The Playoff committee's shifting logic shows it has no interest in ever including UCF
Back in 2014, in the midst of an uneasy path toward the inaugural College Football Playoff — and eventually to the National Championship game — the University of Oregon won 12 football games. In one of those, the Ducks surrendered 40 points to Cal; in another, they gave up 31 to Washington State and in another, they allowed 30 points to UCLA. In the end, Oregon finished 89th in the country in total defense and 31st in scoring defense.
Why am I bringing this up now? It’s because if you haven’t had your fill of real-world hypocrisy, you can always turn toward college football and to a Playoff committee that regularly relies on conjured logic and groupthink to confirm its own ingrained views. In 2018, the head of that Playoff committee is Rob Mullens, who was (and still is) the athletic director at the University of Oregon. The other night, asked about why an undefeated UCF team had not budged from its No. 12 ranking despite defeating a pretty good Temple team on the road by a score of 52-40, Mullens chalked it up to defense.
“Obviously they have a powerful offense. McKenzie Milton continues to lead that power offense but when you watch their game last week, you can see the defensive struggles,” Mullens said, according to the Orlando Sentinel’s Matt Murschel. “They gave up nearly 700 yards to Temple. So again, that is a piece of it. Strong offense, struggling on defense.”
Strong offense, struggling on defense: I didn’t realize that this was a formula the committee regularly adhered to. You know why I didn’t realize this? It’s because committee members don’t adhere to that formula, except when they feel like it. That 2014 Oregon team gave up 560 yards to Cal and gave up 495 against Arizona, which is also notable because the Ducks lost that game, which is something UCF hasn’t done since December of 2016.
By comparison, this year’s UCF team is currently 95th in the country in total defense but also happens to be 24th in the country in scoring defense, allowing 20.9 points per game. (And that Oregon Playoff team allowed 23.6 points per game.) Compare that to Notre Dame (No. 3 in the CFP rankings), which has allowed 19.3 per game — and allowed 14 to Pitt, just as UCF did when it played that same Pitt team while also scoring 26 points more than Notre Dame did.
You know who else allowed more than 20.9 points per game in a season? Oklahoma, which made the Playoff in 2015 and gave up 22 per game. And Oklahoma last season, which allowed more than 27 per game and made the Playoff. And Florida State in 2014, which gave up 25.6 per game and made the Playoff.
So what’s going on here? Well, it’s obvious what’s going on here, because I’ve written about it pretty much every year since the inception of the Playoff. The committee has no interest in including teams outside the Power Five, because it doesn't view those teams as deserving. Why is it doing this? The theories range from innocent selection bias to sinister conspiracy theories spearheaded by Ronnie Lott’s antipathy toward the state of Florida stemming from the Jets’ 28-14 loss to the Miami Dolphins in September of 1994.
Because I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories, I tend toward the former and the simple notion that UCF is not perceived to be as good simply because of the strength of the schedule it plays. And therefore, UCF must be utterly perfect to even work its way into the picture. But there’s no way that’s going to happen, because it’s difficult to go undefeated in college football no matter the schedule, let alone do it two years in a row. Ups and downs will occur, and teams may put up points and yards against you from time to time. No one knows that better than Mullens, who was there in 2014, staunchly advocating for an Oregon team that not only slipped into the Playoff with a less-than-perfect defense (and a loss on its record) but wound up making it to the title game.
Let’s just say it: There is no way UCF, or a team like UCF, will ever make the Playoff given the way the current system is structured. There will always be a reason why the committee shouldn’t choose it, and those reasons will morph over time. But consistent logic is irrelevant here, just as it is these days in the real world. The committee will always have a defense, no matter how weak it might be.
More must-reads: