Love ’em, hate ’em or somewhere in between? What players think of MLB’s new rules
Shorter games. More action in the batter’s box and on the bases. Outs becoming hits again. Major League Baseball’s new rules seem to have near universal appeal among fans. But what do the players think?
We asked ESPN MLB reporters Alden Gonzalez, Joon Lee and Jesse Rogers to sit down with a handful of players and managers to find out how the new rules are affecting them. This isn’t a scientific survey — just a chance for a few thoughtful big leaguers to speak in depth about how they feel about the radical changes to their sport.
What’s your favorite thing about the new rules so far?
Ian Happ, Chicago Cubs outfielder: Not having the shift. Being able to have some of those ground balls be hits is huge, rewarding guys for hard-hit balls. And the line drive being back in play. I think I’ve had two hits so far that would have been outs.
Blake Snell, San Diego Padres starting pitcher: None that I can think of.
Mark Canha, New York Mets outfielder: Favorite thing — the games being over in 2½ hours more often than 3½ hours. I do remember last year my garage near my apartment where I was parking my car closed at 12. So it’d be like [with] my wife and my kids, it was a rush to get home just to make it to the garage sometimes.
Matt Moore, Los Angeles Angels relief pitcher: I don’t know that I have a favorite thing, but it is nice feeling like the game has been condensed down to more of a reasonable time frame. As a reliever now I’m heading out [to the bullpen] in the third inning, and you no longer have an hour ’til the end of the third inning. It’s like, ‘Hey, I might have a half hour.’ The pace of the game, and depending on which matchup it is — the other day it was [Tyler Anderson] and [Zack] Greinke, and we were in the fourth inning after like 30 minutes. It was very quick. So that’s one thing that I do like.
Tony Kemp, Oakland Athletics outfielder/infielder: Probably my favorite rule has been the disengagement limits, because I think sometimes it [used to] get to be too much. It can get repetitive, and pitchers fall into a rhythm of like three or four times throwing over, and it prolongs the game.
Elvis Andrus, Chicago White Sox shortstop: The bigger bases. It’s a lot easier for everything: stealing, making double plays. It’s helped the game a lot. I think that’s the only one I like.
Kyle Higashioka, New York Yankees catcher: I like the runner on second [base] in extra [innings] because I don’t want to play 18 innings, and sometimes those games when it’s 0-0 or 1-1, it’s destined to go six more innings. You’re just dreading it. So now at least the thing is both teams get their chance no matter what. I think it just ends the game quicker and it’s actually pretty exciting because it’s high stakes immediately.
Kevin Cash, Tampa Bay Rays manager: Pitch clock. The pace of game. It’s helped baseball. I’ve enjoyed it. I hope the fans have enjoyed it. It’s obviously a faster pace and seemed to have created a little bit more action in the game, which is a good thing.
What’s one thing about the rule changes you think needs improvement?
Happ: I’d give the pitcher one disengagement with no one on and probably make the clock 17 seconds with no one on base.
Canha: Make the pitch clock 20 seconds [with the bases empty] instead of 15 seconds. Give the pitchers and hitters a little bit more time because we can get gassed when there’s a long at-bat. I like to step in and breathe and try to clear my head before I hit, and guys aren’t getting an opportunity to go through their routine. I don’t like it when I’m up there. I think the game moving faster is a good thing, but it feels rushed. It feels like you’re getting winded while the at-bat’s happening because you’re exerting a lot of energy to slow the bat down and catch your breath. It does feel a little bit ridiculous. I think I had a 13-pitch at-bat with Clayton Kershaw the other day in L.A. and it was like, by the end of it, you’re looking at each other. This is f—ing crazy. Me and Kershaw are like, we could kind of feel it through your eyes and vibe. He’s at the end of his outing. The crowd’s getting into it. He’s trying to win his 200th game and the emotions are picking up. That situation, it was so silly. I think if I were to make an amendment to the rule, not that anyone cares or will take my advice, but I would say once you get to 3-2, you should get another timeout.
