In listening to Arkansas AD Jeff Long (Long has worked in 4 of the 5 power conferences) describe his rationale for rankings it becomes clear that the committee has no consistent and objective criteria in place. Two weeks ago Long talked about “best wins” in order to justify Michigan State’s ranking (best wins is not part of the stated criteria.) This week he talked about conference championships, a criteria which couldn’t be more blatantly self-serving. The only schools who benefit from that criteria are conference schools and the only reason they’re playing conference championships is greed.
Should Conference Championships Matter?
No, except in terms of overall strength of schedule. The title game for most schools brings them up to 12 FBS opponents (most schools now schedule one or more FCS schools.) And title games weren’t started by altruism, but greed. They created an extra pay day to pump television contract value and allowed the power conferences to expand which partially led to the “conference shakeup (land grab)”/greed-fest. Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith was clear about conference intent: “This is a business deal. This is about money. Everybody wants to dodge that; I don’t.” The Big Ten tried to all but black mail Notre Dame into joining. When that failed it stole from the Big 12, the Big East and the ACC, then the Big 12 stole from the Big East, the SEC stole from the Big 12… and it was all about one thing.
It’s all about money. According to Forbes, The ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC – will collect a combined $311 million just from bowl games and NCAA Tournament payouts this year. The Big Ten will make $70 million from NCAA tourney play and bowl games, the SEC $66 million, the ACC $65 million and the Big 12 $62 million. On average, the five power conferences collect a combined $1.1 billion annually from their network partners.
And the conferences have every incentive to protect their own and no incentive to play fair. Appointing Long as Chairman of the Playoff Selection Committee makes about as much sense as appointing Rupert Murdock head of the FCC. Long was hired by Bo Schembechler at Michigan and spent 10 years in Ann Arbor and has worked in the Big12, the ACC and the Big East in addition to his current role as the AD of Arkansas.
The Coming Storm and Notre Dame
As the next few weeks play out the lobbying is going to become frenzied with money, media and boosters backing conference horses for the four team playoff. I can’t imagine the ruckus conferences will raise as their teams fail to make the playoff two years in a row, which is very likely with 5 power conferences and four entrants each year.
So where does Notre Dame fit in? I believe it will have an uphill battle in a playoff structure that was set up by and for the power conferences. And it may not matter as Notre Dame has a tough four game schedule ahead with three top 25 teams.
According to the annual probability poll (which was a bit out of sync this year because of player suspensions) the Irish have just a 16% chance of running the table and those numbers now look a bit generous with Arizona State coming in as a favorite for this weekend.
| RICE | 88% | |
| MICHIGAN | 62% | |
| Purdue (Lucas Oil) | 85% | |
| @ Syracuse | 82% | |
| STANFORD | 47% | |
| NORTH CAROLINA | 64% | |
| @ Florida State | 22% | |
| @ Navy (Landover, MD) | 80% | |
| @Arizona State | 57% | |
| NORTHWESTERN | 75% | |
| LOUISVILLE | 68% | |
| @Southern Cal | 55% | |
Add up the percentages and the Irish should have one more loss and are at risk of two losses to close out the year. So, in the end the point may be moot. Though by pushing Arizona State above Notre Dame Long has created a situation where an Irish win has to be acknowledged as a power win (his own criteria). Regardless of the outcome, the Irish have to try to level the playing field and it can start by lobbying to get an impartial chairman of the NCAA Playoff Selection Committee. Currently the fox is watching the henhouse.
Pig Souiee.
Dirty says:
Waah.
Just win and quit whining.
PC says:
I agree that the playoff was set up in favor of the Power 5 conferences. The best way to find a true champion is to have an 8 team playoff. This has been mentioned many times but I would add a few wrinkles.
1. 5 conference champions (not automatic) can have a maximum of 3 losses total or will be bumped for an additional at large berth + 3 at large berths.
2. First Round held on campus based on seeding (imagine the atmosphere and would create an advantage for being the higher ranked team just like real playoffs in every other sport)
jdthom says:
I agree with Dirty. This is just a bunch of whining and conspiracy theories. If ND is 11-1 on November 30 then Brian Kelly will have over a week to make the case that ND should be in the top 4 (if it isn’t already by then).
Remember 2012 when everyone freaked out that an undefeated ND would get shut out of the BCS? We were #1 before our season was even over.
Different people are in charge now and they have clearly stated conference championships matter. Agree or disagree with that sentiment, money clearly matters and ND brings a lot to the table. I am not worried that ND will be left out of the playoff because of money or tv ratings. ND Florida St generated the most tv ratings of a college football game since… guess what ND vs. Alabama.
