The committee responsible for selecting the 12 candidates for college football’s national championship had a singular focus: ranking the teams accurately.
The positioning of these teams in the College Football Playoff (CFP) bracket was determined by a system devised by conference leaders. This arrangement led to some inconsistencies, notably the apparent disparities between team rankings and their seeds, which may suggest a need for future adjustments to the process.
“I believe that our method for ranking the top 25 teams is quite effective,” remarked the selection committee’s chair, Warde Manuel. “There have been discussions and debates regarding how the tournament seeding should operate, but I’ll leave those decisions to the conference commissioners.”
Among the decisions made by the commissioners prior to the release of the bracket were several key elements:
– Prioritizing conference champions, with four receiving byes and an additional one guaranteed a spot in the playoffs regardless of its ranking among the top 25 teams.
– Not reseeding the bracket after the initial round, which could have benefited the top teams with better matchups.
– Choosing not to avoid rematches in the early playoff rounds from the regular season.
Furthermore, the current 12-team bracket could see potential expansion in the coming years.
The selections culminated in a playoff filled with intriguing possibilities but also intriguing matchups that might raise eyebrows. Critics argue that these decisions could detract from the primary objective of the College Football Playoff, which aims to enhance “access,” ensuring that more deserving teams beyond the current top four receive their due recognition.
One potential scenario could see top-ranked, undefeated Oregon collide with Ohio State—a formidable Big Ten opponent that maintained a No. 2 ranking for a significant portion of the season and previously lost to Oregon by just a point.
Another puzzling case involves Boise State, the third seed, which the committee placed ninth in its rankings despite its privileged position.
Considering hypothetical changes to the current rules could illustrate a different landscape. For instance, had the committee eliminated preferences for conference champions, Oregon would remain the No. 1 seed due to its perfect season, with the potential for varied matchups arising for other teams.
In a different configuration, Alabama might have qualified for the bracket had there been no automatic qualification for conference champions. Instead of heading to the ReliaQuest Bowl to face a struggling Michigan team, the Crimson Tide could have battled Ohio State as the No. 11 seed.
A matchup between No. 10 SMU and No. 7 Tennessee might also have changed, with the former securing a more favorable outcome despite its loss to Clemson.
In this case, teams like Texas and Penn State would have collected the third and fourth byes, raising questions about the ultimate significance of conference title games.
The current bracket positions Oregon to encounter either Ohio State or Tennessee in the quarterfinals, and changes such as reseeding or avoiding regular-season contests would likely provide a smoother path for the Ducks.
Should the playoff format expand to 14 teams, other complications might arise. The new rules would likely see distribution decisions that provide extra spots for prominent conferences, potentially excluding teams like Iowa State, which, despite landing in the bracket as a 14 seed, lost significantly.
In summary, while multiple options exist, it remains unclear how changes could play out. The complexities involved in forming a fair competitive structure emphasize the inherent challenges of college football playoffs.