Moore: I think a pitcher can get a timeout, like the hitter does with two strikes, but we can take it any time. I don’t really love the fact that I can’t call time. Look, I’m not a “it’s not fair” type of guy, but there really should be something for the pitcher. The other day I’m in Boston and I have mud on my cleats, and I can feel this pressure. Like, I’m not comfortable because my spikes are clogged up, and the clock is ticking. The umpire [made an exception for me this time], but it’s not the same. The thing I like about it is the game is quicker; the moments that matter are tied closer together. But I don’t really enjoy — now I’m throwing in a tighter ballgame in the second half of the game. I’d like to have a different feeling than, “I have to get going.” Maybe I want to take a breath. Maybe the moment coming up — this is what the game is going to come down to, that at-bat right here. And I don’t want to feel like I’m rushing a decision, or trying to just get the ball out just because of the clock.
Snell: Stolen bases. It’s a joke. Can’t throw no one out. You have to be 1.2/1.3 [seconds] to the plate. If you pick twice, they’re getting crazy jumps and leads. Stolen bases are a joke. And the bases are closer. The game was made perfectly and they changed the game. I need to be better at pressing buttons. Sometimes you’re thinking about how to attack a hitter, then you need to hit the buttons. I’d like to be able to say I’m pressing the wrong buttons. More time would help.
Kemp: I think the pitch clock needs to have a little bit of feel in terms of, like, later in the game, seventh, eighth, ninth. You’re so locked in on what you gotta do, but also you have to worry about a clock. I don’t know if you saw [33-year-old rookie] Drew Maggi. He got called on a [pitch-clock violation]. It’s like, “Come on.” … I always have to make sure I’m checking where the clock is. That sucks. … I got banged for a violation two games ago, to start an at-bat out in the eighth. Walking up to the plate, getting my bearings and stuff like that and then, “Pitch-clock violation.” I mean — is it good for the speed of the game? Yeah, it’s good. But I think in certain situations you need to make an adjustment.
Andrus: The beginning of every inning I would make it like the beginning of the game, there’s no clock. Then as soon as you step in, you get the clock on. If you’re a catcher or center fielder, you don’t even have time to grab a cup of water. That’s the only tweak that I would do.
Cash: I’d eliminate the limit on throwovers. I think that’s stupid.
Higashioka: The new [pickoffs] rule does kind of hang the catchers out to dry, I think a little bit, because there’s really not much more we can do other than make sure we’re making a good throw, make sure the pitchers are quick to the plate, and we try to use our picks strategically.
Oliver Marmol, St. Louis Cardinals manager: Once in a while, it would be nice, with no runners on, for pitchers to have the ability to [step off]. With the pitch clock, the batter has every opportunity to disengage once per at-bat to gather himself, but a pitcher doesn’t really have a way of doing that without a runner on.
What has been the biggest on-the-field impact of the new rules?
Happ: Stolen bases. I don’t think slug is way up. On-base might be up a tick and batting average might be up, but that’s mostly on singles. The biggest impact is in how much guys are running.
Moore: I think the shift has made a pretty big impact, from what I can see. I haven’t seen any data on it; it’s just anecdotally, my experience shows me that it seems like you have a lot more infielders at spots where there would [typically] be an infielder. So the end range of their positions is matching up with where another position player would typically be with the shift. And so on balls where they almost got there — that’s where they would have the extra guy typically. I can see that. I mean it’s only been a few weeks, but I can see that being a bigger deal.
Kemp: I’d probably say the disengagements [have had the biggest effect] because guys are stealing more. … I think if it was disengagements and same-size bases, it would be the same as it is right now.
Andrus: Timing. The game is so fast. I know for the younger guys, it’s exciting, they like it. But for me, I love the thinking, especially during an at-bat. The last thing you want to be is rushed. This clock rushes you a lot. You have to get used to it and anticipate it.
Cash: When you tell pitchers he’s not allowed to throw over, you’re going to see the immediate effects of baserunners stealing. Fans spoke. That’s what they wanted so they’re seeing it.
What has surprised you most about the rule changes so far?
Happ: I’m probably surprised by how few violations there have been overall. And [not a lot of] meaningful ones, late in games.
Moore: It’s the time of the game. I mean, I heard about it. All last year people were like, “Oh we’re playing 2½-hour games.” But the other day we played in Oakland at 1 o’clock and I’m back at the hotel at 4:30, and that’s like typically when we’re getting done with the game.
Snell: All the stolen bases and how uncomfortable hitters are with the clock. They looked rushed as much as we do. We both feel rushed.
