Franklin: CFP Bias & Penn State’s Playoff Case
- the College Football Playoff (CFP) selection committee has faced criticism, particularly regarding selections like SMU and Indiana over SEC teams.
- Scott Stricklin, a former CFP selection committee member, has questioned the current model.
- Since 2014, the CFP has used a 13-member committee to determine postseason brackets, similar to the NCAA's approach in other sports.
James Franklin challenges the College Football Playoff (CFP) selection process,sparking a debate: is a formula-based ranking system better than the current committee? Franklin argues that the CFP committee’s selections,like those favoring certain conferences,highlight inherent biases within the voting system. The article scrutinizes the shift from the BCS formula too the current committee, highlighting the challenges in achieving complete objectivity. News Directory 3 brings you the latest developments on this evolving discussion. Franklin suggests a hybrid approach,incorporating formulas into the process. Explore the historical context and potential impacts of these selection methods. Discover what’s next in the ongoing quest for a fairer CFP.
College Football Playoff: Formula or Committee for Rankings?
the College Football Playoff (CFP) selection committee has faced criticism, particularly regarding selections like SMU and Indiana over SEC teams. This has prompted renewed debate about the ideal selection process for college football.
Scott Stricklin, a former CFP selection committee member, has questioned the current model. Penn State coach James Franklin also weighed in, suggesting a formula-based approach might be preferable to the current committee system for determining college football rankings.
Since 2014, the CFP has used a 13-member committee to determine postseason brackets, similar to the NCAA’s approach in other sports. This replaced the BCS formula, which previously dictated the two teams competing for the national championship.
Franklin noted the inherent biases in any voting system. “Everybody voting and everybody involved in the process — whether you want to be biased or not, we all are biased,” Franklin said. He suggested a formula could offer a more objective approach.
The creation of the CFP aimed to shift selection power from computers to individuals with extensive college football knowledge, following controversies during the BCS era. Tho, the varying schedules and strengths of teams across conferences complicate the selection process.
“There’s a lot of challenges,” said Franklin. “you’ve got East Coast people voting on this, and they haven’t watched enough of the West Coast games based on the time… In my mind, a formula makes the most sense as it takes the bias out that we all have.”
Before the CFP, media and coaches polls steadfast national champions. The BCS computer formula then served as the standard for about 15 years, beginning in 1998.
Franklin acknowledged the potential for combining both approaches. “I also think maybe there’s a way to kind of do both… because I think the committee uses some formulas to come up with it, which I think makes a ton of sense,” Franklin said. “I think ultimately, there’s not going to be a perfect system.”
what’s next
The debate regarding the College Football Playoff selection process is expected to continue, with ongoing discussions about potentially incorporating more formula-based elements to enhance objectivity in college football.