SEE says:
I think there’s a long way to go and I’m not worried about ND’s position right now, what’s troubling is the lack of objective and consistent criteria expressed to date. The stated criteria is SOS, head to head, like opponents, championships and “other critiera”. No where is “best win” mentioned yet that was the first justification out of the box.
I’m not whining about ND’s ranking, think we’re well positioned. It’s the justifications that already smell. In just two weeks we’ve already seen inconsistent and completely subjective criteria and there is no incentive for conference committee members to do anything but serve themselves. That’s a bad recipe for ND as it’s a bad sign that Long is already introducing playoff criteria while failing to talk aobut SOS and like opponents.
As for Notre Dame, the playoff doesn’t need Notre Dame’s drawing power. It will generate enourmouse ratings regardless of who plays. It’s actually the non-playoff bowls that will need Notre Dame’s drawing power. I don’t think there’ any scenario where the committee will give ND a nod based on drawing power.
Of course, ist’s all a moot point if ND doesn’t win out, but every time ND gets complacent, the conferences take advantage. That’s a lesson that’s been learned far too many times over the last decades.
jdthom says:
I disagree that the first two weeks have been inconsistent. I agree that the criteria stated has been a little bit inconsistent but the actual rankings are what matter and I think the same logic has been applied to the first two weeks’ rankings fairly consistently:
SOS is important to the committee, which is why ND is 10 and not higher. Every team ahead of Notre Dame has at least one top 25 win.
I also think the committee is penalizing teams for playing FCS teams (see Baylor and Nebraska ranked behind ND when Baylor has a win over TCU – also see LSU ranked behind Oklahoma despite having wins over Wisconsin and Ole Miss while Oklahoma’s best win was West Virginia).
Finally I do think common opponents matters. Arizona St. beat Stanford by 16 and ND only did by 3. TCU beat W.Va by 1 whereas Alabama won by 10.
So I agree that some of the reasons stated in public have been somewhat inconsistent but the actual rankings, to date, have not been.
Lastly I see your point about the playoff from a ratings standpoint but there is no question in my mind that a playoff with Notre Dame gets even higher ratings than a playoff without.
SEE says:
Good points. I think a playoff will have higher ratings with Notre Dame, but they’ll already be sky high so the ND impact will be marginal. I can’t see Long and Alvarez saying “Let’s give ND the nod over Wisconson, it’ll boost ratings.”
Dave says:
Finally I do think common opponents matters. Arizona St. beat Stanford by 16 and ND only did by 3. TCU beat W.Va by 1 whereas Alabama won by 10. This is your argument. However, did you know that Notre Dame beat two not one but two opponents more than Michigan St. Purdue and Michigan! Look the scores up. Therefore, you did not do your homework before you went out and made silly comments. Also, the reason Alabama is ahead of TCU is to keep the SEC up at the top. If one SEC team looses then it is easy for them to justify to replace that team with the other. Am I crazy, maybe! However, the do this every year. They rank at least 5 SEC teams in the top 10 pre season poll Don’t forget that they over ranked South Carolina and TAM. Both of those schools are awful but the polls had them at the top of the country at the beginning of the season. My point is this, there is a little bias going on. Ok, oh well! Nothing you can really do but don’t you dare try to convince people that we are stupid and we don’t know what we are talking about. Jeff long said that they ranked Alabama higher than TCU because they pulled out the tape one them. TCU has 2 top 25 wins. BAMA has 1. All other teams were ranked based on top 25 wins. Again, his excuse was that looked at tape. Are they not supposed to watch tape on all teams? They are! However, I cannot imagine that any of the members have time to watch all of the teams. There is no way. Ok! Understandable but there are teams that are not getting treated fairly which are better than some teams above. That is a fact. Jeff Long is trying to get 2 SEC teams in there. There is a chance that all SEC teams will have at least 2 losses. That is if Alabama looses to LSU. very possible. I do not seing BAMA losing more than 2 games but I do think LSU will have a better shot than Miss St. Bama will not loose to Auburn. They lost on that crazy play this year. KARMA is around the corner for the tigers. Bama will not loose to them. If LSU beats them tomorrow and BAMA beats Miss st and Ole Miss beats Miss St than they will all have 2 losses. I do not think that it will work out that way. Miss St will probably only have 1 lost but if something crazy like that did happen than mark my words. The committee will still put the SEC champ in the playoff stating the SOS for the SEC. There is no way that Jeff Long will allow a no SEC playoff. He is a fraud and he knows it.