Canha: The amount of stolen bases. It’s insane how much everybody’s just running. Let’s just run every time we can. And it feels like sometimes the pitchers just don’t have a chance. Athletes nowadays are so good in the big leagues, it’s a lot. Most guys can run really well. Before, it felt so much harder. And so the percentages of how much it mattered, stealing bases was kind of, in my opinion, an insignificant part of the game. And now it’s becoming much more significant. Somebody is going to break Rickey Henderson’s stolen base record.
Marmol: I’m not sure if anything has been surprising. I’ve liked the pitch clock, but nothing’s been really surprising. It will be interesting to see how teams begin to adjust — how they use their disengagements and pitchouts and things of that nature. We knew we’d see an uptick [in stolen bases], but I didn’t foresee the success rate being as high as it’s been.
Andrus: During spring training I got called [for] a strike twice for being late, but in the season, there hasn’t been anything crazy.
Tommy Pham, Mets outfielder: I got a violation and they had Jeff Nelson behind home plate. And when I walked up, there was 17 seconds up there and he banged me and I was like, “Jeff, there’s 17 seconds up there.” And he was like, “Oh my buzzer’s off.” What? Yeah. It’s just, I don’t know who’s doing the clock operator, but it’s almost like they’re just letting any person do it.
Higashioka: It’s just surprised me how there’s not as many negative effects that I probably could have imagined. At first I thought, oh, it could get dicey. But I think overall the umpires have shown a decent amount of understanding in terms of shutting the clock off when things happen. And it’s also, we’ve gotten used to it. It hasn’t really taken me out of my normal rhythm behind the plate.
How much has your opinion of the new rules changed after one month of play?
Happ: I was pretty bullish going into it. I think seeing it work through spring made it easier to see how it would work through the regular season.
Moore: I don’t think my opinion has changed because I didn’t come into it upset about having a change. I knew there was going to be something I had to do different — just mind the clock. Other than that it doesn’t really affect me a lot.
Canha: It’s changed. I still like the pitch clock. The fact that the games aren’t as long. I think the bases being close together and how the pitch clock’s affected the base stealing is a little crazy. If anything, the one thing that we really need to keep our eyes on is the operators of the clock. It’s like wildly inconsistent. There was one time when in San Francisco I was on deck and somebody reached base, Jeff McNeil, and then I’m up to bat and they started the clock at 15 seconds and I’m supposed to have 20 seconds. It’s just like this is playing a big role in affecting how some of these at-bats turn out. But, I got into the box and saw that I had 10 seconds left on the clock and I was like, just got up there and I was like, “Oh god.” And then I think Logan Webb was pitching and he got on the mound and he looked at the clock and he has to rush his first pitch and he yanked it out for a ball. I guess it helped me there.
Kemp: A lot of guys are kind of getting used to it, but it’s still taking time. I think the hardest one is when there’s guys on base and a pitcher’s trying to get his bearings [and has to focus on the clock] — that’s not really baseball. Baseball is a thinking game. The game goes long for a reason — because it’s not just go out there and throw throw throw throw throw. It is what it is. You either get with it or get packing, and I like playing in the big leagues.
Andrus: I thought during at-bats it was going to be a really big adjustment for me. It hasn’t. It’s made the game quicker.
Higashioka: A good amount because I was very unsure about the pitch clock at first, and now I don’t care. It doesn’t bother me. I just thought that it could lead to things being rushed in certain aspects of the game. Maybe not as well thought out in terms of you can’t process information fast enough to make a good decision on the next pitch call or something, but overall felt like it’s just still very standard.
What do you hear most when talking to players/teammates about the rule changes?
Snell: I hear them talking or I’ve talked to them about just feeling rushed.
Andrus: Usually pitchers and position players are going to be in different places, but so far I haven’t heard anything negative. You’ll hear one or two comments about it but nothing drastic.
Moore: I think for the most part, what I’ve seen, most major league players have been really professional about it. It’s affecting the at-bats, it’s affecting the rhythm of the game, the approach of guys, and I haven’t seen many big blowups. I feel like it’s been pretty modest. … As a player, it just feels like there’s not a lot of back-and-forth with the league. It feels like, “Hey, this is what we’re doing. You guys aren’t on board with it, but we’re doing it anyway.” Stuff like that. But it’s the way the CBA is written. They have certain unilateral power and we just kind of have to deal with it. There’s part of it that you feel like you’re not being listened to, but we don’t have the hands on the power like they do. Sometimes screaming in the wind isn’t the best thing for our league to do.
