Joel Klatt Eviscerates Playoff Selection Committee

Submitted by steve sharik on October 31st, 2018 at 10:29 PM

Would rather he use S&P or the Massey composite, but the point is still valid: Frank Beamer is biasing the committee and drastically overrating the ACC and devaluing the Big Ten.




October 31st, 2018 at 10:33 PM ^

I just watched him blast the committee on cowherds show on youtube as well...


I thought it was pretty comical some of the ACC teams that are ranked..


November 1st, 2018 at 12:00 AM ^

If you go undefeated - you should get a shot at the title no matter what conference you are in. If this is not the case, then that conference should be delegated to a lower league. The current system is set like triple A baseball teams playing against major league teams and not getting a shot at the World Series, even though the regular season games count. If an undefeated UCF or any other non-power 5 conference team doesn't have a shot at the playoff, then they need to be in a different league because the way this system is currently set up doesn't make any sense. Can you imagine if the NFL had voters to decide who made the playoffs? LOL. 


November 1st, 2018 at 12:32 AM ^

That's actually a good point and phrased simply but the best I've read.  If you can go undefeated, even with an alleged weaker SOS, and not have a shot at any type or championship....what is the friggin point? And not that I want it to happen but maybe we do need to truly make a 2nd tier because it isnt going to happen.


November 1st, 2018 at 9:43 AM ^

Yes, we should create a second tier because there will never be a justification for a non-power five team making a four team playoff. They have pitiful SOS's and objectively, not a matter of opinion but fact, less talent. Putting for example, an undefeated UCF over any power five team with one loss would be a travesty of justice and totally wrong. 

One caveat to the blanket statement above--if some non power five team played a non-conference schedule that included a couple top power five teams and they won, then they might have an argument.


November 1st, 2018 at 10:32 AM ^

Good luck getting a good power five team to play a team like UCF as part of their OOC schedule now they have proven themselves on the national stage. The potential for loss is too great and the pay-off still isn't enough. 

At one time power five schools did play UCF because you were mostly guaranteed a win but still had to play well. Those days are gone now that UCF has proven they can beat you on any given day. 

Here's a run down of UCF's OOC schedule the past 10 years. You can see the trend.

2018, South Carolina St, Florida Atlantic, Pitt  (no ranked teams)

2017 Florida International, Maryland, Austin Peay (no ranked teams)

2016 South Carolina St, Michigan, Maryland, Florida International (Michigan ranked #5)

2015 Florida International, Stanford, Furman, South Carolina (Stanford finished #3)

2014 Penn State, Missouri, Bethune Cookman, BYU (Missouri ranked #20)

2013 Akron, Florida International, Penn State, South Carolina (South Carolina ranked #12)

2012 Akron, Ohio State, Florida International, Missouri (OSU ranked #14)

2011 Charlston Southern, Boston College, Florida International, BYU (Down year)

2010 South Dakota, NC St, Buffalo, Kansas St (NC St finished #25)

2009 Samford, Buffalo, Miami (YTM), Texas (Miami & Texas both ranked in the top 10)


November 1st, 2018 at 11:58 AM ^

I'm trying to understand your point:

2009 - Lost to Texas 35-3 and Miami 27-7

2010 - Lost to NC State 28-21

2011 - Lost to FIU (Boston College was 4-8)

2012 - Lost to OSU 31-16, Lost to Missouri 21-16

2013 - Lost to South Carolina (in Orlando) 28-25, beat PSU (a team that finished 7-5)

2014 - Lost to PSU (in Ireland) 28-24, lost to Missouri 38-10

2015 - Lost to Stanford...actually, they lost every game that year.

2016 - Lost to Michigan 51-14, Lost to Maryland (in Orlando) 30-24

2017- Won at Maryland


So, just a quick glance at those game and I don't see a "UCF has proven they can beat you on any given day".  Maryland?  Come on, you must be kidding.  Power 5 schools aren't the ones doing the "learning" here or creating a trend.  If anything, UCF is changing the teams that they put on their non-conference, because history has proven that they simply can't beat Power 5 teams.


November 1st, 2018 at 2:02 PM ^

Despite the individual losses, UCF has become a better program over that period. In that stretch, they also have bowl wins against #6 Baylor in 2013 and what was supposed to be a good Auburn last year. 

