At least in theory, 92% of the committee’s job should already be done.

It appears to be a given that Oregon, Penn State, Ohio State, Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, Notre Dame and (probably) SMU and Indiana are in.

The winners of the Big 12 and Mountain West championship games are also in.

So, unless Clemson wins the ACC and closes out the field, that leaves one spot remaining with a host of teams offering compelling cases for inclusion.

But let’s start with something that should be obvious: The 12th team to make the field will be flawed. This isn’t a new phenomenon based on weak schedules or shocking losses. The No. 12 team in the ranking every year has its share of warts. That’s why it’s No. 12. We’re just used to arguing over a top four, not No. 12, so wrapping our heads around a playoff team with a loss to — oh, let’s say Vanderbilt — seems entirely wrong. When it comes to picking 12 teams, there will always be reasons to argue someone doesn’t belong or has done something so inexcusably awful they should be excluded without further debate.

But, of course, if that were true, Notre Dame would already be packing its bags for the Music City Bowl.

Instead, we should be viewing the process of picking the No. 12 team through an optimist’s lens. What have these teams done to earn their way in? Why should we believe they’re capable of — well, maybe not winning it all, but at least putting on a good show in the opening round? What’s the sales pitch for inclusion?

And when we view the decision through that lens, there are at least three reasonable, logical paths to follow.

But this is about a meeting of the College Football Playoff selection committee, where hotel security at the Gaylord Texan Hotel has explicit orders to keep reason and logic from stepping foot on the premises, and so, of course, the one team that isn’t left standing at the end of those logical pathways is exactly the team it has tabbed as the leader in the clubhouse: Alabama.

And that, friends, means a lot of programs have ample reason to be angry.

So, let’s walk down those logical pathways as a means of underscoring just how ridiculous the committee’s take on these rankings looks, bringing us to this week’s Anger Index.

There’s an Occam’s razor aspect to this conundrum that the committee should’ve considered: The simplest, most elegant solution is usually the right one.

This was the committee’s solution back in the first year of the playoff. In 2014, the committee was left to decide between 11-1 TCU and 11-1 Baylor. In the regular season, Baylor had beaten TCU head to head by 3 points, but the Bears also had a rather ugly 41-27 loss to West Virginia. The Big 12, at that time, didn’t have a conference championship game, leaving it to the committee to parse out who was more deserving of the No. 4 spot in the playoff.

The committee’s answer? Ohio State!

Baylor won its regular-season finale over No. 9 Kansas State by 11. TCU won its finale against Iowa State by 55-3. And yet the committee moved up 11-1 Ohio State to No. 4, bypassing both Big 12 schools. It was beautiful in its simplicity. Why make an impossible choice between Door No. 1 and Door No. 2 when Door No. 3 is already wide open?

This isn’t necessarily Miami’s best case for the final playoff slot, of course, but the fact that the Hurricanes are 10-2 and those SEC schools vying for the space are all 9-3 is the perfect opportunity for the committee to simply say, “This team has more wins,” the same way it said “Ohio State has a conference championship” as a completely reasonable justification for avoiding a tough call.

And it’s not as if Miami would be a bad choice. The Canes demolished Florida, a team that beat Ole Miss. The Canes demolished USF, a team that took Alabama into the fourth quarter in Tuscaloosa. The Canes have two road losses by a combined nine points against two pretty good teams — No. 22 Syracuse and a 7-5 Georgia Tech team that just took Georgia to eight overtimes (and probably should’ve won if the officials had been watching the game). QB Cam Ward is extraordinary, the offense is fun, the Canes can play with pretty much anyone, and none of their losses are bad. Isn’t that effectively South Carolina’s pitch?

So, yeah, giving the 12th playoff spot to Miami would’ve been an easy win for the committee. Instead, it chose pain.

Indeed, it docked Miami more spots for a road loss to the No. 22 team in the country than it did for Ohio State losing to 7-5 Michigan.

If the committee didn’t want to prioritize the simplest solution by going with the team with the best record, then certainly you’d think the argument came down to this: Not all wins are equal, and therefore we should choose the team that had proven the most on the field.

Well, folks, the answer to that question is absolutely Ole Miss.

Ole Miss and Alabama both beat South Carolina head to head, but the Rebels dominated their game, while the Tide snuck by with a two-point win.

Ole Miss and Alabama have the same best win, against No. 5 Georgia. But Alabama came within minutes of one of the most epic collapses in college football history, narrowly escaping with a seven-point win. Ole Miss, on the other hand, beat Georgia by 18 in a game that was never particularly close. In fact, do you know the last team to beat Georgia by more points than Ole Miss did this year? That would be the 2019 LSU Tigers, arguably the best college football team ever assembled.