Higashioka: I think they just laugh at the violations that occur around the league. Somebody like Albert Abreu punched the guy out on a violation, so we’re all laughing about it. When that happens, it’s kind of ridiculous, but I mean, everybody knows the rules by now.
Canha: There’s still a learning curve and people are getting used to it and it’s uncomfortable. Certainly the first month. I think maybe four months into it, we will probably be done griping about it.
Miami is inching closer but still needs some help.
With the Hurricanes creeping up to No. 12 on Tuesday night in the College Football Playoff selection committee’s fourth of six rankings, the ACC’s hope of having two teams qualify for the 12-team field is still alive. Time is running out, though, to convince the selection committee they’re better than Notre Dame — and right now a gap remains in spite of the head-to-head win. The ACC champion — even if it’s No. 18 Virginia — is almost certainly guaranteed a spot as one of the five-highest ranked conference champions. That’s evidenced by the fact that five ACC teams are still ranked above No. 24 Tulane, the only representative from a Group of 5 conference. The question is whether Miami can do enough to join the ACC champion as an at-large team with one game remaining, on Saturday at No. 22 Pitt.
Though the Canes have no margin for error and could still use some help above them, they might get it if Ole Miss doesn’t win the Egg Bowl against Mississippi State. No. 6 Oregon jumped one spot above No. 7 Ole Miss, indicating that the Rebels might not recover from a second stumble.
With Rivalry Week on the horizon, there are still plenty of scenarios that can unfold — and hope is still oozing from the bubble.
Bubble Watch accounts for what we have learned from the committee so far — and historical knowledge of what it means for teams clinging to hope. Teams with Would be in status below are in this week’s bracket based on the committee’s fourth ranking. For each Power 4 conference, we’ve also listed Last team in and First team out. These are the true bubble teams hovering around inclusion. Teams labeled Still in the mix haven’t been eliminated but have work to do or need help. A team that is Out will have to wait until next year.
The conferences below are listed in order of the number of bids they would receive, ranked from the most to least, based on the committee’s fourth ranking.
Jump to a conference:
ACC | Big 12 | Big Ten
SEC | Independent | Group of 5
Bracket
SEC
Would be in: Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, Ole Miss, Texas A&M
Last team in: Alabama. The Tide can either lock up a spot in the SEC championship game with a win against Auburn in the Iron Bowl — or can miss the playoff entirely with a loss to its rival. The debate will come if Alabama finishes as a three-loss SEC runner-up. The Tide have played the ninth-hardest schedule in the country, according to ESPN Analytics, and their résumé would only be enhanced by facing a top-five opponent in the SEC championship game. A third loss, though, even in a close game to a top-five team, could drop Alabama into a dangerous spot in the top 12 where it might face elimination to make room for a guaranteed conference champion — or a second Big 12 team.
First team out: Vanderbilt. The Commodores could stay status quo this week, which means at No. 14 they remain a long shot for an at-large bid. Punctuating their résumé with a win against a ranked Tennessee would be the first step, but they’d also need multiple upsets ahead of them to get serious consideration. It’s conceivable, as Miami can lose at Pitt, Oklahoma can suffer a third loss to LSU, and Alabama can lose the Iron Bowl. None of that would matter, though, without a win in Knoxville.
Still in the mix: None.
Out: Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi State, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas
Big Ten
Would be in: Indiana, Ohio State, Oregon
Last team in: Oregon. With the win against USC, Oregon eliminated the biggest threat to its playoff spot in the Big Ten and further solidified its place in the top 10. The win against USC boosted the Ducks’ résumé enough to jump Ole Miss, and the complete performance against another ranked contender answered some questions in the committee meeting room. Oregon now has a 16.5% chance to reach the Big Ten title game, according to ESPN Analytics, but it must beat Washington and it needs Michigan to defeat Ohio State.
First team out: Michigan. The No. 15 Wolverines are here because they can reach the Big Ten championship game with a win against Ohio State and a loss by Indiana or Oregon. Michigan no longer has to worry about the head-to-head defeat to USC because the Trojans have three losses and dropped behind the Wolverines to No. 17 in the latest ranking. The loss to No. 8 Oklahoma, though, will probably keep them behind the Sooners for an at-large bid if they both finish with the same record. Nobody in the country, though, will have a better win than Michigan if it beats the Buckeyes for a fifth straight season.
Still in the mix: None.
Out: Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, UCLA, USC, Washington, Wisconsin
Big 12
Would be in: Texas Tech
Last team in: Texas Tech. The Red Raiders can clinch a spot in the Big 12 title game with a win at West Virginia. As long as Texas Tech does that, it should be a lock for the CFP — win or lose in the Big 12 championship. It would be both stunning and difficult for the committee to justify dropping Texas Tech if its second loss is to a top-11 BYU team that it beat handily during the regular season. The Red Raiders would be the only team that could claim a regular-season win over the eventual Big 12 champs in that scenario.
First team out: BYU. The Cougars can clinch a spot in the Big 12 title game with a home win against UCF on Saturday. They’d be a CFP lock with the Big 12 title, but a loss would likely knock them out of the bracket because they’re already in a precarious position and would have lost to the same team twice. They would need multiple upsets to happen above them to stay in consideration as the two-loss Big 12 runner-up.
Still in the mix: Arizona State, Utah. ASU can earn a spot in the Big 12 title game with a win against Arizona and a BYU loss or a win and losses by both Texas Tech and Utah. The Utes will reach the Big 12 title game if they beat Kansas and both BYU and Arizona State win and Texas Tech loses.
Out: Arizona, Baylor, Cincinnati, Colorado, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, TCU, UCF, West Virginia
ACC
Would be in: Miami
Last team in: Miami. Miami’s chances of reaching the ACC title game are now 14.2% — third best in the league behind SMU and Virginia, which are both above 80%. That means their best chance to reach the CFP remains through an at-large bid. They must win at Pitt on Saturday, and it helped that the committee ranked the Panthers No. 22 on Tuesday night. Miami’s loss to SMU no longer looks as bad as it initially did after the Mustangs cracked the CFP top 25 at No. 21. Miami is getting some help, but it has also helped itself by winning three straight games by at least 17 points. Saturday at Virginia Tech brought Miami’s first road win outside of its home state, which is something the committee has been awaiting. Miami’s win against Notre Dame remains one of the best in the country, and the Canes are within range of the committee revisiting the head-to-head tiebreaker. They’re both in the same conversation as Alabama and BYU. If Miami can win at Pitt, the committee will certainly factor that into its discussion during the fifth ranking. It’s important to remember, though, that head-to-head isn’t the only factor in the room. The entire body of work is considered, and right now, the committee is more impressed by the Irish.
First team out: Virginia. Of all the convoluted scenarios still left in the ACC, this isn’t one of them: If Virginia beats rival Virginia Tech on Saturday, the Cavaliers will clinch a spot in the conference title game. And with No. 21 SMU now one of five ranked teams from the conference, the ACC title game is likely to feature two ranked opponents. The Mustangs have the best chance to reach the ACC championship game (86%) followed by Virginia (81%) after Week 13, but SMU lost to Baylor, TCU and Wake Forest — the latter two of which are above .500. If SMU wins at Cal on Saturday, the Mustangs will clinch a spot in the ACC title game. Virginia was the committee’s second-highest-ranked ACC team behind Miami in its fourth ranking, and the Cavaliers had a bye.
Still in the mix: Duke, Georgia Tech, Pitt, SMU. Here’s where you can find your convoluted scenarios. Pitt can get into the ACC championship game with a win and a loss by SMU or UVA. Duke can get in with a win plus losses by two of the following three teams: Pitt, SMU and Virginia. Georgia Tech needs so many things to happen it might want to find a church instead of playing Georgia.
Out: Boston College, Cal, Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, North Carolina, NC State, Stanford, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
Independent
Would be in: Notre Dame. The Irish are doing everything right — they’re winning and looking good doing it. If they can seal the deal with what should be a relatively easy win against Stanford, Notre Dame will be in the familiar position of waiting and watching while the conference championship games unfold and possibly alter the picture. Notre Dame fans should be keeping a close eye on the SEC and Big 12 title games. If Miami beats Pitt, the committee will compare that common opponent with Notre Dame, which also beat Pitt. They would continue to talk about the head-to-head tiebreaker, but that’s not the final determinant. Both Miami and Notre Dame can earn at-large bids, but if there are two Big 12 teams in, someone currently in the top 10 will have to be excluded.
