Full disclosure: I'm definitely a Missouri and a George Mason homer because of the degrees my kids collected from those schools. In all honesty, it doesn't come up much (but what to do about that Texas Bowl?)
Regardless, I spent the first half of Saturday's Big Ten championship tweeting about why it would be a shame if Ohio State got left at home and a team that did not even reach its conference championship game (Alabama) were to be included.
There were valid reasons for this. The Buckeyes, up 21-7 early, looked like they were going to steamroll Wisconsin. And I think winning a conference needs to count for something and not playing for the title should be viewed almost like a loss in these situations.
The esteemed committee does not see it that way. Conference championships fall into the 'metrics" category to be discussed if necessary instead of being viewed as a good reason to advance to the playoff.
In fact, Alabama moved up a spot without playing this weekend while Wisconsin, in losing a title game by 6 points where the Badgers had the ball and were driving with 2 minutes to go, dropped two.
Ohio State had the obvious black mark of two losses. One of them was brutal, a 31-point defeat at Iowa. In fact, the Buckeyes' other loss was to a very good CFP team, Oklahoma, but it was a 15-point defeat at home. No CFP team lost a game by 14 points.
And I get why that ultimately took the Buckeyes down. They had much better wins than Alabama. Wisconsin, Penn State and Michigan State all are ranked higher by the committee than LSU, which was Alabama's best win. Yes, beating a team that lost to Troy was the Crimson Tide's greatest triumph.
But Alabama's only loss was a "good" road loss and they wouldn't lose to Iowa by 31 points if Nick Saban quarterbacked the team.
By the end of the Big Ten title game, Ohio State was hanging on for all its worth, getting a late interception to preserve a 27-21 victory. It's not supposed to be a beauty contest, but we all know it is. It was a win, but it was not an overly impressive win.
Even ESPN broadcaster Kirk Herbstreit, the former Ohio State quarterback who does a fine job deflecting any love for his alma mater, admitted that while watching the second half of the Big Ten title game, it became impossible for him to think of the Buckeyes as a better team than Alabama.
I'm trying hard to avoid joining the crowd calling for an 8-team playoff. I think too many games too late into January is bad for the college game. After the NFL playoffs begin, the college game takes a distant backseat as a subject of interest in too many big markets. I also think you're probably rewarding "healthiest" team as much as best team once you get to 16 games for the finalists.
I see a lot of proposals on how to make this work. People suggest reducing the regular season to 11 games without stopping to ask why the majority of teams that have no realistic shot at the playoff are going to willingly reduce their income to suit the CFP teams. It's just silly.
The four-team playoff is set in stone for a number of years. It's what we shall live with, like it or not. When executive director Bill Hancock brings six new faces on board to the 13-member committee in the next few months, I hope there will be fewer athletic directors. I would love to see one or two of them represent computers, in some fashion. That important component in the BCS is missing from this system.
And I wish all 13 would gain a stronger belief in picking the four best conference champions unless extraordinary circumstances compel them to pick a team that didn't play for its own league's title.
Maybe Alabama fits that criteria, even without an impressive win on its resume. And, for certain, the likelihood of Clemson doing to the Tide what it did to the Buckeyes in the first round last year (31-0) is small.
Memories of that game may have killed Ohio State's chances just as much as a lackluster second half in Indianapolis.
About the Author