Making a schedule is never one sided (as Michigan fans well know). Many of the really good Power 5 schools simply will not play a team like UCF no matter how much they beg for it.

A quick look at UCF's future schedule shows Stanford in 2019 (which I give Stanford credit for). Other than that, it is all middle of the road power five teams like UNC, Georgia Tech, and Louisville. As witnessed in their prior history, it's not for lack of trying to get the top tier teams. Many simply won't play them anymore. 


November 1st, 2018 at 4:57 PM ^

Their AD is still demanding Home and Homes. They know they're the ones making the bigger ask. P5 teams have a full season of strong SOS games to look forward to in an attempt to build a resume. Why add a UCF and take the hit, especially if UCF is demanding that you also lose the revenue by going on the road. If UCF really wanted to make this happen, they'd go the Boise State or FSU rout and schedule one off away games against good P5 teams.


November 1st, 2018 at 11:12 AM ^

On the Full RIde Show on Sirius XM Rick Neuheisel has a suggestion to alleviate this disparity.

He advocates for the re-seeding of Power5 teams if a Power 5 team fails to get bowl eligible after 3 years.

In his system, teams that fail must move down to one of the appropriate group of 5 leagues.

Also, the group of 5 teams that have been nationally ranked with wins over top 25 teams gets to move into the spots vacated by the current members that failed to maintain their status in the Power5. 

This actually makes sense from a competitive standpoint and provides an incentive for typically underperforming Power5 teams to improve their craft and get back into the top tier.


November 1st, 2018 at 1:24 AM ^

You're getting some downvotes - but I absolutely 100% agree with you.  

College football's postseason has become incrementally better since I started following in the early 1990s.  But it's STILL pretty damn dumb.  Either segregate FBS football into 2 groups (it's hard to defend Coastal Carolina competing for the same championship as Alabama) or expand the playoff.


November 1st, 2018 at 2:36 AM ^

I think the downvotes are from people who don't realize that the non-power 5 conferences would need to have the current 4 team playoff expanded to 6 or 8 teams in order to include them. Or maybe they realize that and think I'm implying that they should be included in the current 4 team system (which I'm not). Either way, I'm saying that the current system sucks and doesn't include the non-power 5 conferences in any meaningful way. 


November 1st, 2018 at 12:15 PM ^

The downvotes are coming, because you suggested that ANY team that goes undefeated, regardless of schedule or competition, should be given an opportunity to play for a championship...which is absurd.  They do compete for a championship, their conference championship and based on the schedule that they have put together and played, that is the only championship that they deserve to play for.


November 1st, 2018 at 9:59 AM ^

I disagree that the college football post-season has become better since then.  I think in the last twenty years, there have been substantial efforts to make it better, but that each step has made it incrementally worse.  I am not trying to play smart guy either, I was in favor of both the BCS and the change to the Playoff, but now I find myself wishing that neither had taken place.  They have added it on to what was already a ton of bowl games and even added more, and now the post-season is just so convoluted with the playoff and flailing conference alignments in the left over games that I don't even find it particularly enjoyable.

Having the writers and the coaches crown a champ wasn't ideal, but the selection committee and the Playoff is proving just as arbitrary.  Additionally, the "Are You In" mantra divides teams into "haves and have nots" in any particular season in a way that the bowl system alone never did and interest in the games wanes for the "have nots" and that evidences itself with empty student sections and have filled stadiums.

I really REALLY never thought I would say this, but I would prefer if the top teams just played bowl games again.  I thought it was more fun and overall a better fit, and conference championships meant more as stand-alone accomplishments.  Subconsciously, people think there is the Playoff teams and a bunch of shitty teams even though that is clearly not the case.  And awesome historic stand-alone events like the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl are viewed as "also rans" in non-playoff years.  I personally do not care for the Playoff system and this is in a year when my team is contending for it.


November 1st, 2018 at 7:58 AM ^

The current system encourages teams to have a better strength of schedule. Please re-read what you are proposing (i.e. going undefeated as the mechanism of entry into the playoff) and consider the unintended side effect. Your baseball analogy is not even close to being valid, where over 10 times as many games are played. The NFL analogy is even more absurd, where there are just two conferences and no outside teams. The correct analogy for the latter would be the champion of the Arena league wanting to be in the NFL playoffs. That is why you are getting all the downvotes.