Group of 5
Would be in: Tulane. This is where the committee will probably continue to differ from the computers, which say James Madison (57%) and North Texas (54.4%) have the best chances to reach the playoff. JMU’s schedule is currently ranked No. 123, while North Texas is No. 127, and that has held both of them back in the committee meeting room. Tulane is No. 73 with wins against Duke and Northwestern. The No. 24-ranked Green Wave maintained their spot this week as the committee’s highest-ranked Group of 5 team following the 37-13 win at Temple, their largest margin of victory this season.
Still in the mix: East Carolina, James Madison, Navy, North Texas, South Florida. JMU has clinched the East Division and a spot in the Sun Belt Conference championship game. It will face the winner of Southern Miss vs. Troy. Five teams from the American are still eligible to play in the conference title game, and multiple tiebreaker scenarios are still looming. Tulane has one of the most direct paths. It would clinch with a win if it is the highest-ranked team from the American in the CFP ranking. North Texas would clinch a spot with a win — because Navy was not ahead of Tulane and North Texas in the CFP ranking Tuesday. Navy could clinch a spot with a win and a loss by Tulane or North Texas.
Bracket
Based on the committee’s fourth ranking, the seeding would be:
First-round byes
No. 1 Ohio State (Big Ten champ)
No. 2 Indiana
No. 3 Texas A&M (SEC champ)
No. 4 Georgia
First-round games
On campus, Dec. 19 and 20
No. 12 Tulane (American champ) at No. 5 Texas Tech (Big 12 champ)
No. 11 Miami (ACC champ) at No. 6 Oregon
No. 10 Alabama at No. 7 Ole Miss
No. 9 Notre Dame at No. 8 Oklahoma
Quarterfinal games
At the Goodyear Cotton Bowl, Capital One Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl Presented by Prudential and Allstate Sugar Bowl on Dec. 31 and Jan. 1.
No. 12 Tulane/No. 5 Texas Tech winner vs. No. 4 Georgia
No. 11 Miami/No. 6 Oregon winner vs. No. 3 Texas A&M
No. 10 Alabama/No. 7 Ole Miss winner vs. No. 2 Indiana
No. 9 Notre Dame/No. 8 Oklahoma winner vs. No. 1 Ohio State
-
David Hale
We don’t talk nearly enough about luck in sports.
It’s only reasonable to want to believe the best team always wins, that the outcome of a game is the reward for a better process, that, in the end, we all get what we deserve.
But then you watch 10 minutes of Florida State football and it’s impossible to deny that there are football gods at work and they can be awfully vengeful.
And so it is that, at this late point in the season, the College Football Playoff rankings still hinge, in no small part, on a botched extra point at the end of Notre Dame-Texas A&M.
We can look back at Miami‘s game against SMU on Nov. 1 — a game that, with 2 minutes to go the Canes had a 90% chance of winning, according to ESPN’s metrics — and consider it a bad loss, then a week later, see Oregon — with less than a 40% chance of beating Iowa with 2 minutes remaining — pull off a comeback and have it constitute a critical point on the Ducks’ résumé.
Alabama nearly doubled Oklahoma‘s yardage but lost, Ole Miss gave up 526 yards to Arkansas and won, Georgia has trailed in the second half five times this year but has just one loss to show for it.
These things happen, and while there’s clearly valuable data involved — Georgia wins those games, because the Dawgs are really good — any time we’re discussing a one-game sample size, there’s room for ample debate over what matters and what doesn’t.
The committee’s job is to counterbalance the fickleness of luck with a calculated, rational, repeatable process of evaluation that, if applied again and again by dozens of different people, would largely yield the same results; something akin to scientific testing, a way to filter out the noise and get to what matters most. “The process,” as everyone from Nick Saban to Michael Lombardi have called it.
And yet, it’s hard to say exactly what the committee’s process really is. Even when it’s explained — Miami isn’t in the same bucket as Notre Dame, so they can’t be compared directly, for example — the logic often crumbles under the slightest bit of scrutiny.
Instead, the committee has mostly relied on its own luck, and each year, by the time the final rankings are revealed, the 13 games played on the field provide enough clarity that most reasonable people will proclaim the committee got things right, save for the occasional reminder to Florida State that, yes, the football gods are not Seminoles fans.
This year though, it’s increasingly likely the committee’s luck could run out.
