Skip to content

Flawed logic has tainted the College Football Playoff selection process

What Bruce Feldman said in one social media post encapsulated the growing angst toward the College Football Playoff Selection Committee.

Upon the release of the committee’s penultimate rankings on Tuesday, the path to a third consecutive trip to the CFP for No. 13 Texas is, for all intents and purposes, a dead end. To get into the 12-team field, the Longhorns need Texas Tech to win the Big 12, Georgia to notch a landslide revenge victory over Alabama in the SEC title game and then hope the committee values the body of work Texas has put together throughout one of the toughest 12-game schedules any Power Four team had to navigate (LSU is the only bowl-eligible team ranked above the Longhorns in ESPN’s strength of schedule metric, which says Steve Sarkisian’s team played the eighth-toughest schedule in the country).

That’s unlikely to happen because the committee, based on what committee chair Hunter Yurachek said on Tuesday’s post-reveal conference call with reporters, believes Texas’ 29-21 road loss to Florida on Oct. 4 is too big a blemish to overlook.

“You’re spot on,” the Arkansas athletic director said when he was asked if the loss to the Gators is “the thing hurting Texas the most.”

“The committee has a great deal of respect for Texas and they've played an incredible schedule,” he added. “They've got four teams they played in our top 10. They beat OU on a neutral field. They just beat Texas A&M at home this past weekend. They lost to No. 1, Ohio State, and lost to No. 3, Georgia.

“But one key stat this week in the teams ranked in our top 15, there's 17 total losses for those teams. Sixteen of those losses came against teams that are currently ranked or have been ranked in our top 25 this year. The only loss to an unranked team was Texas' loss to Florida at Florida, and really Florida dominated that game — held Texas to 50 yards rushing, two interceptions. So, it's not that Texas played Ohio State. It is Texas' loss to Florida that's holding them back now.”

We don’t need to read the tea leaves when the committee is shoving them down our throats. When it comes to Texas, the committee has decided that an objectively bad loss supercedes three wins over teams currently ranked in the committee’s top 15.

That would be understandable had Yurachek’s words and the committee's actions done anything other than validate Feldman’s rant. The committee ranks teams as it wants, then works backward to make it make sense.

How is Texas dinged for the Florida loss, but Alabama’s two-touchdown loss to a Florida State team that finished 5-7 after getting blown out by the Gators last Saturday doesn’t matter?

Head-to-head results appear to matter for Oklahoma and Alabama (No. 8 and No. 9, respectively) and Texas and Vanderbilt (the Longhorns passed the 10-2 Commodores in the rankings). That's the case for No. 12 Miami, which opened the season with a win over No. 10 Notre Dame.

Two weeks ago, Yuracheck said Oregon was still getting credit for a road win over Penn State. The same appears to apply to Oklahoma's road win over Tennessee and road wins over Missouri for Alabama and Texas A&M, the Aggies going into Baton Rouge and manhandling LSU and the Crimson Tide's Iron Bowl win over Auburn.

Still, Yuracheck said on Tuesday that Vanderbilt lacks a signature win because LSU, Missouri and Tennessee aren’t currently ranked by the committee, even though Josh Heupel’s team fell out of the rankings after the Commodores’ 45-24 rout of the Volunteers in Neyland Stadium.

The CFP selection process isn’t broken. It would’ve needed to be a well-oiled machine first, which was never the case. And although no system will ever be perfect, a transparent process that leaves more questions than answers isn't working.

Bill Hancock was the executive director of the CFP from its inception through last season, when he helped Rich Clark transition into the role. In 2023, when a late-season injury to quarterback Jordan Travis put Florida State’s CFP hopes in doubt, Hancock clarified the selection committee’s criteria for setting the then-four-team field.

“It is ‘best,’” Hancock said. “‘Most deserving’ is not anything in the committee's lexicon. They are to rank the best teams in order, and that's what they do. Just keep that word in mind, ‘best’ teams.”

Therein lies the problem.

Three wins over Associated Press top-five opponents and nine wins against one of the toughest schedules in the country should be a strong enough résumé for the Longhorns to be considered one of the seven best at-large teams. The committee clinging to the Florida loss to justify why Texas should be on the outside looking in is a prime example of how the selection process doesn't end with a bracket of the best teams.

