Dan Radakovich sat on the very first College Football Playoff selection committee.
He was part of the group that made the controversial decision to choose Ohio State over TCU or Baylor as the final team into the 2014 field. He was on the committee in 2016 too, when members kept out Big Ten champion Penn State for the Pac-12’s Washington. And, in his final year on the committee, Radakovich and members selected both Alabama and Georgia instead of a Big Ten team.
Now, years later, as Miami’s athletic director, he is on the other end of the decision. The Hurricanes, 10-2 and ranked No. 12 nationally, are apparently eliminated from the playoff field barring something extraordinary. Radakovich is left disappointed over what he terms some “head-scratching” decisions from a group on which he once served.
“I always thought it was a body of work. Having sat in that room, I know the committee has a hard job,” he told Yahoo Sports this week. “You just hope there are enough facts being put forward to let people know that this is a good football team, has incredible offensive statistics and a Heisman Trophy candidate leading the way.”
Heading into a weekend of conference championship games, the CFP selection committee is at the center of intense scrutiny, perhaps more than ever before. It has left many within the industry asking a question: Is there a better way to choose playoff teams?
It’s no secret that SEC and Big Ten leaders are exploring changes to a future playoff format, as well as an expected re-examination of the selection process. One has spoken out publicly about it this week.
“I’d like to see us a little more objective,” Tennessee athletic director Danny White said on a local radio broadcast, SportsTalk. “I don’t think there was anything wrong with the ranking system of the old BCS. The problem was the old BCS was only two teams.”
This week’s ranking reveal has thrust college leaders into public sparring.
Athletic directors are embroiled in social media spats over the rankings, coaches are questioning the committee’s process and commissioners are even openly blistering the group’s decisions.
The controversy has fueled the college football media engine. And that’s exactly what the CFP’s television partner, ESPN, wants.
“My personal opinion is we come out with the rankings too early,” said Bob Bowlsby, the former Big 12 commissioner and architect of the 12-team format. “Doing it every week is hard on the chair and the committee. Two polls, one midseason and one at the end, would be better. But ESPN would flip out.”
Under the new CFP television contract agreed to in the spring, ESPN pays the conferences more than $1 billion annually for rights to the playoff. That includes six shows in which the latest rankings are revealed.
This week’s penultimate rankings show caused more of a stir than normal. Committee chair Warde Manuel revealed that those teams not playing this weekend are locked into their current order. For instance, Miami could not leap ahead of Alabama to get the potential last spot into the field. Or Tennessee cannot hop over Ohio State to get a first-round home game.
For many in the college football world, it was a stunning admission that removes much of the suspense in Sunday’s final reveal and has sparked a week of moaning, groaning and outright attacks on the 13-member committee.
“You guys actually meet for days and come up with these rankings?” said Ole Miss coach Lane Kiffin, his team a spot behind Miami at No. 13, in a tweet earlier this week. “Do you actually watch the quality of players, teams and road environments or just try and make the ACC feel relevant?”
Then there was Iowa State athletic director Jamie Pollard, who criticized the committee’s positioning of SMU, Boise State and Indiana for their weak schedules. “Message is clear — win as many games as possible regardless of who you play,” he posted on social media. “Time to rethink non-conference scheduling.”
Meanwhile, commissioners from the Big 12 and ACC chided committee members for various decisions. Brett Yormark, of the Big 12, scolded the group for positioning Boise State ahead of his highest-ranked team, No. 15 Arizona State, and ACC’s Jim Phillips says Miami “deserves better from the committee.”
This embedded content is not available in your region.
The 13-member committee is made up of a variety of members from various parts of college football. Nearly half of the group is active athletic directors, one each from the Power Four conferences and two from the Group of Five level. There are four former football coaches, two former players and a former sports reporter who covered college football. The roster and bios are publicly available.
Committee members are appointed by conference commissioners and university presidents who sit on the CFP’s governing boards. They hold staggered terms that normally last three to four years, and they are recused when members discuss their own schools or a school where they have a conflict. For instance, Arkansas athletic director Hunter Yurachek is recused during discussions around South Carolina and SMU (he has sons who work at each school).