We have one full weekend of games left. There are reasonably 16 teams who’ll make a case as to why they should earn one of the seven coveted at-large spots. Without a little luck in Week 14, the committee’s going to have some incredibly hard choices to make.
And that means we’ve got plenty of outrage left to send the committee’s way.
This past week seemed to be the apex of the biggest rankings debate: Notre Dame or Miami?
The argument here is easy to understand. The committee has consistently had the Irish well ahead of the Hurricanes, despite both teams having the same record and Miami holding a head-to-head win.
But you know what’s even easier to understand? BYU has a better record than both.
In fact, let’s look at some résumés.
Team A: Best win vs. SP+ No. 19, next best vs. No. 21. Loss to SP+ No. 2. Two wins vs. teams 7-4 or better. No. 5 strength of record.
Team B: Best win vs. SP+ No. 9, next best vs. No. 25. Loss to SP+ No. 3. Six wins vs. teams 7-4 or better. No. 6 strength of record.
Both look like pretty obvious playoff teams, right?
Well Team A just moved up a spot in the rankings, seems assured not just of making the playoff, but of hosting a home game, and no one seems to be arguing about its spot in the rankings. That’s Oregon at No. 6.
Team B would currently be our first team out, a team with a résumé that shows equally impressive wins, an equally understandable loss and a far more impressive breadth of quality opponents. And yet, no one seems to be arguing much about BYU’s spot in the rankings either.
Why is it that the Cougars — the forgotten one-loss team with a higher ranked win than Oregon or Notre Dame and a better loss than Alabama or Oklahoma — sit at No. 11 and no one seems to care?
We get the frustration over Miami’s placement. There’s plenty of anger to go around. But don’t let BYU get lost in the shuffle. The Cougars’ résumé holds up against all the two-loss teams and is on par with Oregon and Ole Miss. Somehow, the committee — and nearly everyone else outside of Provo — seems to be ignoring it.
Wait, are we really defending Notre Dame here? Hey, somebody’s got to do it.
Let’s take a closer look at the Irish, who’ve become the punching bag for every fan frustrated with the committee’s rankings.
Right now, Notre Dame is effectively the golfer who wrapped up his round early and is waiting in the clubhouse, hoping no one else makes too many birdies. The Irish are safely in the field, and only a road trip to lowly Stanford is left on the docket.
But as the committee’s rankings hold steady week after week, there has been more and more time to debate the merits of Notre Dame’s résumé, and when we reach the end of championship week, it’s hard to ignore that one team aiming for a playoff bid doesn’t actually play in a conference.
So, does Notre Dame really deserve the benefit of the doubt?
In short: Heck yeah.
The Irish have five wins against bowl-eligible opponents — more than Georgia, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt or Texas Tech.
Both of Notre Dame’s losses were one-possession affairs against top-12 opponents. The loss to Texas A&M came down to a fluke occurrence, as the Irish flubbed a point after try.
Notre Dame’s game control — about as good an estimation as we have for the eye test — puts the Irish ahead of everyone but Ohio State, Indiana, Texas Tech and Oregon.
In four games since Nov. 1, Notre Dame has beaten its opposition by a combined score of 181-42, lambasting Syracuse so badly in Week 13 that Fran Brown might not shower for a month.
Look at any of the underlying metrics — explosive play rates, defensive stop rates, Jeremiyah Love being awesome rates — and Notre Dame is as good as anyone in the country.
So yes, we get the more logical debates about Miami’s Week 1 win or Alabama’s superior schedule, but the bottom line is, outside of Ohio State, there’s probably no team in the country playing better, more balanced football than the Irish. That probably shouldn’t be the only consideration, but as we debate which teams ought to be docked a few points in the rankings, Notre Dame probably shouldn’t be at the front of the line either.
Yes, Miami has a good argument against the committee’s treatment of the Hurricanes. The committee, too, seems to acknowledge under-appreciating Miami early on, and is adjusting by slowly moving the Canes up one spot each week, hoping that’ll be enough to appease the masses.
But here’s a question: What if Miami’s real beef should be with the ACC, not with the committee?
For each of the past two years, there has been widespread consensus that the ACC’s best team is Miami. But, barring some truly high-level chaos in Week 14 — something the ACC is apt to provide — the Canes won’t be playing for a conference championship again.
