I wanted to take a break from writing about politics even though next Tuesday a very few of us in Alabama will go to the polls to elect a U.S. Senator to fill the unexpired term of Jeff Sessions. So I zeroed in on college football, but quickly realized football is politics 101 in disguise.
Although Saturday's 'championship' weekend for college football was exciting, the real excitement started brewing when the final seconds clicked off the clock with Ohio State beating previously undefeated Wisconsin. The talking heads were on fire with some trying to make a case for the Buckeyes and some for the Crimson Tide to fill the fourth and final spot in the football playoffs.
As an Alabama fan, heading into Saturday I knew the Tide needed help. Nick Saban had already started his political campaign saying he hoped the committee looked at the team's entire body of work.
For Alabama fans the debate was who we should root for – Auburn or Georgia. Like our rooting really matters, but it's that rooting that makes college football so exciting.
Some so-called experts said the Tide needed Auburn to win to boost it's strength of schedule; others said the Tide needed Georgia to win to eliminate the Tigers from the conversation. I couldn't make up my mind, but deep down there was no way I could root for Auburn.
Heading into Saturday I circled the Ohio State vs. Wisconsin game as Alabama's best shot at getting into the playoffs. The winner of the Auburn vs. Georgia game was going to get in regardless and I didn't think Clemson or Oklahoma would lose.
Here's where the politics get interesting. Despite being undefeated, Wisconsin wasn't getting a lot of love due to what many felt was a soft schedule. Most of the talking heads said either Alabama or Auburn would stomp a mud hole in Wisconsin. I really didn't think the committee would leave an undefeated Big 10 champion out of the playoffs, but stranger things have happened.
Everybody was trying to get into the minds of the committee members – would Alabama not even winning its own division even be considered? What about Ohio State winning the Big 10 championship and getting left out for a Tide team that sat at home Saturday because it wasn't good enough to get into its conference championship game?
While I would have liked to have seen the fall out had Wisconsin won Saturday and still be left out, I knew Bama's hopes rested on Ohio State winning. But politics were still in place. I told my wife we needed Ohio State to win, but we didn't need them to blow Wisconsin out of the stadium. I felt a close Ohio State victory could help the Tide but I still wasn't sure.
Sports used to be about wins and losses, but in college football the political eye test comes into play. A Power 5 team squeaking by a smaller school with a victory puts a W on the board, but it also has some negatives. Turns out Ohio State's 55-24 loss to unranked Iowa was too much for the committee to overcome. Would it be different had Ohio State lost 55-54?
We heard a lot about strength of schedule that, while I feel it's important, it shouldn't be the deciding factor. Games are scheduled years in advance. Alabama was getting great reviews for playing Florida State to open the season with the Tide ranked No. 1 and the Seminoles ranked No. 3. Turns out that game wasn't that significant since Florida State went into the tank afterwords.
The College Football Playoffs was supposed to be better than the Bowl Championship Series, which was supposed to be better than no semblance of any playoff to crown a national champion.
All those changes were made for two reasons: politics and money – plain and simple.
I've already heard the cry to expand the playoffs to six or eight teams. I don't think that will happen unless the television networks say they want to expand the playoffs. Some want a true playoff like they have in other sports and Division II football. At the end of the regular season there was one undefeated team, 12th ranked UCF. There were five teams with one loss and four teams with two losses. Only four get invited to the party.
I liked it better back in the old days like the 1970s and 1980s when we had multiple bowl games on New Year's Day and the mythical national champion could come from one of about five games. It made all those games relevant. It made for an exciting day. You'd have No. 1 playing No. 5 in the Sugar Bowl; No. 2 playing No. 4 in the Rose Bowl; No. 3 playing No. 6 in the Cotton Bowl and so on. All games were important.
Now we're down to two significant post-season games.
The current system is like the system we have to run our country. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have. But like politics, things change.