Ole Miss is ranked higher in SP+, too. The Rebels are an analytics dream team, with one of the top offenses and defenses in the country statistically. SP+ has the Rebels at No. 3 — ahead of Texas! — while Alabama checks in at No. 5, Miami at No. 10 and South Carolina at No. 13.

OK, but what about strength of schedule? Doesn’t that favor Alabama? It does, but that metric isn’t exactly what it seems. According to ESPN, the Tide played the 17th-toughest schedule in the country, while Ole Miss played the 31st. That seems like a big difference, right? But when we look at the hard numbers rather than the ranking, the difference is only about 1% (Bama at 98.97 and Ole Miss at 97.66). That’s basically the difference between Alabama playing Western Kentucky and Ole Miss playing MTSU. Oh, and if strength of schedule really matters that much, South Carolina ranks ahead of both of them.

And let’s talk about that schedule, because it wasn’t the “strength” that proved to be Alabama’s undoing. The Tide lost to a pair of 6-6 teams. It was the mediocrity on their slate that killed them.

OK, yes, Ole Miss lost to a couple pretty average teams, too — 7-5 Florida and 4-8 Kentucky. But again, if the records were all that mattered to the committee, Miami would be in the playoff. So let’s compare SP+ rankings for those losses.

Alabama lost to SP+ Nos. 8, 31 and 58 for an average of 32.3.

Ole Miss lost to SP+ Nos. 17, 22 and 48 for an average of 29.0.

So, on average, the Rebels’ losses weren’t as bad as Alabama’s. Their wins were markedly better than Alabama’s. Their underlying stats are better than Alabama’s. Their schedule strength was effectively equal to Alabama’s.

So explain to us again why Ole Miss isn’t in the No. 11 slot, because we’re at a complete loss to understand it.

To be sure, there is not a logical argument in South Carolina’s favor. The Gamecocks have the same record as Alabama and Ole Miss and lost to both of them head to head. That, on its face, should eliminate South Carolina.

But, perhaps there’s a more emotional take here; an “eye test,” if you will.

Watch South Carolina over the past six games — all wins, including against Texas A&M, Missouri and Clemson (not to mention a dominant performance against an Oklahoma team that whipped Alabama) — and it’s pretty easy to suggest the Gamecocks are playing as well as any team in the country.

Now, back in the four-team playoff era, this wouldn’t have mattered at all. Go back and look at 2015 Stanford with Christian McCaffrey, which lost its opener to Northwestern before going on a roll and winning 11 of its next 12, or 2016 USC that started 1-3 and reeled off eight straight wins with a new QB. Those teams could’ve genuinely won it all if they had been given a ticket to the dance, but in those days, there was no room for the hottest team. Just the most deserving.

But no one truly deserving is left out if we include South Carolina now. Miami and Alabama and Ole Miss (and others) all have their arguments in favor of inclusion, but as we noted at the top, all have enough warts to miss out, too.

So why not take the team playing the best? How many times in the NFL playoffs have we seen a team that finished strong go on a run and win the Super Bowl? Are they any less a champion, because they lost a couple games in September?

South Carolina’s inclusion would be a boon for all the teams that grow as the season progresses, get better through coaching, hard work and perseverance, that overcome adversity and rise to meet the moment. In short, South Carolina is a feel-good story in a sport that should embrace that type of team.

Instead, the committee is embracing Darth Vader because the Empire holds a lot of sway over the galaxy.

Here’s a fun blind comparison.

Team A: 10-2, No. 12 strength of record, losses to SP+ Nos. 39 and 51 with best win against SP+ No. 12

Team B: 10-2, No. 14 strength of record, losses to SP+ Nos. 50 and 59 with best win against SP+ No. 18

Neither of these teams will play in their conference championship games.

If you had to pick one for the playoff, which would you take?

Well, the records are the same, but Team A seems to have the edge everywhere else, right?

OK, Team A is BYU.

Team B? That’s Miami.

We’re not arguing against Miami, but Miami checks in as the first team out. BYU checks in behind three-loss Clemson!

Perhaps the Cougars’ losses (to Arizona State and Kansas) are reason enough for exclusion (though by that logic, we should be waving goodbye to Alabama and Ole Miss, too), but the fact that BYU isn’t even in the conversation is ridiculous.

play

Booger: Committee on ‘slippery slope’ choosing Alabama over Miami

Booger McFarland and Joey Galloway discuss whether the CFP selection committee is making the right decision favoring Alabama over Miami.

We’ve laid out perfectly reasonable arguments for Miami, Ole Miss, South Carolina and BYU.

What’s the argument for Alabama?

Strength of schedule? South Carolina’s is better.