If you want to expand the college playoffs to more than four teams, then that's fine but there are still plenty of 1-loss teams probably better than the "undefeated" weak SOS teams like UCF.


November 1st, 2018 at 9:21 AM ^

100% this.  You need to play strong teams.  UCF's entire schedule is full of people Michigan schedule's as warm-up games.   Alabama gets some criticism because the SEC is weak this year and Citadel, LA-Lafayette and Arkansas State aren't even warm-up games.   I've heard that UCF is supposedly becoming a huge university (my dad is retired in FL).  If they want to be in the play-offs get into a bigger league and/or schedule a few big teams.  If they even played and beat Northwestern/Indiana, Cal/UCLA and [Florida/FSU/Miami], we'd be having a different conversation.


November 1st, 2018 at 9:09 AM ^

If everyone doesn't play a comparable schedule, you can't base your playoff teams on record alone. We needn't imagine if the NFL had voters, because all the teams play a comparable schedule.

It's hard for me to imagine that any of the teams ranked ahead of UCF wouldn't be undefeated with this schedule:

@ UConn
vs South Carolina State
vs Florida Atlantic
vs Pittsburgh
vs SMU
@ Memphis
@ East Carolina
vs Temple
vs Navy
vs Cincinnati
@ South Florida

If that's the schedule you need to make the playoff, we need at least a 16-team format.

UCF may be great, but that schedule compared to ANY Power 5 schedule is laughable [insert Jesus Quintana GIF]. UCF may beat a P5 team in a bowl game too, but they wouldn't make that level of bowl game with a B1G schedule.

For those saying there needs to be another division or league or what-have-you... there's a reason why G5 teams don't create their own league/championship... $$MONEY$$. These schools are all waaaaaaaaay better off with no chance to make the playoff in FBS then they would be in a new division. That's why the Utah State's, the App State's, etc have been moving into the FBS and no one is trying to get out.

They know the deal when they start the season. If you want the payout the FBS game provides, you have to deal with the rules the FBS game provides.


November 1st, 2018 at 9:21 AM ^

I don’t feel sorry for these programs. You want respect and a seat at the big boy table? Schedule games against the big boys without holding them for ransom or a return dates. FSU was a mid-major till Bowden got there, then they went into places like Lincoln, Columbus, Ann Arbor and Baton Rogue and won. Year after year without return games.  Pitt and UNC don’t cut it. 


November 1st, 2018 at 9:31 AM ^

While I agree with this in theory, UCF's schedule feels potentially historically weak. They have yet to play a team with a winning record and I can't feel too bad for them since they only scheduled two non-conference P5 opponents. I understand that's not entirely their fault (under the current system it feels like a lose-lose for a P5 team to schedule a good G5 team).


November 1st, 2018 at 11:39 AM ^

If you don't play anyone, going undefeated isn't all that impressive...when you are in a non-power five conference.  The UCFs of the world could easily rectify that problem, go on the road and play someone during the non-conference schedule.  THAT is the solution and if the retort is that they can't get a home and home, I have no sympathy for them, because they shouldn't get a home and home.  UCF plays in a NP5 conference, they don't get the benefit of home and home with p5 conferences.  If NP5 schools what a legitimate chance at the CFP, go play PSU or Wisconsin, LSU or Auburn, Clemson or Florida State.


The NFL comparison is ridiculous.  Can you imagine telling a portion of the NFL owners, "We'll hold your draft next week, this week these 12 teams are going to draft all of the best players first"...because that is what happens in the NCAA and UCF is playing against schools that have teams created from that 2nd (or 3rd) draft.


November 1st, 2018 at 6:28 AM ^

Cowherd looks absolutely abysmal in this clip. If I'm debating Klatt, I'd investigate the B1G's record against non-P5 teams (like Purdue's loss to EMU) or something. I don't believe Cowherd made a coherent counterpoint the entire time. 

But I also get the feeling that he's not really looking to do that. He's trying to get viewers, and I think bumper sticker one-liners (Wisco QB can't throw 8 yards, can't pay me to watch UCLA, etc.) might work better than going through the facts.