Georgia Bulldogs head coach Kirby Smart has been vocal in recent weeks about the College Football Playoff (CFP) rankings, and his candid remarks are raising eyebrows across the college football landscape. Following Georgia’s dominant win over Tennessee, Smart didn’t hold back, using his platform to question the very foundation of how the CFP committee evaluates teams.
On Tuesday, Smart addressed reporters after practice and gave his unfiltered opinion on what the committee truly values. His comments cut to the heart of the playoff ranking system.
“It’s Not Necessarily the 12 Best”
When asked what the CFP committee prioritizes, Smart said:
“I think they value wins and losses. They place people based on a column — a column of wins and a column of losses, not on the eye test of going to watch them play and see who they played. I just don’t think they — I think they base it on wins and losses. I don’t think they say, ‘Well, this is better than that.’ They just say, ‘This record’s better than that.’ That’s the most simple way to do it. It’s not necessarily the 12 best. So we’ll see what happens.”
Smart’s pointed observation highlights a fundamental issue: the CFP isn’t necessarily focused on selecting the best 12 teams in the country. Instead, it leans heavily on win-loss records and strength of schedule, often favoring teams with “better resumés” over those with superior talent or performance on the field.
Resumé vs. Eye Test: A Flawed System
Smart’s critique underscores a flaw in the current playoff model. The selection process places disproportionate weight on metrics like wins, losses, and perceived quality of opponents. This has led to perennial debates about rankings. For instance:
– Should Alabama rank ahead of Tennessee despite similar records?
– Would a team like South Carolina, surging late in the season, deserve a spot over a team coasting on early-season success?
Using resumés instead of evaluating actual team strength leads to absurdities. Smart highlighted a glaring example: Georgia, ranked No. 10, would likely dominate a team like Notre Dame, ranked No. 6, in a neutral matchup.
The Path Forward: A Radical Scheduling Overhaul
Smart’s comments call for rethinking the system entirely. A better playoff system must prioritize identifying the best teams rather than rewarding those with the easiest paths to glossy records. To achieve this, college football’s scheduling structure needs a seismic shift.
Proposed Solution: Unified, Dynamic Scheduling
1. Power-4 Scheduling:
– Each Power-4 team plays eight conference games.
– Add three non-conference games: one against a team from each of the other Power-4 conferences.
– One game must be against a Group of Five opponent.
2. Matchups Based on Performance:
– Non-conference matchups should be determined dynamically after the prior season, based on standings. For instance, SEC champion Georgia would face Big Ten champion Ohio State. Second-place teams face off, and so on.
3. Group of Five Inclusion:
– Group of Five teams must earn their way into playoff contention by playing tougher schedules against Power-4 opponents.
This dynamic approach would ensure fairness and allow the eye test to play a more significant role. Fans wouldn’t see powerhouses playing mismatched games like Georgia vs. Rutgers, but meaningful, competitive showdowns.
The Bottom Line
Smart’s criticism shines a light on the need for urgent reform in the CFP process. The current model too often leaves deserving teams out while rewarding programs with inflated resumés.
The playoff system’s primary goal should be to find the best teams at the end of the season—not those with the best narrative or strength of schedule. If the sport truly wants to determine a national champion, it’s time to listen to coaches like Kirby Smart and embrace changes that prioritize quality over convenience.
