Skip to content

College Football Playoff selection committee could devalue importance of regular season

Jeff Long

College Football Playoff selection committee members will be tasked with finding the best teams in college football to participate in the new playoff model. This much we already knew, but on Wednesday more details and explanations started to come out about just how the process will be conducted. Arkansas athletics director Jeff Long, chairman of the committee, says the committee will focus on the best teams and not necessarily worry about finding the most deserving teams.

The hope is the best teams actually will be the most deserving teams, but that could also make it more difficult for some programs to crack the new postseason format. Think about a Boise State program going 13-0 with a Mountain West Conference championship being stacked up a pool of one-loss champions from the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC. Where might Boise State fit in that mix? The Broncos, despite putting together a worthy season that would have likely clinched a spot in the old BCS line-up, could now be on the outside looking in once again, in theory.

This can actually go a long way to enforcing the argument playoff detractors have had all along, that the value of the regular season could be devalued as a result of the direction of the selection committee. Of course, perhaps this will all work out just fine once we get into the thick of things in the fall.

The selection committee will begin unveiling a top 25 ranking every Tuesday in late October. The revealing of the updated ranking will be aired by ESPN with the intent of explaining the selection committee’s logic behind the rankings.

Compiling those rankings could be a massive project. The entire committee will go through a detailed process to put together a consensus top 25 ranking. Long says the committee will begin working on the latest rankings each Monday and will work up to 24 hours with breaks for food until the job is complete.

Permalink 18 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Posts
18 Responses to “College Football Playoff selection committee could devalue importance of regular season”
  1. YouMadCauseImStylingOnYou says: Apr 30, 2014 7:37 PM

    Welcome to the SEC College Football Playoff, didn’t win your conference? We don’t care. Didn’t even win your division? Lol Regular Season. WE R DA BEST CUZ WE BEET DA BEST.

  2. pawloosa says: Apr 30, 2014 7:39 PM

    Translation: “Who can bring the most $$”

    At least the BCS computers didn’t care about $$ and who could bring the most…

  3. manik56 says: Apr 30, 2014 8:01 PM

    There are 120 teams. No one knows who the best 4 are. It is impossible to tell in just 12 games. But you can rationalize the 4 most deserving based on those 12 (or 13) games.

  4. drummerhoff says: Apr 30, 2014 8:40 PM

    Translation is the playoff is for the top conferences.

    Also, the regular season will be devalued for the small conferences but the top conferences will still have to treat the regular season as a playoff as much as the BCS did.

  5. chunkala says: Apr 30, 2014 9:19 PM

    ^^^Good, if you’re a great MWC or MAC team beg to play SEC teams and pay them if you have to if a chance at the Championship means that much to them.
    Boise CC should be on the outside looking in, they never play anyone. Nebraska gives them an option a few years ago and they turn it down.

  6. thekatman says: Apr 30, 2014 9:44 PM

    As long as the SEC and other conferences play cupcake agmes and games against non-AQ teams, their strength of schedule gets dimmished and therefore should not under consieration for any playoff or top 25 list.

    Until all OOC games are played up front against non ranked opponents in non-AQ conferences, the playoff will be a joke, and same for number of in confereence games played. All playoff eligible teams must play the same number of in conference games or else the playoff system is, again… A joke.

  7. rolltide510 says: May 1, 2014 12:18 AM

    Hey thekatman,

    I’d like to hear more about your Alma Mater and it’s grueling schedule. TIA.

  8. longborer69 says: May 1, 2014 2:52 AM

    Hey, rolltide, I think he is a fan of USC. This year, they played 9 conference games, Boston College, and at Notre Dame. That’s 11 games against major opposition. They also played one of the better mid-majors (Utah State) and at Hawaii, the only complete pushover on the schedule of 13 games.

    Your team only had 12 regular season games, but still managed to squeeze in more non-major opponents (Colorado State, Georgia State, Chattanooga).

