The Strength of Schedule Debate and Alabama’s Playoff Exclusion
The inaugural 12-team College Football Playoff (CFP) selection process sparked controversy, particularly regarding the perceived disregard for strength of schedule. Alabama, a perennial powerhouse under Nick Saban, found itself on the outside looking in, despite a strong resume that included victories over several ranked opponents. Saban, as well as Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne, publicly questioned the selection committee’s criteria, highlighting the Crimson Tide’s demanding schedule and the inclusion of teams with seemingly weaker records. The core of the debate revolved around whether the committee truly valued strength of schedule as a significant factor in determining playoffworthiness.
Saban’s contention was that if strength of schedule wasn’t adequately considered, it would discourage teams from scheduling challenging non-conference opponents in the future. He argued that such a trend would diminish the excitement and appeal of college football, depriving fans of marquee matchups. The potential consequences, Saban warned, could be a decline in the quality of non-conference games, as athletic directors might prioritize easier opponents to bolster their teams’ records and improve their playoff chances. This shift in strategy could transform the landscape of college football scheduling, potentially leading to a less competitive and less compelling regular season.
Alabama’s exclusion from the playoff despite their challenging schedule raised concerns about the fairness and transparency of the selection process. While the committee maintained that strength of schedule was a factor, the inclusion of teams like SMU, who lost their conference championship game, cast doubt on the weight given to this criterion. Critics argued that the committee’s emphasis on conference championships and overall record appeared to overshadow the difficulty of a team’s schedule. This discrepancy fueled the debate about the true importance of strength of schedule and its role in evaluating a team’s overall performance.
The debate extended beyond Alabama’s specific case, touching on the broader implications for the future of college football scheduling. If strength of schedule is devalued, teams may be inclined to pursue weaker opponents to avoid potential losses that could harm their playoff chances. This could lead to a proliferation of mismatches and a decrease in the overall competitiveness of the regular season. Conversely, prioritizing strength of schedule would encourage teams to schedule tougher opponents, providing more exciting games for fans and a more accurate assessment of a team’s true capabilities.
Saban acknowledged that the 12 teams selected for the playoff were likely the best in the country, conceding that no coach should have grounds for complaint given that each team controlled its own destiny. However, he emphasized that the selection process should be clear and consistent, so teams understand the criteria for playoff inclusion. This transparency would allow teams to make informed decisions about scheduling and strategize accordingly. Saban’s remarks highlighted the need for a balanced approach that considers both strength of schedule and other factors, such as conference championships and overall record, to ensure a fair and equitable selection process.
The debate surrounding strength of schedule and the CFP selection process underscored the complexities of evaluating teams in a sport with a relatively short regular season and diverse conferences. Finding a balance between rewarding challenging schedules and recognizing on-field performance remains a crucial challenge for the committee. The outcome of this debate will significantly shape the future of college football scheduling and the way teams approach non-conference games. The goal should be to create a system that encourages competitive matchups, provides a fair and transparent selection process, and ultimately delivers the most deserving teams to the College Football Playoff.
