ATHENS, Ga. — Warde Manuel, Michigan’s athletic director and this year’s sacrificial spokesman for the College Football Playoff committee, said a curious thing after Tuesday night’s ranking unveiling. ESPN’s Rece Davis asked how much schedule strength mattered and generally what the committee looks at most.
“Watching the games, watching how the teams play, carries the day,” Manuel said.
Eye test, that sounded like. And yet the updated rankings had a Bill Parcells “You are what your record says you are” feel: Four of the top five are from the Big Ten, two unbeaten and two with one loss. Among the SEC teams, Texas is at No. 3 despite no wins over ranked teams, while four SEC teams with two losses are clumped between No. 7 and No. 11 — that last one being Georgia, which handed Texas its one loss.
Kirby Smart, speaking before the rankings were released, was skeptical of eye test mattering.
Free, daily sports updates direct to your inbox.
Free, daily sports updates direct to your inbox.
Sign Up
“I just think they base it on wins and losses,” Smart said. “They don’t say this is better than that. They say this record is better than that. That’s the most simple way to do it. It’s not necessarily the 12 best.”
Ah, great. Here we are again.
When it was a four-team field, the debate was about picking the four best vs. the four most deserving. Officially, the stated mantra was four best, but it almost always worked out to the most deserving route. The new format was supposed to settle that by giving at least one bid to the four power conferences and a Group of 5 team, then leaving room to pick the seven best at-large teams. It still may work out that way. But during the first three weeks, the 13 committee members seem to be going the lazy route.
Indiana and Penn State haven’t beaten anybody? Eh, the records are still impressive, and they’re Big Ten teams, so put them high.
Texas got convincingly beaten by the one ranked team it faced? Yeah, but it’s the only one-loss SEC team, so put it high.
Alabama, Ole Miss, Georgia and Tennessee are engaged in a circular firing squad? OK, bunch them together but put Alabama and Ole Miss ahead of Georgia because they beat the Dawgs but put Georgia ahead of Tennessee because it beat the Vols, although the Vols did beat Alabama, which lost to Vanderbilt.
Hopefully, it’ll sort itself out in the end.
Smart, went off on the committee after his team’s season-saving win on Saturday night because Georgia had been dinged for being soundly beaten at Ole Miss, along with a close loss at Alabama.
“I wish they could do the eyeball test, where they come down here and look at the people we’re playing against and look at them, and you know, you can’t see that stuff on TV, and so I don’t know what they look for,” Smart said. “They don’t know. They don’t understand that.”
That was in the heat of the moment. But three days later, Smart was still exasperated that his team, in his mind, wasn’t getting enough credit for the No. 1 schedule in the country and three wins over ranked teams, two away from home.
“They really need to decide what they want,” Smart said. “That’s the frustrating thing. Whether it’s record-based or quality opponents. It’s hard to say that you shouldn’t have a strength of schedule factor.”
Most of the time, I’ve leaned toward the most-deserving argument. The results have to matter. Reward the teams that win games. But the SEC’s logjam, if it doesn’t clear up the final few weeks, requires a more subjective test: Who can go win the national championship?
Having seen all but one of these six teams in person, this is my sense: Ole Miss, Alabama and Georgia are all fully capable. Texas A&M is a nice story but not capable of going all the way. (That’s the team I haven’t seen in person, so full disclosure there.) Tennessee? Never say never, but the offense has too many questions, and the defense, especially against the pass, may be a product of the schedule. Texas? Maybe it’s buying too much into the name brand and what it did last year, but it would be hard to bet against the Longhorns going all the way.
Ole Miss, Alabama and Georgia would be at the top, in whatever order you want to put them. Then Texas should get in, but Tennessee and Texas A&M should not. That’s my ballot, at least for now. There are more data points to come in the next few weeks, a chance for teams to play their way out and in.
That’s the key here: There’s time for this to settle cleanly. The Texas question may sort itself out. The two-loss logjam could un-jam.
But there’s as good a chance for more chaos, more confusion and more debate: Should it be about the eye test, record or what? So far the committee is taking the easy way out, but it has three more bites at the apple before this is final. Let’s see what happens then.
(Top photo of Kirby Smart: Todd Kirkland / Getty Images)
