gain additional resources from their media contract. It is reasonable to expect that the American champion will be the best qualified to play in the New Year’s Six going forward. It benefits the other conferences for the committee to downplay schedule strength and overall quality among G5 teams in favor of merely looking at records.

At least, that’s their thinking. In the big picture, that is a short-sighted approach. The last thing that the Group of Five leagues should want is a de facto codification of unequal treatment. To accept a different standard is to open the door to a path that eventually leads to a more formal separation away from the Power Five, something that would be disastrous for schools that have made the strategic decision to support FBS football.

Mike Aresco is right to hold the committee accountable. The shame is that nobody else seems interested in doing so.

Advertisement