Trevone Boykin and TCU were left out of the Top 4
Brian
Overview
For years, fans argued the BCS was a flawed system, noting that computers shouldn't be a deciding factor in determining who plays for the National Championship. I honestly didn't have a big problem with the BCS formula. It was comprised of the Harris Interactive Poll, the Coaches Poll, and the Computer Average, making it 2/3 human and 1/3 computer.
I really liked that the BCS contained an objective element - the computer average. What I didn't like about the BCS was that it only included 2 teams. Instead of expanding the BCS to 4 teams, the system was overthrown altogether for the 12 member CFB Playoff Committee.
Proponents of the Committee System argued that the eye test is more important than a formula, especially at the end of the season. I understand this argument, but I despise the fact the new system completely erased any form of numerical objectivity. Having said this, did the committee get it right this year?
In my opinion, yes. However, I do have some complaints...
Why they got it right
I've told friends for weeks that TCU has by far the weakest argument to be one of the four playoff teams. Do I think TCU is a legit team worthy of a playoff spot? Absolutely. However, given that Baylor and TCU are in the same conference and played common teams, I could not justify sending TCU to the playoff after they lost to Baylor (assuming both finished with 1 loss).
Even though the Big 12 recognizes co-champions, nowhere in American sport does a team that loses a head-to-head win a tie-breaker. Let me use an example to show how silly TCU making the playoff would have been. In 2013, the Iron Bowl featured undefeated Alabama vs. 1-loss Auburn (lost to LSU). Auburn defeated Alabama in the "Kick Six" game and advanced to the SEC Championship. Can you imagine if someone would have said, well, since Alabama's loss was better than Auburn's loss to LSU, then Alabama should go to the SEC Championship instead of Auburn? Or, even though Auburn beat Alabama on a "lucky" play, Alabama was really the better team. How ridiculous would that have been?
Thus, for me, as long as Baylor finished with 1 loss, TCU was irrelevant. Sure, some argue that TCU had a tougher non-conference schedule than Baylor, but if you are banking this argument on TCU playing Minnesota, it is a pretty flimsy argument.
Alternatively, as stated previously, some may argue that the CFB Playoff isn't exclusively about head-to-head matchups and also about "the eye test." If this is true, then, can someone reasonably say TCU is DEFINITELY better than Baylor just by watching the two right now? I do not think so.
So, using my logic, that leaves Baylor and Ohio State. I honestly cannot say which of these teams was more deserving to be in the playoff. Given the Big 12 does not have a championship game, I agree with the committee's decision to give the nod to Ohio State over Baylor. It isn't Baylor's fault the Big 12 doesn't have a conference championship, but the committee had to justify one of the two teams somehow. Some argue that Baylor's out of conference schedule was weak, but you can counter that argument with Ohio State's loss being worse than Baylor's.
From a fan perspective, I am thrilled about Ohio State making it, as Nick Saban will re-match Urban Meyer, hopefully re-creating some of the Alabama-Florida intrigue in past SEC Championships. However, I do feel for Baylor. I feel for the seniors who may never have a chance at a football championship again, in the NFL or retired.
Why they got it wrong
I fault the committee in two major areas: 1) the order of the 4 teams that made the playoff, and 2) ranking TCU 3rd last week.
1) I can't stand Jameis Winston. I despise how Florida State has handled the Jameis Winston situation. However, despite these feelings, I do not believe an undefeated team in a Power 5 conference (who has actually played decent competition) should be behind 2 teams with 1 loss each. Florida State should be #1. I don't care if they have squeaked out victories, in the end, winning is what matters, and Florida State has consistently proven they are winners. Does this mean they are better than Alabama and Oregon? Not necessarily, but it's almost like we're rewarding 2 teams for losing. It would be more beneficial for Florida State to play in New Orleans against Ohio State instead of traveling to Pasadena to play Oregon.
2) As stated in the first section, you know my feelings on TCU. Given the potential for Ohio State, Baylor, and TCU to all finish with 1 loss (and Baylor's head-to-head win over TCU), it made absolutely no sense for the committee to put TCU in the top 3 last week, only to move them out to #6. It ultimately backed the committee into a corner and made them lose a little bit of credibility.
Jeremy
Overview
All in all I think the committee got it right. If you look at everything on paper, Ohio State had more good wins than Baylor or TCU. Wisconsin may have been overrated by the committee but that had to play into the equation. Also, Michigan State rated higher than TCU's best win in Kansas State. Honestly though, TCU shouldn't factor into the equation because Baylor's head to head victory over them was the best win of the three. Here's what I learned from teh committee, timing still matters. It's hard for anyone to shake the idea that Ohio State had just drubbed a team that was favored over them in a conference championship game. Ultimately, that is what kept Baylor out in my opinion.
Why they got it right
Alabama is the best team right now. If you don't believe humans, then the BCS formula would have said the same thing. They destroyed Missouri in what was a mismatch from the start. They have gotten better as a team throughout the year and it's hard to argue they aren't #1. But according to the old BCS formula, the committee got all four teams right. The BCS would've swapped Oregon and FSU but that's splitting hairs. They would play anyways. What I learned from this is that it really doesn't matter if you are 2 or 3 but it definitely matters if you are 3 or 4. And it matters a lot more if you are 4 or 5. Also, whoever said that the playoffs would water down the regular season are crazy. There's always going to be that weekend or two where everything goes sideways and your team is right back in it. You don't have to be ranked #1 or #2 anymore and that gives everyone more hope.
Why they got it wrong
It's an uneven playing field. Ohio State got in strictly because they were able to play a 13th game. That's not fair. Either everyone plays a championship game so there is a level playing field or everyone doesn't. Personally, I would like to see championship games done away with. This solves a couple of problems other than a level playing field: (1) Attendance. Other than the SEC Championship game, how many were sell outs? Looked pretty sparse in Charlotte. Know it was in Santa Clara. (2) Divisions. In the SEC the schedule is so haywired to keep divisions. Teams don't play each other often enough but to alleviate that problem, you have to give traditional rivalries. Schools and fans don't want that. Eliminating divisions allows you to play more rivalry games while rotating everyone else. It's a win-win. (3) More Scheduling. The Big 12 plays 9 conference games without a championship. The SEC plays 8 with. In order for the committee to make an unbiased decision, everyone should play the same # of conference games with or without a championship. (4) It Could Hurt. What if Alabama had lost on Saturday? Or Oregon? There's a chance your conference could get left out because you played an extra game. Just wait, in the current format, that will cost someone and their fan base will raise holy hell about it. (5) More Playoffs. Listen, we all know this is just the beginning of a bigger playoff. There's too much money to be had not to do it. Eliminate the conference championships and make it an 8 team playoff. No one can argue about the 'extra games' things or the fact that it interferes with classes. We are going to end up there anyways, we might as well go ahead and speed up the process.