A big win vs. Georgia? Ole Miss beat the Dawgs by more.

Strength of record? That’s just a function of strength of schedule, and frankly any record that includes losses to Oklahoma and Vanderbilt — including one blowout — isn’t very “strong.”

Teams that did not lose by more than a TD this year:
Oregon, 12-0
Notre Dame, 11-1
Penn St, 11-1
Boise St, 11-1
SMU, 11-1
Miami, 10-2
BYU, 10-2
ULL, 10-2
Ohio St, 10-2
UNLV, 10-2
Ole Miss, 9-3
Louisville, 8-4
(Side note: Southern Miss went 0-11 vs FBS with all 11 losses by more…

— 💫🅰️♈️🆔 (@ADavidHaleJoint) December 3, 2024

Better stats? Ole Miss is rated higher in SP+, Miami’s offense is far more compelling, and South Carolina’s defense is, too.

So what exactly is the case for Alabama?

Committee chair Warde Manuel’s best attempt at an explanation: Alabama is 3-1 vs. the current top 25. That, of course, ignores that Miami has wins vs. the Nos. 1 and 3 teams in the AP’s others receiving votes list, and ranking 25 teams is an entirely arbitrary cutoff. And more importantly, it ignores that Alabama is also 6-2 vs. teams not in the current top 25.

No, the real case for Alabama is the same one the committee made last year, that it believes — in spite of any hard evidence — that Alabama is just better. It believes Alabama would win a future hypothetical matchup. It is prioritizing a gut feeling.

We can criticize the committee for a lot of things, but most of it is hair-splitting, and the folks on the committee have a particularly tough job. We’re sympathetic. But when this group continually — year after year (yes, we’re talking to you, Florida State) — ignores what happens in the actual games on the actual field of play in favor of its own projections, that threatens to undermine the entire sport, and that’s a shame.

Is Alabama a good football team? Sure. If the Tide get in, could they win a game or two or the whole darn thing? Absolutely. But if that’s the criteria, then there was no need for Alabama’s players to suit up 12 times this year and go to battle, and that’s an insult to them — even if it means handing them a gift in the process.

We’ve argued a bunch over the No. 12 team, but there’s another debate rolling in the college football world, and that involves conference championships.

The debate has largely centered on SMU and whether the Mustangs, if they lose the ACC title to Clemson, should be reevaluated if they’re 11-2 (particularly if Clemson is stealing a playoff bid).

It’s a reasonable discussion. On one hand, there is precedent. Just two years ago, USC entered conference championship week ranked No. 4, only to lose in a blowout to Utah. The committee dropped the Trojans to No. 10 and rewarded Ohio State — a team that was sitting at home and watching championship weekend — with a playoff berth. At the time, virtually no one even mentioned this. It made logical sense.

But in the 12-team era, when there should ostensibly be a larger margin for error, it seems entirely wrong to suggest a team that won the right to play an extra game should then have that extra data point held against it to the point that it falls out of the playoff field. (And, oh, how ironic would it be if Lane Kiffin complained about this very possibility, suggesting it was better to miss the SEC title game, only to have Kiffin’s team get in as a result of missing the SEC championship and SMU losing the ACC championship.)

But the big point being missed here is that the discussion shouldn’t stop with SMU. What about Boise State?

The Broncos are currently one of the four teams set to get first-round byes because of an 11-1 record, a head-to-head win over UNLV and a largely dominant season. But if they lose a rematch to UNLV — a team it has already beaten once — then the Broncos would be out of the playoff entirely.

Is that fair?

Well, here’s another comparison.

Team A: 11-1, No. 13 strength of record, loss to a top-10 team by 3, four wins vs. bowl-eligible opponents and one win vs. a currently ranked foe.

Team B: 11-1, No. 8 strength of record, loss to a top-10 team by 23, three wins vs. bowl-eligible opponents and no wins vs. currently ranked foes.

It should be noted here that the schedule strength difference between the two is about an 8% margin — notable, but not significant.

Who would you say was more deserving of a playoff bid?

Team A, as you might’ve guessed, is Boise State.

Team B is ranked one spot ahead of the Broncos. It’s Indiana, a team that won’t play another game and is considered safely in.

So, why exactly is Boise State not also safely in right now?

It’s a question the committee should be asking.

Also angry this week: Duke Blue Devils (9-3, unranked), Missouri Tigers (9-3, No. 19), Illinois Fighting Illini (9-3, No. 21), Georgia Bulldogs (who were docked far worse for losses against Ole Miss and Alabama than Ohio State was for losing to 7-5 Michigan), Tennessee Volunteers (10-2, No. 7 and should have the first-round home game being handed to Ohio State) and Ryan Day, because life is really unfair sometimes.