Don’t say you’re picking the best teams when Miami’s head-to-head win over Notre Dame, as of now, doesn’t matter.

Don’t say you’re picking the best teams when Texas and Vanderbilt, both of whom went 6-2 in the toughest conference in the country, are likely headed to meaningless bowl games. At the same time, Sun Belt favorite James Madison and the winner of the AAC title game between North Texas and Tulane could be among the 12 teams left standing for a chance to win the national championship. Everyone loves the Cinderella story, but how (aside from the money that would go to the AAC and Sun Belt, respectively) is college football better for Group of Five teams getting sacrificed to a legit title contender from the Power Four?

Don’t say you’re picking the best teams when the Longhorns, who played a tougher schedule than any of the other current CFP candidates, appear to be disqualified from consideration solely based on accruing three losses.

Until the goalposts stop moving or the moment comes when the Big Ten and the SEC decide, by force, to dictate the terms of the CFP to the rest of college football (like it or not, it’s coming), we won’t get a field of the best teams deciding a national champion. We'll get whatever the committee decides it wants, criteria or guidelines be dammed.

User Feedback

Recommended Comments

4thandFive

Supporters

Texas should have beaten Florida.

Waxahorn

Supporters

Won't it be exciting to watch North Texas take on Oregon?😗

And who will we root for?

Burnt Orange Horn

Supporters
2 hours ago, HornsUpThumbsDown said:

Good points, Texas has 3 losses, 1 worse than others puts them behind teams that don’t have 3 losses. Bama probably thought same thing last year. Good fuel to take care of Biz next year 

Which is exactly why total losses is the wrong criteria by which to classify teams.  Head to Head and Strength of Schedule must come first.  It is non critical thinkers who accept the Committee's losses first criteria.  Kind of like the good Germans in the 30s who justified accepting Hitler.

The committee ranks teams as it wants, then works backward to make it make sense. This is the fatal flaw of the Committee which invalidates all of its actions. It has negated the value of marquee match ups.  The consequence of invalidating such elevated competitive matchups means less CFB fans will be able to view them.  Which also means total revenue for the networks and the involved colleges will decline.

If Texas and other colleges with premier football programs will not speak against this obviously flawed model, then the networks must.  Kudos to Jeff for articulating the obvious flaws of this Committee of program fans and professional pundits expressing personal biases over sober evaluation.  The NCAA must do better or be kicked to the gutter by the power conference members.

 

Burnt Orange Horn

Supporters
17 minutes ago, 4thandFive said:

Texas should have beaten Florida.

Yes, but it should not be the on criterion that invalidates Head to Head records and Strength if Schedule.

You have been brainwashed by the Committee's malfeasant decision process.  Unfortunately we have many others who also lack critical thinking capabilities.  Sad time in America.

4thandFive

Supporters
(edited)
2 minutes ago, Burnt Orange Horn said:

Yes, but it should not be the on criterion that invalidates Head to Head records and Strength if Schedule.

You have been brainwashed by the Committee's malfeasant decision process.  Unfortunately we have many others who also lack critical thinking capabilities.  Sad time in America.

I haven’t been brainwashed…Texas lost 3 games.
 

Don’t lose 3 games (one of them being to a sub-.500 team) and we’d be in the playoffs without question. Period.

Edited by 4thandFive

FootLaw

Supporters

The BS gets worse every year. Bama has the worst loss of the top 15 hands down.

Until you put non-interested parties on the CFP committee, it will be flawed. End of story.

marathon

Supporters
3 hours ago, Jeff Howe said:

Don’t say you’re picking the best teams when Miami’s head-to-head win over Notre Dame, as of now, doesn’t matter.

Don’t say you’re picking the best teams when the Longhorns, who played a tougher schedule than any of the other current CFP candidates, appear to be disqualified from consideration solely based on accruing three losses.

 


The committee should be fired for ranking Notre Dame over Miami even though Miami beat ND and they both have 10-2 records. It’s as if Miami never played ND. Why even play the game.

Flawed logic implies there was logic to begin with. Their selection process is simple. They look at won loss records and pick the prettiest records.

Here are their top 13 rankings.

