As Dabo Swinney lay on the turf of Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, bathed in orange Gatorade and hugged by his fellow coaches and players, the final data point was now complete. Clemson had won the 2016 College Football National Championship and validated the committee selection process as the best team in College Football… or had they?
The 15th data point is all that really matters now - three years into the process, while exposing data points 14 and 13 this year as completely irrelevant and short-sighted. After all, one of the teams never got farther than the 13th data point yet still competed in the playoffs while teams already with 13 data points were left on the outside looking in. Oh, the hypocrisy!
Ohio State University’s football squad had a 13th data point as part of the College Football Playoff process while B1G teams already having 13 data points, Penn State and Wisconsin, battled in lesser arenas for a victory for their 14th data point; the Rose and Cotton Bowls. Wisconsin was victorious, Ohio State and Penn State were not.
Penn State’s defeat was in the Rose Bowl at the hands of USC, another team without a 13th data point until that bowl game. Their Pac 12 counterpart, Washington – also having a 13th data point, was defeated by Alabama and soundly. Alabama, with a 13th data point, gained their 14th victory (data point) in a Peach Bowl game that showed the decided difference between going undefeated, winning your conference and backing into it. USC had defeated Washington earlier in the season, yet did not play for their conference championship. USC players had to wonder… “what if?”
Meanwhile, Oklahoma (11-2) competed for their 13th data point and defeated Auburn (8-5) in the Sugar Bowl. A resounding 35-19 victory in which Auburn never really competed. The Oklahoma players had to be wondering why they didn’t get the slot given to Ohio State? At least, many had to believe, OU would have scored against Clemson and made a game of it if not winning it outright. What a different kind of data point that would have been!
So instead of answering questions, more are created surrounding the 15th and final data point. Would OU have beaten Clemson or at least made it a better match-up? Was a USC vs. Alabama game a better option, yielding a more competitive game? Could Alabama beat OU or would the outcome be the same? What about OU vs. USC? How would a more competitive semi-final game have affected the outcome of the final, even if the same teams played? Would a tougher match-up have taken a toll on both teams? Did Oswald act alone?
In 2017 the Big 12 will have a 13th data point. But given the outcome of the CFP process for 2016 is it really necessary? Now the precedence has been set… a 13th data point is not relevant to the selection process. Forget what the committee and the consultants have said, not really that important now. Oh, and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
The only thing that is certain is that it will give us all something to think, gripe and argue about for at least the next 7-8 months until the process starts all over again on 8/31/17.
The 15th data point is all that really matters now - three years into the process, while exposing data points 14 and 13 this year as completely irrelevant and short-sighted. After all, one of the teams never got farther than the 13th data point yet still competed in the playoffs while teams already with 13 data points were left on the outside looking in. Oh, the hypocrisy!
Ohio State University’s football squad had a 13th data point as part of the College Football Playoff process while B1G teams already having 13 data points, Penn State and Wisconsin, battled in lesser arenas for a victory for their 14th data point; the Rose and Cotton Bowls. Wisconsin was victorious, Ohio State and Penn State were not.
Penn State’s defeat was in the Rose Bowl at the hands of USC, another team without a 13th data point until that bowl game. Their Pac 12 counterpart, Washington – also having a 13th data point, was defeated by Alabama and soundly. Alabama, with a 13th data point, gained their 14th victory (data point) in a Peach Bowl game that showed the decided difference between going undefeated, winning your conference and backing into it. USC had defeated Washington earlier in the season, yet did not play for their conference championship. USC players had to wonder… “what if?”
Meanwhile, Oklahoma (11-2) competed for their 13th data point and defeated Auburn (8-5) in the Sugar Bowl. A resounding 35-19 victory in which Auburn never really competed. The Oklahoma players had to be wondering why they didn’t get the slot given to Ohio State? At least, many had to believe, OU would have scored against Clemson and made a game of it if not winning it outright. What a different kind of data point that would have been!
So instead of answering questions, more are created surrounding the 15th and final data point. Would OU have beaten Clemson or at least made it a better match-up? Was a USC vs. Alabama game a better option, yielding a more competitive game? Could Alabama beat OU or would the outcome be the same? What about OU vs. USC? How would a more competitive semi-final game have affected the outcome of the final, even if the same teams played? Would a tougher match-up have taken a toll on both teams? Did Oswald act alone?
In 2017 the Big 12 will have a 13th data point. But given the outcome of the CFP process for 2016 is it really necessary? Now the precedence has been set… a 13th data point is not relevant to the selection process. Forget what the committee and the consultants have said, not really that important now. Oh, and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
The only thing that is certain is that it will give us all something to think, gripe and argue about for at least the next 7-8 months until the process starts all over again on 8/31/17.