    2012, the Trojans also played a major conference opponent and Notre Dame. 2011, they played TWO major conference opponents and Notre Dame, they didn’t play a single FCS OR mid-major opponent.

    How often does your team schedule an FCS team? Every year. When is the last time his team scheduled one? I’ll let you get back to me on that.

    His team plays at Notre Dame every other year. They schedule home and homes regularly against major conference opponents in addition to the Notre Dame series — not that long ago it was Ohio State.

    When was the last time YOUR team scheduled a home and home against someone as good as Notre Dame or Ohio State? When was the last time they played at least 11 major opponents in a year? USC has played 11 every single year since at least 2008 (I didn’t check back further than that). Some years they’ve played 12.

    I’m not a USC fan, but don’t even begin to claim your team tries as hard as they do to put together a challenging schedule. And sure, the PAC has some weak teams so in conference games aren’t always brutal. Seems like there’s a few of those in the SEC, too. At least, it seemed that way when Tennessee went out to Autzen. At least Tennessee has the guts to schedule a tough home and home series every once in a while. Unlike your team.

  9. thekatman says: May 1, 2014 9:52 AM

    Good assessment longborer69.
    Isnt it interesting that Alabama and other SEC “powerhouses” end up playing an exhibition game in the final 3rd of the season. It is an easy win and one where the starters get a breather and backups get to play more downs… Like a day off for the starters, yet that game counts towards their ranking. That practice must xhange.

    Currently, there are major college football programs that do not schedule games against FCS teams… USC, Notre Dame & UCLA.

    It would be very good for alabama to schedule A home and home series with a strong Pac-12 team, but they won’t. At least Arky amd TN had the chustspa to do it.

  10. socalcharger says: May 1, 2014 10:38 AM

    Any system where a champion is determined on the field is better than one determined by computers, writers and coaches who don’t have time to watch games. We need an 8 team playoff, but 4 team will have to do till we get there. Who cares about the prestige of the regular season when it’s incapable of determining the champion.

  11. babyfarkmcgeezax says: May 1, 2014 10:47 AM

    chunkala said:

    “^^^Good, if you’re a great MWC or MAC team beg to play SEC teams and pay them if you have to if a chance at the Championship means that much to them.
    Boise CC should be on the outside looking in, they never play anyone. Nebraska gives them an option a few years ago and they turn it down.”

    I’m no Boise fan, but a few years ago they DID play an SEC team – the eventual SEC runner-up to be exact (Georgia)… and they destroyed them. The final score was 35-21 but it wasn’t even that close.

  12. Scott Hevel says: May 1, 2014 1:44 PM

    If you didn’t figure it out before, welcome. The “playoff” wasn’t created to find out who is the best team in college football. It’s a way to get all the money into the top 4-5 conferences. Period. It’s the same cartel that ran the bowls. They just called it a playoff instead of bowl games.

    Boise State can go 70-0 in the next 6 seasons and they won’t play in the 4 team playoff unless every team has at least 2 losses. It’s that simple.

  13. florida727 says: May 1, 2014 7:16 PM

    I’m a Florida fan and an SEC fan. Am I glad the SEC won 7 championships in a row and played for an eighth? Sure. And even though this ‘format’ favors the big conferences, including my favorite, I don’t like it. I think a MINIMUM 8 team playoff is needed. The excuses as to why there isn’t one baffle me considering the same governing body that runs playoffs for other divisions of college football, try to justify why they CAN’T do the exact same thing at the highest level. This isn’t fair to the non-power conference schools. Isn’t half the fun of watching sports seeing the so-called underdogs win every once in a while… even if it’s at the expense of your favorite team or conference?

  14. normtide says: May 1, 2014 9:21 PM

    If your in the SEC west, you play Bama, LSU, auburn, and A&M. And that’s just in division. Show me a Pac team that can match that SOS, year in and year out. Your telling me Arizona, Arizona state, Colorado and Utah is equal to that? The fact remains, five SEC teams have won titles in the BCS era. The PAC has one, that was redacted. Now, I say the Pac is clearly the second best league, I’m not downing it. But, don’t act like the SEC ifs chumps. I so taking you seriously when you do. So does the rest off the county

  15. longborer69 says: May 2, 2014 4:05 AM

    Hey, Norm. You normally do better than this.