Ohio State: 12-0

Indiana: 12-0

Georgia: 11-1

Texas Tech: 11-1

Oregon: 11-1

Ole Miss: 11-1

Texas A&M: 11-1

Oklahoma: 10-2

Alabama: 10-2

Notre Dame: 10-2

BYU: 11-1

Miami (Fla.): 10-2

Texas: 9-3

Junior

Supporters

I’m honestly baffled why some Texas fans and media are still running air cover for this committee. It's like agreeing with a judge who didn’t read the case but liked the font on the first page.

Here for the Wins

Supporters

I think A&M got hosed to keep us out of it. Maybe Vandy too.

AusMOJO

Members
1 hour ago, Jeff Howe said:

Jon Gruden did a bit, but it makes more sense than the current format:

 

I still don't get how BYU would be in if they lose? They need to win to stay in the CFP, if they lose they're out. 

Bunk Moreland

Supporters
4 hours ago, Joe Zura said:

I didn’t even read this damn playoff post just came because it was yet another 🤬🤬🤬😭😭😭

image.gif.912a63dc3b0d7cf9f54803128bd2d140.gif

image.gif.665c72596e0dc7ede29ef96ba6cc07d9.gif

Oskies1279

Supporters

If byu and bama both lose then I just can't get around the fact they'll still take bama in over Texas. I don't care that it is the conf champ game. A loss is a loss as defined by the playoff committee, and they lost to fsu, who lost to Florida. Suddenly they just magically forget about that loss? I'm mind blown by that fact 🤯

Titleist8412

Supporters
3 hours ago, Jeff Howe said:

I know how everyone on this board feels about Mike Elko, but he's 100 percent right on this topic. All we want is clarity and we're not getting it from the committee:

 

I agree with the quote, but their schedule was definitely weak.

Their SEC wins were a combined 12-44. Their opponents this year, including us, to whom they obviously lost, were a combined 67-77. Teams they beat were a combined 58-74. They beat: Missouri (4-4; 8-4); LSU (3-5; 7-5); Florida (2-6; 4-8); Auburn (1-7; 5-7); MSST (1-7; 5-7); SoCa (1-7; 4-8); and Ark (0-8; 2-10). ND (10-2) is the only team they beat with a pulse, but ND's best win was against Pitt, so what does that say about them. Their other NC games were against UTSA (6-6), Utah ST (6-6) and Samford (1-11). Somehow, their strength of record is ranked 3rd with that schedule. I don't know how it is calculated, but that is a joke.

I know your point did not involve the Aggies' schedule, but I couldn't help but push back on the idea that their schedule wasn't weak.

Tres Comas

Supporters
9 minutes ago, Oskies1279 said:

If byu and bama both lose then I just can't get around the fact they'll still take bama in over Texas. I don't care that it is the conf champ game. A loss is a loss as defined by the playoff committee, and they lost to fsu, who lost to Florida. Suddenly they just magically forget about that loss? I'm mind blown by that fact 🤯

They also have a game against Eastern Illinois on their schedule. Why that should count as anything more than a meaningless scrimmage is beyond me

Burnt Orange Horn

Supporters

Jeff, it is not flawed logic as much as it is dereliction of duty.  When the schools and networks must seriously jean on the NCAA and it's corrupt Committee. They have not performed as charged!

ChanmanV

Supporters
(edited)

I think a simple solution to how to select the playoff teams is to remove the committee all together and create a ladder point system that would rank the teams week to week (separate from the AP poll ofc). The way it could work is you only gain points if you win and the amount of points you gain is based on the quality of opponent you are playing. This system would balance out the risk/reward of scheduling tougher games. You can either gain a lot of points for a big win or get 0 points for a loss. It also would not allow teams with a soft schedule to get fewer points for wins over bad teams. The amount you win by would have no value on the amount of points you win.  No more G5 teams and auto bids but instead just straight up top 12 in points move into the playoffs with the seedings in place. Conference championships could either not count because it's an extra game for only some teams or it could act as bonus points for conference winners which would all but ensure them a high ranking and a good seeding.

This is system is pretty similar to the ELO system game developers use in their ladder matchmaking. It's simple, effective, transparent, and can be tracked all the way to the finish. With the number of games being such a small sample size, figuring out the quality of opponent early season would be the only thing that needs to be debated. You could still use the AP poll for this I guess since the AP poll is trying to accurately rank week to week what they believe will be the eventual rankings at the end of the year. 

