Here are Five Improvements for the College Football Playoff Committee.


After the college football playoff released their latest rankings, it’s apparent the committee has a lot room for improvement. We can wait until the final rankings next, but why do that? Some of the issues are apparent, and we offer some improvements the committee can starting working on for next year.

1) Do not release the order of the top 4 Seeds until the final rankings. 

There’s no point to release the seeds 1-4 each week. All it does is leave the committee open for criticism on  a weekly basis. If you are in, you are in.  A team doesn’t need to know if they can afford a loss and stay in the top 4, they need to just keep winning. Winning has been devalued (wink FSU wink), this would make it a priority again.

2) Use an accepted computer model as a basis

No computer model is perfect, and the committee would have final say, but the voting process currently with it’s ever changing criteria is frustrating to follow. I’ve always like d that RPI gave an unbiased way to rank basketball teams. Who has the most top 50 wins, best SOS, and such. This would give the process more transparency.

3) Reveal each members rankings. 

Going back to number 1, you don’t have to release rankings 1-4, but 5-25 you bet. If the committee members are confident in their voting release them. A little checks and balances here…

4) Release the weighting of criteria

Game control, non-conference record, SOS… These terms come up each week, what do they mean? Why do they seem more important one week and less the next? Are road wins valued more? I would like a standard to understand.

5)  Transparency, Transparency, Transparency

Have you seen a common theme here? However the committee wants to do this. They must make the overall process more transparent. Having Jeff Long trying to explain things at the end of a selection show is not cutting it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>