    No one in this thread said the SEC is chumps. We said that they schedule a lot of cupcakes, and since somebody challenged USC’s schedule, I went into it.

    Last year, the PAC was a better conference. Your conference champion barely won at home against one of the worst teams in the PAC.

    Year in year out, the SEC has been better, especially at the very top. Good for them.

    Alabama schedules a lot of cupcakes. USC consistently plays 11 or 12 games against major conference opponents (I’m counting Notre Dame). They play home and homes.

    Alabama consistently plays 9 — 8 in conference and one neutral site.

    SEC West consistently gives Bama a couple of really tough games. This year, was a little bit of a down year, LSU wasn’t as good and A&M had no defense, while Arkansas is still down the tubes.

    You had only one game against a legit top ten team, Auburn.

    My team, Oregon, played Stanford. I’m not sure we can say Auburn was really all that much better than Stanford. WSU played them both.

    My team played Washington, UCLA, and Arizona — all dangerous opponents. Yours played A&M and LSU and Ole Miss.

    Perhaps at the top your schedule was a little harder, but not that much.

    And we played 11 against major opposition. You played 9. Of course, Tennessee turned out to be very weak this year, but we couldn’t have known that when we scheduled them.

  16. normtide says: May 2, 2014 8:26 AM

    You can say the same thing about us playing VT as you do about paying Tennessee. And, we play Tennessee every year. And please, are you really comparing the SEC west to either of the Pac divisions? Especially the north. Wsu, Washington, Oregon state, cal? The SEC west has more recent title winners than all of the Pac, or any other league. Compare the amount of talent on each team. LSU would have went undefeated in the PAC. In the SEC they lose three games. As for auburn, are you saying they were the same team game one as in game twelve? Do you watch football?

    All this talk about the USC schedule. Didn’t the have a yearly game against Fresno, and now Hawaii? Stop acting like that is murderers row. And while ND is good now, for 20 years they were more like Kansas.

    Also, Oregon, Oregon state, Washington, and wsu play more than their share of fcs teams. I don’t see when you play them as being relevant. It is much more risky playing a good team at a neutral sight in week one than an FCS team.

    At the end of the day, if your argument for the Pac being the best league is chock full of excuses, your not the best. I give them much credit, but two years of good football, league wise, has really gone to your head.

  17. florida727 says: May 2, 2014 9:15 AM

    I don’t think anyone can, legitimately, make an iron-clad argument that one conference is better than another at the highest levels of college football.

    If you’re an SEC fan, you brag about 7 national titles in a row and playing for an eighth. But in reality (and yeah, I’m a diehard SEC fan), the BCS was flawed, favored the SEC clearly, and it’s ONE team from the conference each year that grabs the headlines. Granted 5 different teams won those 7 titles, but look at Kentucky, Vanderbilt, a few others, every conference has its weak links. The SEC is no different.

    If you’re going to argue conferences, argue the STYLE of football they play. Although the SEC has its share of high-scoring games, they are nothing like the shootouts they have in the Big 12 or even the PAC12 (I’m thinking Oregon in particular of course). Is the SEC as physical as the Big10? I don’t think so, yet for quality defense play, the SEC ranks right up there.

    Bottom line: everyone is going to be biased to their favorite team and conference. That’s good. Everyone should be. But at the end of the day, I have no problem watching a PAC12 game late on a Saturday night, which is when I most often get their games. After all, it is college football, right?

  18. mogogo1 says: May 2, 2014 11:08 AM

    It’s a legitimate concern but you’re still going to need to win the vast majority of your games to have any shot at this playoff. Compare that to the NFL where teams can make the playoffs winning half their games and Goodell wants to expand the playoffs even further. Compared to that, the college regular season is still going to be really important.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!