Paddy Irish says:
head to head and playing like teams and sos is clearly being ignored. A few examples: 1. Mich State is rated over ND. Mich St has played an FCS team (jacksonville state) and two mid majors in eastern mich and wyoming. They were beat by oregon by 19 points. They also played IU. Two common teams they played with ND were purdue and mich. Nd had a larger win spread against both those teams, but mich st is ranked 2 spots ahead of ND. I will also throw in there just for fun (i know it doesnt count) but we have 3 game win streak on them (2011-2013). ND lost by 4 to the #2 team on a questionable flag. It doesnt add up. 2. Tcu and Baylor.How is tcu #6 and Baylor #12? Both have the same record, play in the same conference, play similar ooc games. But baylor Beat tcu! Is this 1993? So tcu beat wvu and baylor lost to them, how does that cancel out the head to head? I wont even get started on an sec rant. 3. ASU being nine and jumping over ND. Now ASU may beat us this weekend (hope not) but they have the same record as us, but their loss was a spanking 62-27 loss to ucla. How does that get them to jump us? Because taylor kelly is out? That brings me to the worse criteria of the system :missing players. This is a bs rule to reward teams because they lose because a star was injured. I thought injuries were just football. Joe schmidt is out so if we lose this weekend then does that mean it shouldnt count? Nope, it means we lost. We didnt have golson last year so does that mean we can adjust our 9-4 record then? Because it surely would have been better had he played. We now have a system worse than the bcs. the bcs had at least several polls and points of view rather than 12 people deciding the fate of college football. If ND wins out and sits at 11-1 we dont have a prayer of making the playoff unless mass destruction happens before us. And if we are good enough to be in the top 4 after the usc game, i will not be sure we still have a chance because i expect the conference champion clause to do us in. Meaning in a four team playoff we are going to have to be 12-0 to get in.
Fitz says:
So sick of pundits looking for any excuse to keep Notre Dame down. Gee, ND is only the most storied, all time winningest program in college football history. Look at all the cupcake opponents most SEC teams have this week. In week 9! Maybe I can understand opening the season with an FCS or “easy” opponent but working them into week 9 is just schedule padding at it’s worst. C’mon SEC schools, man u and stop playing glorified high school teams 2, 3 times a year. If you have to trick your way into the playoffs you don’t belong there.
Dave W says:
Four teams just isnt enough. Make it eight and I think the problems go away.
GOND88 says:
I was never a fan of a playoff committee. I don’t think ND will get a fair shake with Condi Rice and Ty Willingham. Ty has a clear conflict of interest being that he coached at and was fired by Notre Dame and is probably still nursing a grudge. I don’t understand how an MSU team who lost by 18 to Oregon can be ranked higher than ND who “lost” to FSU by 4 points and who was ranked higher than Oregon.
Dirty says:
The playoff rankings are supposed to be subjective. The members use objective criteria to come up with their subjective opinion.
Because folks used to whine about computers.
If ND is 11-1 it is likely they will be in; the real problem is that the playoff is only four teams, but you have to draw the line somewhere (personally, I would make it eight teams; but, what do I know, I’d also like to go back to the pre-BCS bowl system).
SEE says:
They aren’t using objective criteria. They’re selectively choosing the criteria they use based on the circumstance. Michigan State has a worse SOS and a worse performance against like teams(these are two of the stated criteria). Long completely ignores those and cites “best win” which isn’t a stated criteria.
The next week he cites performsnce against like teams after ignoring it the week before.
They way they’ve structured it they can justify any ranking as long as they find the criteria that fits the story.
No consistency, no objectivity and zero transparency is a bad formula.
Dirty says:
Yes, they are using objective criteria. There is a set list of criteria for the members of the committee to consider.
Regardless, they got stomped by ASU and haven’t beaten any good teams, so they don’t deserve to be in the playoff.
jdthom says:
Now we’ll see how not having a conference championship game hurts. SOS is a valid criteria and Michigan State, UCLA, Duke, Auburn and Georgia are not completely eliminated with 2 losses because they still stand a chance at getting a big quality win to add to their SOS. All those teams are guaranteed to face a top 25 and probably a top 10 team the last week of the year.
With the way Jack Swarbrick schedules, we need USC and/or Stanford to be a top 10 team by the end of the year every year and we cannot guarantee that.
GOND89 says:
“It’s all about the bass. (no static)”