The CFP Committee, To Many's Dismay, Aced Their First 12 Team Playoff Test

This is an NFL blog, I don't want to get that confused. I'll be back tomorrow with some NFL talk. But as was custom on the Fundamentally Unsound pod, I'm due for my annual acknowledgement of college football, and what better time than reacting to the unraveling of the first ever 12-team playoff.

Before we dive in, I love the 12-team playoff. While it's stupid they've already expended before they've played its inaugural season, it's a million times better than 4 teams and if you think differently I won't be upset if you leave and unsubscribe from my page (but don't).

But just because there's more teams in it, doesn't mean the selections are any easier. You could make the playoffs 28 teams and there'll always be a gripe to be had. This team had a harder schedule. This team had better wins. This team had better losses. This team had more losses, vice versa, etc. etc.

So I always keep my expectations low when it comes to a fair seeding from the committee. The auto qualifiers are easy, and I pencil in the rest with the teams that will make the conferences, tv networks, and NCAA the most money.

Despite my scrooge-like attitude, I'm happy to announce that the committee surprised me on Sunday, in more ways than one, en route to picking what I believe to be the perfect 12 team playoff.

You Shouldn't Be Punished For Losing Your Conference Championship Game To A Team That Didn't Play In Theirs

This was the big one everyone had their eyes on. There was criticism of Alabama jumping Miami last week (which I had no issue with, Miami should've had like 4 losses this year) and the biggest question after SMU lost to Clemson at the buzzer on Saturday was if they'd lose their spot to Bama, seeing how Miami lost theirs in a similar situation.

Thank god they didn't, cause in my mind I don't think the situation was as similar as it may have seemed.

Miami lost to a then-unranked Syracuse team with nothing to play for. They flew too close to the Sun against mediocre opponents all season, and down the stretch got burned. They had two losses in the ACC and were no longer competing in the championship game of by all means a weak conference.

SMU went undefeated in the ACC. They lost to a ranked and wildly overachieving BYU team in September, and were otherwise unblemished. They had a couple one-score games against 9-win teams, but for the most part took care of business with relative ease. They played for their conference championship, overcame a 17-point deficit, and lost on a 56-yard walk off field goal in what was essentially a road game (other than the fact the stadium was half empty, which as a regular attendee in the late 2010s was sad to see).

While we can argue the similarities of these situations til the cows come home, the point the committee made by putting SMU in was valuing, or at least not devaluing, conference championship games. In my mind, conference championships are a one way street - you only have something to gain.

Now if you're comping against another team playing in their championship then sure, you could hypothetically lose ground. But in this case, no. Not when you're already ranked 8th.

And that's the argument I'd be willing to entertain. I'd much rather hear that SMU shouldn't have been ranked 8th in the first place given their schedule and whatever other reasons you believe in. If they were 12th and lost, I can see the case to bump them out since they were already on the fringe. But being 8th, you can't bump them four spots and out of the playoffs to a team who didn't play.

Yes, I know they could've won and this would be a non-issue. But Bama could've also beaten Oklahoma OR Vanderbilt and we'd be saying the same thing.

I hope the SMU bid doesn't suede ADs to schedule less difficult non-conference games, since I'm confident that's not what the committee was subliminally saying here. As they'll be in every year, the committee was in a no win situation. Give Bama the bid and you devalue conference championships to the point schools and teams would rather opt out, or put SMU in and say wins, no matter who they come against, are more important than who you play.

I'm just happy they got it right.

Notre Dame Fell To 7, With Texas and Penn State Grabbing the 5 and 6 Seeds

This is really piggybacking off my last point of keeping conference championship games relevant moving forward.

FIrst of all, Notre Dame is a school of egotistical pussies who think they're too good for a conference. Fuck you. Because of that, they can never be ranked higher than fifth, which is where they were going into the weekend with, of course, no game to play.

When Texas and Penn State lost, both of which were ranked just above Notre Dame, I'd assumed they'd fall to 6 and 7, giving Notre Dame the coveted 5 seed.

But you know what happens when you assume.

I love the move from the committee. Texas played Georgia to OT and is the only team they lost to all year. Penn State, as is customary, came up short against a top ranked team, but gave the Ducks one of their toughest games all season.

And both were playing a bonus game since they were a top 2 team in the top 2 conferences in college football while the Irish were having high tea and biscuits.

Again this goes back to limiting the damage of losing a conference championship game when comping against a non-conference championship attendee. Texas and Penn State were ranked higher than Notre Dame all season (reminder Notre Dame lost to Northern Illinois). Both had a much tougher SOS than ND, had infinitely more respectable losses, of which was the only one of the season coming into Saturday.

It would've been easy to bump them behind the nepo-baby Irish, but they didn't, because they're better. And close losses against the 1 and 2 ranked teams in college football, on bonus weekend, shouldn't change that.

Arizona State 100% Deserved The Bye Over Clemson

Idk how much of a conversation this was, but as a Clemson alum/fan I thought maybe we'd get some of the Alabama special treatment that was going around the previous week if we beat SMU. That maybe we'd jump a one-bid league's champion partly because the Big 12 stinks and partly because we're the Clemson fucking Tigers.

But I never thought we should've. First of all, the ACC also stinks. The ACC and Big 12 each had 4 top 25 teams in the final rankings, and had Clemson lost to SMU, each only one bid in a 12-team playoff.

Our losses are better, sure, but those losses came in the only three games against worthwhile opponents all season (until Saturday).

And on championship Saturday, we almost blew a 17-point lead in the fourth quarter, while Arizona State sent ISU through their own cyclone winning by 26 (and it wasn't that close).

So again, when conventional wisdom may have drawn you to an irrational committee decision, they made the right call and gave the better team the bye.

Which brings me to my only gripe with this whole thing.

Byes Should Go To The Top 4 Seeds, Not Top 4 Conference Champions

What kind of stupid rule is this? I know I've spent this entire blog standing up for conference championships, but how can I justify Boise State getting a bye over Penn State because they won the Mountain fucking West??

There's a fine line between devaluing and overvaluing conference championships. Actually I don't know how fine that line is, but I know for a fact, that in this sense, they're being overvalued.

They matter, yes. The committee wants them to continue to matter. But isn't an automatic bid enough mattering? When NC State basketball went on their Cinderella run last March and won the ACC, they were still an 11 seed in the tournament. Imagine if they got a 1 seed cause they won their conference?

The same should apply to football. I'm all for the conference champ getting an autobid because winning your conference, no matter the conference, is hard. Teams and players can't control what conference they're in and if the other teams in them are any good, so being the best of them should get you in.

But I hope this is the last time the 11 seed gets a first round bye and is seeded 4th. You want more casuals to pay attention to college football? Don't make them take a class on how to rank the playoffs when there's already a 1-25 ranking they can look at.

As Michael Scott told Dwight, keep it simple stupid.

But when does the NCAA ever do that...