When leagues were smaller and had two divisions, the idea of pitting one division champ against the other made intuitive sense. But with expansion and the end of division play, what we’ve gotten is wildly diverse scheduling and the potential for confounding tiebreakers to ultimately decide which two teams get to play for a conference title.
In the Big Ten and SEC, where winning the league isn’t a do-or-die proposition, that’s fine. In the ACC, where only the champion might get a playoff bid and there’s a real chance that six different teams will tie atop the conference with a 6-2 league record — well, that’s a big issue.
So, why not just tweak the rules of how a conference championship game is seeded? What if one spot goes to the team with the best conference record and the other spot goes to the next highest ranked team? Doing so would ensure both the most deserving team (best record) and best team (highest ranked) got a shot, and it would’ve ended any concerns about the ACC being passed by multiple Group of 5 leagues, because a mediocre team like Duke would’ve had no shot at winning the league.
The ACC has bent over backward to try to find unique solutions to potentially existential problems in recent years. This is a change that would be forward thinking, easy and beneficial to the league’s playoff prospects.
It just won’t come in time to save Miami in 2025.
Remember last week when Tulane was also No. 24, just ahead of Arizona State, and behind Illinois, Houston and Missouri, who all lost? It might seem reasonable, given that precondition, that Tulane would then move up, say, three spots or so, while remaining a tick ahead of Arizona State.
But no, a week later, the Green Wave still check in at No. 24, a spot the committee seems to have set aside as “Where we put a Group of 5 team,” like the junk drawer in your kitchen that holds packing tape and birthday candles and those weird scented oils your mother-in-law ordered for you off TV — a placeholder for all the stuff you don’t know what else to do with.
In the big picture, it probably doesn’t matter. As long as Tulane stays ahead of its compatriots in the Group of 5 — winning the American, out-ranking James Madison — the Green Wave will make the playoff. And perhaps that’s all that matters.
But of the teams that jumped Tulane in the rankings this week are Arizona State — still with a chance to win the Big 12 — and Pitt and SMU, who have decent odds of making the ACC title game. Georgia Tech, despite a miserable loss to Pitt, also held firm ahead of the Green Wave.
A year ago, the ACC’s championship game implosion earned Clemson a bid into the playoff, but also shifted the ACC behind Boise State, the best Group of 5 champion, allowing the Broncos to land a bye. The stakes have changed for 2025-26 — the top four conference champs are no longer guaranteed an off week — but that doesn’t mean Tulane should be fine settling for the 12-seed either.
Tulane’s strength of record is ahead of Georgia Tech, Virginia and Pitt. If one of those teams claims the ACC’s playoff berth, what’s the rationale for putting them ahead of the Green Wave? And the difference between the No. 11 seed and the No. 12 seed might be about traveling to the SEC or the Big 12 for a playoff game.
The Group of 5 has largely been set to the side by this committee all year, so none of this comes as a surprise. But Tulane — or JMU or Navy or North Texas or San Diego State — all deserve to be judged on the merits of their résumés, not by which conference they’re affiliated with.
The bottom of the top 25 seems to be prime real estate for the ACC, but the one ACC team who might most deserve one of those coveted spots between 20 and 25 is nowhere to be found.
Wake Forest has the same record as SMU, and it beat the Mustangs head-to-head.
Wake Forest has a better overall résumé than Georgia Tech, and it only lost to the Yellow Jackets (in overtime) as a result of an officiating call the ACC later apologized for.
Wake Forest is a game behind Virginia in the standings, and the Deacons have a head-to-head win over the No. 18 Cavaliers, too.
Look, Wake Forest doesn’t ask for much. The Deacons are like the friend who’s always willing to pick you up from the airport, only better because they’ll probably bring along a box of Krispy Kreme. So if some ACC team that no one respects is going to be ranked 23rd regardless, why not Wake? Because the next time a committee member’s connection gets delayed out of CLT, it won’t be Pitt offering to pick them up and give them an air mattress to crash on. That’s strictly a Wake Forest thing.
Also angry this week: James Madison Dukes (10-1, unranked), North Texas Mean Green (10-1, unranked and now losing their coach), Navy Midshipmen (8-2, unranked), Utah Utes (9-2, No. 13 after being this week’s team that somehow isn’t as good as Miami anymore), Alabama Crimson Tide (9-2, No. 10 and far too close to the edge of the playoff for comfort)
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024