Edited by ChanmanV

dentonhorn

Members
12 hours ago, Hornmatic said:

Expansion was a huge mistake. 4 team playoff was perfect and bcs 1v2 is better than more than 4. 

HUGE mistake and has messed up the mystique of college football. It was different than the antiseptic NFL. It was a better time. Much so.

Burnt Orange Horn

Supporters
11 hours ago, 4thandFive said:

I haven’t been brainwashed…Texas lost 3 games.
 

Don’t lose 3 games (one of them being to a sub-.500 team) and we’d be in the playoffs without question. Period.

You have been brainwashed by the Committee.  Total losses ha never been the primary criterion. End of story!  Learn to read and think.

4thandFive

Supporters

What if there were a computer system that analyzed a complex system of metrics and integrated various formulaic data into a process designed to avoid human error and produce the statistically “best” teams…..

4thandFive

Supporters
(edited)
3 minutes ago, Burnt Orange Horn said:

You have been brainwashed by the Committee.  Total losses ha never been the primary criterion. End of story!  Learn to read and think.

A- I’m not a fan of the committee. B- I’ve been saying this before the results came out. C- An ugly and inexcusable third loss is absolutely weighty.

Edited by 4thandFive

Burnt Orange Horn

Supporters
10 minutes ago, dentonhorn said:

HUGE mistake and has messed up the mystique of college football. It was different than the antiseptic NFL. It was a better time. Much so.

No, the greater inclusion of teams was a brilliant move.  The NFL is a 32 team private league.  Regression to the mean favors them.  The FBS is a 139+ public league.  It is seeking the best of that public league to include in the playoff.  Playing Portland State is not the same as a SEC or most B1G teams, nor should it be.

Burnt Orange Horn

Supporters
8 hours ago, ChanmanV said:

I think a simple solution to how to select the playoff teams is to remove the committee all together and create a ladder point system that would rank the teams week to week (separate from the AP poll ofc). The way it could work is you only gain points if you win and the amount of points you gain is based on the quality of opponent you are playing. This system would balance out the risk/reward of scheduling tougher games. You can either gain a lot of points for a big win or get 0 points for a loss. It also would not allow teams with a soft schedule to get fewer points for wins over bad teams. The amount you win by would have no value on the amount of points you win.  No more G5 teams and auto bids but instead just straight up top 12 in points move into the playoffs with the seedings in place. Conference championships could either not count because it's an extra game for only some teams or it could act as bonus points for conference winners which would all but ensure them a high ranking and a good seeding.

This is system is pretty similar to the ELO system game developers use in their ladder matchmaking. It's simple, effective, transparent, and can be tracked all the way to the finish. With the number of games being such a small sample size, figuring out the quality of opponent early season would be the only thing that needs to be debated. You could still use the AP poll for this I guess since the AP poll is trying to accurately rank week to week what they believe will be the eventual rankings at the end of the year. 

Anything, even computer rankings or AI, is better than a biased and willfully ignorant prejudiced committee.

🤘🏻🤘🏼🤘🤘🏽🤘🏾🤘🏿

GDI

Supporters
(edited)

I'm amused that people think the committee is screwing up the process. That is just what committees do.  Let the computers pick.

As for expansion it has only made things worse. Imagine the committee having to deal with 16,  24,  or even as someone suggested 32 teams. The playoffs are watered down with 12 teams,  imagine 32.  

The best 8 teams in football should be in the playoffs.  Set the criteria and let the computers pick,  adjust if necessary and it will eventually be right.  Giving a committee more teams to deal with only brings more chaos.  

Edited by GDI

Here for the Wins

Supporters
1 hour ago, Burnt Orange Horn said:

No, the greater inclusion of teams was a brilliant move.  The NFL is a 32 team private league.  Regression to the mean favors them.  The FBS is a 139+ public league.  It is seeking the best of that public league to include in the playoff.  Playing Portland State is not the same as a SEC or most B1G teams, nor should it be.

Fewer games than the NFL, far more unbalanced schedules leads to inconclusive choices.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Add a comment...

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.