Notre Dame’s College Football Playoff Treatment Reveals Loss of Past Glory

During those 22 seasons prior to 2013 of either the Bowl Coalition, the Bowl Alliance, or the Bowl Championship Series, the determination of the national championship contenders in major college football was made.

This selection process relied on computers, polls, strength of schedule, and a significant amount of common sense.

Ah, the nostalgic era.

In stark contrast, what we currently witness from the College Football Playoff (CFP) selection committee is rather different.

This situation is inferior.

It is considerably worse.

Not that it seems to matter to anyone.

There’s a significant lapse in memory regarding the largely reasonable methods of the past for selecting the national champions among the elite in college football, and the following can be blamed for this collective forgetfulness: those “bowl” organizations generated millions for the sport, whereas the CFP is reaping billions.

When billions are involved, people tend to forget things.

Let’s revisit some details: fans, journalists, coaches, and particularly those in television networks argued that those polls and computers that considered strength of schedule were the manifestation of evil. They protested vehemently, insisting that champions ought to be decided on the field, asserting that the alternative methods were excessively subjective, and contended that a playoff system must be the ultimate solution.

Sure thing.

For starters, let’s examine the bewildered manner in which the CFP selection committee has evaluated Notre Dame in their two rankings of 2026. They ranked the Irish at No. 11 last week, yet elevated them to No. 5 this week. Given that Notre Dame has predominantly maintained a position in the nation’s top 10 for both points per game and points allowed, those CFP rankings appear to emerge from an outdated Looney Tunes episode.

As the first CFP ranking approached, Notre Dame boasted a 7-1 record and was overwhelmingly outmatching teams not named Brigham Young University. However, in a return to the packed and boisterous venue of BYU in Provo, Utah, they suffered a 28-24 defeat, only after a Notre Dame receiver was clearly impeded in the end zone while trying to make a potential game-winning reception on what turned out to be the last play of the game.

No call was made for pass interference.

It absolutely should have been.

Moreover, there was one second remaining on the clock that could have permitted Notre Dame another opportunity from BYU’s 8-yard line, yet the Big 12 officials ruled the game over following their non-call for pass interference.

Later, conference leaders acknowledged that the officials had made a mistake by concluding the game prematurely. As a result, this setback for Notre Dame was not viewed negatively, as both the Associated Press and coaches poll voters subsequently placed Notre Dame at sixth and fourth, respectively.

The CFP selection committee?

Ranked the Irish at eleventh?

Just one slot away from the last position in the tournament, and while this was early in the rankings, it did not excuse the CFP’s decision that left them looking rather foolish. They declared that Notre Dame’s schedule was lacking when compared to the mediocre performances of teams like Wisconsin and North Carolina.

No one disputed this sentiment, but then the Irish managed to defeat the previous No. 1 ranked Miami on Saturday night, 31-24, at Notre Dame Stadium.

Fifth?

“They resembled the Notre Dame team warranted to hold the No. 5 rank. They were ahead 24-3 and controlling that game,” CFP committee chair Hunter Yurachek stated during ESPN’s rankings show. “And you can take note of some teams positioned ahead of Notre Dame that were defeated, allowing the Irish to rise in rank.”

Nevertheless, the ongoing embarrassment of the CFP selection committee regarding the Irish is not due to that singular reason.

Georgia (8-1) stands at No. 1 in the CFP rankings, which is logical. The Bulldogs crushed the previously 10th-ranked Ole Miss with a score of 42-7 on their turf Saturday night. Meanwhile, few would challenge Alabama (7-2) at No. 3, given their losses to Georgia and at No. 14 Tennessee, along with what’s been recognized by ESPN’s college football power index as the toughest schedule in the country.

Bear in mind: The CFP selection committee previously cited strength of schedule as the primary justification for Notre Dame’s disproportionately low ranking in their first set of rankings.

This leads me to request assistance at this moment.

I did not anticipate having to deal with a math problem.

Positioned ahead of the Irish in the latest CFP rankings are Utah (9-0) at No. 2 and UCLA (9-0) at No. 4. According to ESPN’s college football power index, Utah possesses the 67th strongest schedule in the nation, while UCLA has the 66th, yet Notre Dame is recognized as having the 33rd.

Hold on, 33?

Doesn’t this indicate that the Irish’s strength of schedule is double that of the two teams currently ranked above them by the CFP selection committee?

Let’s consider the financial aspects.

The 2013 season marked the conclusion of a four-year agreement allowing ESPN to broadcast a series of four or five bowl games alongside the Bowl Championship Series’s title game for $500 million. If you happened to miss it, the CFP just finalized a deal with ESPN for an additional $1.7 billion over the next five years, coupled with the original $7.8 billion contract with the cable network stretching through the 2031 season.

Consequently, this financial windfall is prompting the CFP to expand next season from 12 to 24 teams after commencing its inaugural campaign in 2014 with a mere four.

It’s evident that this is not the conclusion.

It’s apparent the CFP will eventually escalate to 32 teams, with a rapid march towards a 64-team field reminiscent of the proposal made by the late Mike Leach during the summer of 2015 while coaching at Washington State.

Why halt there? Why not encompass most, if not all, of the 138 teams in the Division 1 Football Bowl Subdivision, or whatever quantity of teams survives in the future? The broader the expansion of the CFP, the less likely the national champion will be “determined on the field,” as the interference of the CFP selection committee will amplify, inviting more subjectivity.

For example: Under the forthcoming CFP framework featuring 24 teams, automatic entries will be allotted to the winners of the Power Four conferences, plus an additional slot designated for the best team in the Group of Six. This leaves 19 remaining positions (and counting) to be allocated by the CFP selection committee, and with numerous teams in the mix, what missteps could emerge in terms of subjectivity?

Consider this Notre Dame dilemma.

Earlier this year for Forbes, I revisited my stance from December 4, 1998, when I held the role of a sports columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. I voiced strong opposition to the impending playoff system a full 17 years before its actual implementation. I asserted that the NCAA should adhere to the Bowl Championship Series system, which determined the national champion through the existing bowl framework, computers, the two major polls (Associated Press and coaches) alongside strength of schedule.

I articulated, “If the NCAA’s goal is to approach the selection of the premier college football team domestically at its highest level, implementing a January Jubilee akin to its March Madness in basketball must be done.

“However, that should not be the NCAA’s aim. After the first January Jubilee, efforts would likely emerge to involve more of Division I-A’s 112 teams, leading to a February Festival. Eventually, we would find ourselves tackling right up until the onset of March Madness.”

What was my ultimate message in that column?

“Simply leave it be.”

Oh, well.

This article was originally published on Forbes.com