The group meets a couple of times a year outside of football season. Their weekly gatherings begin in mid-October from a fourth-floor space in the Gaylord Texan, a palatial resort just north of Dallas in Grapevine. They are issued iPads for watching edited game footage and have at their disposal mounds of data and metrics from a computer monitor within their meeting room at the Gaylord.
Their criteria for ranking teams is quite simple and publicly available on the CFP’s website:
-
strength of schedule
-
head-to-head competition
-
comparative outcomes of common opponents
-
other relevant factors such as unavailability of key players and coaches that may affect performance
The selection committee idea arose out of a move away from a system — the computer-based BCS — that created years of controversy and consternation. Leaders wanted to introduce the human element — real eyes on real games making real decisions. After all, most other NCAA championships are determined through such a committee.
“It works in every other NCAA championship. This one shouldn’t be any different,” said Bill Hancock, the former executive director of the BCS and then the CFP. “Each one of those committees receives criticism from the teams that barely miss the field.”
In creating the committee, Jack Swarbrick said, “No one wanted to live through the computer era again. It was more reputation than reality but no one wanted to go back to that.”
Perhaps now that sentiment has changed? White, the Tennessee athletic director, is calling for an “objective computer-based ranking system.”
“We’ve introduced this really subjective ranking process that I think is unnecessary,” he said.
Over the last 10 years of the four-team playoff, the BCS rankings have been mostly identical to the CFP’s poll. Only small differences existed in the latest CFP rankings when compared to the BCS. Penn State, No. 3 in the CFP, and No. 4 Notre Dame would flip if using the BCS formula. The same goes for No. 8 SMU and No. 7 Tennessee. The BCS favors the Mustangs. If the BCS were used to complete a 12-team playoff bracket, Alabama, like it is in the CFP poll, would be the last at-large into the field. South Carolina, and not Miami, would be the first team out, according to the BCS formula.
The selection committee still has a difficult job.
The 12-team playoff introduces three total stress points for committee decisions, all of them with significant ramifications:
-
What four conference champions get the first-round byes?
-
What four teams get the home games?
-
And, perhaps most important, what teams are the last in the field as at-large selections?
All three are the subject of public criticism from administrators and coaches.
“When we went from four to 12, conventional wisdom is that it would be easier for the committee,” Hancock said. “But we on the inside knew that wouldn’t be true. In fact, it’s more difficult.”
If SMU beats Clemson, the committee must decide if the Mountain West champion receives the fourth and final first-round bye over the Big 12 champion. Members must then determine the site of first-round home games: Does the Big Ten and SEC championship game runner-ups get to host, along with current projections Ohio State and Notre Dame?
Finally, there’s the third stress point, which only gets suspenseful if No. 17 Clemson upsets SMU. The Tigers can steal a bubble team’s spot. They would receive the auto bid granted to one of the five highest-ranked conference champions. The committee would be left with one spot for two teams: SMU or Alabama.
The politicking is at full throat.
“You go 11-1 and 8-0 in one of the unquestioned top three conferences in America, you can’t say you aren’t in the top 12,” said SMU coach Rhett Lashlee, a warning to the committee as well as a shot at the Big 12. “You wish you wouldn’t have to politick like this.”
In the future, some hope the politicking is reduced with a change to the format that limits the ability of the selection committee.
The Big Ten and SEC contend that they hold decision-making powers over a future format. During negotiations in the spring among CFP leagues, the Big Ten proposed a 14-team playoff featuring multiple automatic qualifiers for the power conferences: three each for the SEC and Big Ten; two each for the ACC and Big 12; one reserved for the best G5 champion; and three at-large spots. The 3-3-2-2-1 concept was roundly rejected.
However, despite the pushback, the multi-AQ format is expected to be further examined this coming spring as the SEC and Big Ten look to change not only the format but explore the selection process.
Will the selection committee be in for an overhaul? Is that really needed?
“It’s difficult to insulate yourself from allegations of bias,” Bowlsby said. “Everybody comes from some place. You are a product of your history and judgements and vantage points. Somebody is going to be left out.”
Last year, it was Alabama over Florida State for the final spot.
This year? Alabama over Miami, according to the current situation.
“The committee’s job is very difficult,” Radakovich said. “Everybody on the committee looks at it through different eyes. Some based on analysis and data, some look through a coaches’ lens. It’s a blend of all those views. I thought we’d done enough.”
