The CFP's final rankings were released yesterday, and "integrity, politics and purse strings were seeded much higher than performance," according to the DETROIT FREE PRESS' Drew Sharp, who writes under the header, "CFP Committee Goes With Big Names Over Top Teams." In tapping Alabama, Oregon, Florida State and Ohio State for the four-team playoff, the selection committee "ultimately caved to the pressures of promoting television ratings and priming the pump for more advertising dollars." It "didn't get the four best teams," but instead "got the four best names available" (
DETROIT FREE PRESS, 12/8). In Minneapolis, Chip Scoggins wrote conspiracy theorists will "claim that the committee gave the nod to Ohio State because of the school’s name brand and national appeal." Scoggins: "No doubt that TV executives will love an Alabama-Ohio State semifinal game" (
STARTRIBUNE.com, 12/7). YAHOO SPORTS' Pat Forde wrote the "inclusion of blueblood Ohio State at the expense of nouveau riche TCU and Baylor furthered a suspicion that the media -- primarily the most influential media outlet, ESPN -- will cater to traditional name brands." And that "will in turn affect the committee" (
SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 12/7). FOXSPORTS.com's Stewart Mandel wrote the committee is "getting much less flak than it would have if the 'snubbed' teams in its first year were bigger brands with bigger followings than two small private schools in Texas" (
FOXSPORTS.com, 12/7). In Ft. Worth, Mac Engel wrote the committee "was always going to do whatever it wanted, and the moment it could justify a bigger, power school over TCU or Baylor they were going to do it" (
STAR-TELEGRAM.com, 12/7). In Baton Rouge, Ted Lewis writes, "Maybe if the names on your uniforms were Oklahoma and Texas, things would have been different" (
Baton Rouge ADVOCATE, 12/8). YAHOO SPORTS' Dan Wetzel wrote while claims of "brand bias and big-market interests are being rained down on the committee from Baylor and TCU fans, the truth is, there is no good way to pick four of 128 teams" (
SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 12/7).
GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS: SI.com's Andy Staples wrote the selection committee's final outcome was "how the process was supposed to work, but it was understandably confusing to people because the same committee had ranked TCU No. 3 the previous week." That is "why the weekly rankings were always a bad idea." Arkansas AD and CFP Selection Committee Chair Jeff Long yesterday said that its members would "evaluate the process and make recommendations to the playoff management committee, which would ultimately decide" if the weekly rankings will continue next year. Long: “It’s up to the management committee how the process will change -- if it will change." But Staples wrote fans should not "expect the weekly rankings to go away." ESPN, which "pays a lot to televise the playoff, wanted a weekly TV show," and it "got a very successful one" (SI.com, 12/7). YAHOO SPORTS' Forde wrote the "weekly made-for-ESPN shtick should end -- ultimately, it proved to be nothing but reality TV fakery." If the rankings releases "aren’t going to be useful and accurate guideposts that inform the public on what the committee values, don’t release them" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 12/7).
ALREADY TIME FOR A CHANGE? In San Jose, Jon Wilner writes the committee "got it wrong, in part because it tried so hard to get it right." The decision to release weekly rankings beginning in late October "was fueled by a desire for transparency that did not exist in the BCS selection process." But the committee "went too far: By making its rankings public each week for six weeks, it boxed itself in" (SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, 12/8). SEC Network's Paul Finebaum said he was "underwhelmed" by the committee and noted it has "taken a severe credibility hit" with its final picks. Finebaum: "It all stems from putting TCU three and then dropping them all the way to sixth. There's no rhyme or reason. ... I think they did the best possible job. But they got so caught up in resetting every week and not falling over and not being accused of some Machiavellian plot that I think they just set themselves up for failure” ("College Football Playoff Selection Show," ESPN, 12/7). In Austin, Kirk Bohls writes the committee "should tweak its way of business by not releasing weekly rankings that painted the panel into a corner." It "needs to be more transparent and reveal final votes" (AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN, 12/8). In Dallas, Kevin Sherrington writes if the committee "made TCU fifth or sixth last week, it wouldn’t be an issue now." All this result "does is feed the conspiracy theorists." Sherrington: "For that matter, the weekly release was probably a mistake" (DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 12/8). In Austin, Cedric Golden writes the committee "did what it had to do, but it just doesn’t feel as if the process was handled as well as we had hoped." Golden: "I get the idea that each vote is separate from the previous week, but how can Long say pretty much nothing changed when TCU went from third to sixth in a span of a week?" (AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN, 12/8). FOXSPORTS.com's Mandel wrote, "Why go through the trouble of producing those weekly rankings knowing they might have little bearing on the final product?" (FOXSPORTS.com, 12/7).
