They truly don’t know whether to pick the 4 best teams or the 4 most deserving teams. And then they jump back and forth between those two criteria without even realizing it.
For instance, let’s say for argument’s sake that EVERYONE agrees that Michigan is better than Notre Dame at the end of the year. Based on the criteria of which are the 4 best teams, they would be ranked ahead of Notre Dame (obviously). Based on who is most deserving, they would be ranked behind them (assuming Notre Dame was undefeated, and based on head to head).
But here is where it gets tricky. No one has ever said which is the standard? Worse-yet, they may choose Notre Dame over Michigan because “they deserve it” but then, theoretically, choose Bama even if they lose to Georgia because “they are one of the 4 best teams.”
Until this tug of war between deserve and best gets clearly defined, they committee will always be forced to justify an inconsistent rationale.
Take this week’s poll. I’m fine with LSU being 7th if the committee thinks they are the 7th best team even if they don’t “deserve” to be ranked 7th after a drubbing at home for their second loss of the season. But does the committee really think Washington State is the 8th best team, or do they think WSU “deserves” to be ranked 8th? I’d argue it’s the latter.
This inconsistency is the basis for what drives people nuts about this “system,” even if they don’t realize that is what is driving them nuts. At least, that’s my opinion.
On ESPN today, two analysts agreed that Michigan can’t be ranked ahead of Notre Dame with equal records because head to head needs to matter (deserve basis), but then also said Alabama needs to be in the playoff even if they lose to Georgia (best 4 teams basis). They didn’t even realize they had just flip-flopped their rationale for how teams should be selected. It’s really a thing to behold once you recognize it...
At the end of the day, this is the key question: if it was clear that 4th best team in the country had three losses, but the losses were to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd best teams (assume everyone agrees on that for this example) should the team be ranked 4th (best 4 team basis) or drop behind all the undefeated or one-loss Power 5 teams even if no one thinks those teams are as good as them (deserve basis)? To me, it is essential that everyone in the committee agree on the answer to this question prior to even ranking these teams in real life.
For instance, let’s say for argument’s sake that EVERYONE agrees that Michigan is better than Notre Dame at the end of the year. Based on the criteria of which are the 4 best teams, they would be ranked ahead of Notre Dame (obviously). Based on who is most deserving, they would be ranked behind them (assuming Notre Dame was undefeated, and based on head to head).
But here is where it gets tricky. No one has ever said which is the standard? Worse-yet, they may choose Notre Dame over Michigan because “they deserve it” but then, theoretically, choose Bama even if they lose to Georgia because “they are one of the 4 best teams.”
Until this tug of war between deserve and best gets clearly defined, they committee will always be forced to justify an inconsistent rationale.
Take this week’s poll. I’m fine with LSU being 7th if the committee thinks they are the 7th best team even if they don’t “deserve” to be ranked 7th after a drubbing at home for their second loss of the season. But does the committee really think Washington State is the 8th best team, or do they think WSU “deserves” to be ranked 8th? I’d argue it’s the latter.
This inconsistency is the basis for what drives people nuts about this “system,” even if they don’t realize that is what is driving them nuts. At least, that’s my opinion.
On ESPN today, two analysts agreed that Michigan can’t be ranked ahead of Notre Dame with equal records because head to head needs to matter (deserve basis), but then also said Alabama needs to be in the playoff even if they lose to Georgia (best 4 teams basis). They didn’t even realize they had just flip-flopped their rationale for how teams should be selected. It’s really a thing to behold once you recognize it...
At the end of the day, this is the key question: if it was clear that 4th best team in the country had three losses, but the losses were to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd best teams (assume everyone agrees on that for this example) should the team be ranked 4th (best 4 team basis) or drop behind all the undefeated or one-loss Power 5 teams even if no one thinks those teams are as good as them (deserve basis)? To me, it is essential that everyone in the committee agree on the answer to this question prior to even ranking these teams in real life.
Last edited:
