CFB 2017: Alabama or Ohio State. The great debate.

Great time to sound off! We're not talking about a complex situation here with multiple other teams poised with arguments to be in the hunt for the CFP. What about UCF? They haven't played anybody of relative strength to earn a shot at the CFP. If you use proper analytics, the argument is clearly not in their favor. How about USC? While I think it is awesome they finally won the PAC-12 (I never liked any of Stanford, Oregon, Washington, or anybody else), their "strength of schedule" doesn't match-up to what the committee is looking for. Obviously, the entire selection process is ambiguously qualitative and somewhat arbitrary in this regard. It is of reason as I've previously eluded to that we should have a pseudo expansion to allow conference champs of the power 5 to play-in for the CFP. However, for purposes of further discussion and as well agreed upon by the masses, USC is out, UCF is clearly out.
The argument now boils down to Ohio State and Alabama. I can prove to you that my argument is unbiased. I have fan gear I can post here from both sides. I verified loved Ohio State since Craig Krenzel and the 2002 team won the National Championship. I verified loved Alabama since they finally knocked off Florida and beat Texas in the 2009 National Championship. Each year, I have rooted for either team to win it all. Most years Alabama won and I was cool with that. I didn't get a chance to watch the 2014 campaign when both teams met, but found out that game was epic. Glad Ohio State didn't falter against Oregon in the finale. Both teams got a shot at it last year, but both lost to Clemson. Clemson really should just go away.

ANYWAYS, so do you let a team with a near perfect record with their only loss coming to a #2 team in a country on the road by a couple of touchdowns or allow a power 5 conference champion with losses coming to unranked Iowa and #3 ranked Oklahoma at home?

Quality wins are just as important though to consider!:

Ohio State beat a #2 Penn State, #4 Wisconsin, and #12 Michigan State. I'd like to add Michigan too because their losses only came to the top quality opponents in their league (all teams ranked within #12). All of Penn State, Wisconsin, and Michigan State held on to remain in high ranking (current #9 Penn State, #4 (loss today means dropping to within top 10), #16 Michigan State). In their schedule, Army also had a great campaign this year and could end up in the top 25 when all is said and done next week. Moreover, Ohio State played most of the rest of it's opponents in conference, with out-of-division teams landing in an even spread across the W-L conference standings. Their only "poor" out-of-conference win is against UNLV.

As for Alabama, they have only beaten a #3 Florida State, #19 LSU, and #16 Miss State. Florida State completely dropped off (consideration should be given to the fact that Alabama knocked out their star QB for the year, causing a spiral downfall), LSU improved to #17, but Miss State dropped to #23. They played all teams in their division of course, but out-of-division wins came to bottom-bucket teams Vanderbilt and Tennessee. Their out-of-conference wins, besides Florida State, came to deplorable Mercer and Colorado State. I'm not sure where I should put Fresno State at the moment having lost it's conference championship match against Boise State.

This "strength of schedule" resonates with the committee. It might be fair to say we should exclude any conference championship. Thus, if we just look at the wins and losses and whose those wins and losses came against, you're in a debate of who is the best team between the two.

In my opinion, I think purely by the analytics of the schedule you would favor Ohio State. However, what value is to be placed in the fact that Alabama hadn't lost a single game up until #2 Auburn on the road? The unfortunate part for the Tide is that Auburn didn't have 2 losses in conference. If they had, Alabama still would have played for the SEC championship today and likely crushed Georgia in a revenge game and punch their ticket to the CFP. I felt some sense of lost ownership with Alabama all of a sudden out of the picture. It's like "perfect season, perfect season, perfect season.... done". No division title, no conference championship, and possibly no CFP appearance now. Their argument now hinges on the fact that Ohio State, ironically, was in the same position last year when they had an excellent campaign with it's only and single loss to the team that played in the conference championship game (they won it though but were deemed unworthy for CFP due to other losses). Can the two be compared? Let's see. In 2016, Ohio State beat #14 Oklahoma, #8 Wisconsin, #9 Nebraska, and #3 Michigan. For Alabama this year, they only beat #3 FSU, #19 LSU, and #16 Miss State. Let's not forget the horrible season FSU had, although we cannot say how losing their QB has affected their mentality and allow the losses to snowball as they did.

While I feel that Alabama would be playing with a hell of a chip on their shoulder after getting nearly (if not all) completely out of the picture come tomorrow and that their team is always top-caliber to play heavy against anyone, weight should be placed reasonably on action and performance, not on speculation. Unfortunately, there is no opportunity left for Alabama to prove or disprove any speculative notion and it is impossible to award an opportunity.

It is at this juncture that Ohio State is the more favorable candidate based on all the information, not only by analytics, but on precedent and true argument that, like for comparing Ohio State and Penn State last year, Ohio State at least matches up with Alabama in simulation. It is definitely impossible to prove which team is best, as is the committee's duty to select the top 4 teams in the country; thus, since there is no clear and concise argument to illustrate in an alternative means from opponents played/strength of schedule (SOS) which team is better, we must rely on that strength of schedule and other common qualitative factors (like quality wins/losses, offense/defense ranking, etc...) the committee reviews for their rankings. [Just out of curiosity in total and scoring defense, Alabama has Ohio State beat. However, on total and scoring offense, Ohio State clearly out-ranks Alabama.]
When reviewing these factors, it is clear to say that Ohio State should be in the CFP and not Alabama. Where Alabama relies on the the previous year precedent of choosing Ohio State over Penn State, their argument falls short on the fact that Ohio State had been 3 top-ten teams in that year (all whom finished with well above .500 marks) whereas Alabama only beat 1 top-ten team in FSU (whom is now at .500 and could finish with a losing record).

While I think Alabama should be out, they should be happy with the fact that there is at least a debate. If Wisconsin had won yesterday, their would be no debate or doubt as to which teams belong in the CFP. If this was even so much as 4 years ago, they would have no argument for Clemson, Oklahoma, and Georgia would be brawling it out for the the two spots in the BCS National Championship game. For Alabama to interject their argument, they should be grateful. However, with the potential for greater volatility in the FBS (imagine if Clemson and Oklahoma had lost to mediocre teams) indicates that an expanded form should be considered. Even if not so at the current time, you can expect outrageous results in the years to come that would, so like for the fate of the BCS, push the NCAA to once again evolve the format once more, likely to again increase the number of teams eligible to participate for the National Championship.

A necessary update to this blog: College Football Playoff (under construction)

The last time I touched this blog was 5 YEARS AGO. That's a LONG time ago and, thank God, there have been some necessary changes to college football in the interim. 

Chiefly, the NCAA has adopted the 4 team college football format for the 2014 season. Without this, Ohio State would have never won the National Championship and I'm sure Alabama was not thrilled at all. In fact, they likely would have beat Oregon, but who knows. 

This format was worked out so well for the past 3 years now. Being on our 4 year, we are less than a week away from seeing if new discussion and debate will start brewing over a 8 team format (all ears and eyes on Jamie Samuelson from Detroit's 97.1 "The Ticket" and FOX Detroit Sportsworks). 

If all top 4 teams win, the format is solid. If any of those teams loses, we might well be looking at some heated debate. I can only imagine that if the only loss among the top 4 comes from Miami beating Clemson, Miami would only trade places with Clemson. However, if either of Auburn, Wisconsin, or Oklahoma loses (all of which are significantly possible), we are back in the same heated debate we had before the college football playoff (CFP) with the BCS. 

I've heard talks of Ohio State battling it out with Alabama if they beat Wisconsin. I'm a HUGE fan of Ohio State and Alabama as well, but a bigger fan of logic. We are all overlooking TCU. If they beat Oklahoma and Ohio State beats Wisconsin, would that not be a serious debate right there. What if only TCU wins? Do we have a debate between TCU and Alabama? 

The funny part I LOVE about this is that 5 years ago, I already made the suggestion to award all 5 power conferences a chance at the National Championship with options to include at-large teams.. Upon reviewing this, my selection was for not only all 5 power conferences but also Notre Dame since they were top in the country. Of course, this year they blew that chance in losing to Stanford. Nonetheless, that vacancy is invalid. We should perhaps consider adding another conference to the power 5 conferences (UCF had a pretty good season!). We don't need to though and there are good strategic means of covering all the bases on this. Perhaps, just add only 3 at-large teams? 

The complexity of the college football team selection is grand. What if a power-5 conference has little competitive spirit as we've seen with Pac-12 this year and in some former years? If you look at today's 4-team format, they have seemingly rightfully been excluded. Some would disagree. An issue opponents to expanding the field is that it degrades from the worth of the regular season in allowing an "undeserving" opponent to join the field and upset a top ranked team to claim the national title. Ironically, we saw this back in 2011 when LSU rightfully claimed the SEC championship and a spot for the national championship but Alabama was allowed to re-compete for that national championship despite not having won either a conference or division championship. More ironically, they are once again in the same scenario with an opportunity to sneak into the 4 team field. 

The problem with the opposition's argument is that ALL other major and collegiate sports follow a playoff format with a vast number of teams competing. Even the NFL allows for 12 teams out of 32 teams. We are essentially saying that among 100+ teams in the NCAA (60 of which are in power conferences) are limited to 4 teams to compete for the national championship? I dare say that 8 teams or more is reasonable. 

Perhaps we can throw out some of these cupcake games that these teams play to open up that allotted game space for games that matter---like an at-large game for a chance to play in a bowl game as part of the playoff or just in a bowl game for a chance at the semis and then national championship game. 

Well, if that 8+ team idea doesn't sit with you well, we can still surely agree that some unknown and abstract solution be implemented. Maybe it is semi-fluid from year-to-year to fit the NCAA and fanbase needs? Obviously, we are running out of ideas. Maybe all the fans can just vote at the end of the year for who is best or maybe with Trump and the foreign hooligans running afloat we won't need to worry about it for too much longer.