An Open Letter to Kirk Herbstreit – The Playoff Committee Got It Right

Dear Kirk Herbstreit,

After listening to your post-game comments about this year’s playoff selections I feel compelled to write.  Let me start by saying that I appreciate your work with NCAA football over the years, and as fan of you and of the game, this letter will maintain a respectful tone. 

I also appreciate your support of Virginia Tech throughout your career – as an alum, I acknowledge that my opinions here will be biased, but I do believe that I speak for the masses of fans whose teams are already swimming upstream when it comes to competing with the Power 2 conferences.

There has been much debate recently about the selection of the 12 teams for the college football playoff.  I know you publicly disagreed with the selections, but I have to respectfully counter by saying that, given this year’s scenario, the committee got it right.

In your interview with Linda Cohn, you argue for the “best” teams to make the playoff over those most “deserving.”  You were a strong proponent of this last year as well, but it was a different argument in a four-team playoff system.

Now, with the expanded 12-team playoff, the “best” teams are guaranteed to be in the field.  There is no question that the top six teams in the nation will make the playoff.

The problem with “best” lies in the last few at-large seeds.  How does one argue that a 3-loss team is among the best in the nation?  Look at Alabama as the example – sure they played a schedule that is among the top 20 in the land in terms of difficulty.  That is not in question.

But Alabama also lost to a pair of 6-6 teams.  One stumble is understandable, but they lost twice to mediocre teams.  On average, they lost one out of every four games they played.  If they were to win the national title as an at-large seed, they would have to win four straight games - mathematically speaking, that would not happen based on their record. 

I’m not saying that Indiana and SMU had better chances of winning the title because they had more wins – their strength of schedule numbers can definitely be held against them.

But somewhere along the line, we should not dismiss the value of wins and losses.  And in the sports world, that is why we compete, isn’t it?  To win?  And when a group of players wins, don’t they deserve to reap the reward of all their hard work and sacrifice? 

Those last few at-large seedings are not likely to include teams that will win four straight games against the top teams in the nation.  So instead of arguing who is better among them, why not reward the teams that win their way into the playoff?

Let’s look at the NCAA basketball March Madness tournament as a comparable example.  Granted, there is a big difference between winning six straight basketball games versus four straight football games, but the idea of entry into the tournament should be the same.

In March Madness, the “best” teams in the land are always in the tournament.  They either win their automatic bids or they are rewarded with high at-large seeds. And conference champions receive automatic bids, rightfully so.  The CFP mirrors this.

The bubble teams, however, include schools who had a chance to lock up a bid but lost a game or two that put their resume in question. The same holds true for the College Football Playoff bubble teams.  And in both cases, these squads are not among the “best” in the land.

Had Alabama beat Georgia or if Ole Miss beat Kentucky, there would be no question that they would have made the playoffs. Like the March Madness tournament, their bubbles burst in favor of teams who did not have bad losses.  And that is fine, because it is rare that “last four in” teams make it deep into the tournament anyway, so it is reasonable to believe that the last teams in to the CFP won’t go far either.

Also, every March, teams seeded 15 and 16 frequently lose in lopsided contests.  And that is also just fine with the college basketball world, and it should not be so problematic in the CFP.

Teams seeded 15 and 16 aren’t even close to being called the “best,” but they earned their way into the tournament by winning their conferences.  After their first-round tournament losses, they still go home and raise a banner.

To smaller schools, raising a banner is extremely meaningful.  Indiana and SMU players and fans will forever be proud that they made the first ever college football playoff.  And every time they return to their respective stadiums in future years, they will be reminded of their 11-win seasons and playoff appearances when they look at those banners.

Isn’t that why they play their sports?  To win?  To have the opportunity to compete at the highest level they can?

If the College Football Playoff committee chooses to place teams in the playoff based on perception of who is best, then they will steal the opportunities to compete from the student-athletes of these “non-elite” programs.  These kids will be robbed of the rewards for winning.

The chasm between the haves and have-nots is already growing – a playoff of perceived “best” teams is elitist and oppressive and causes further divide.  It is already bad enough that the Power 2 conferences have more money and are poaching the best players from other schools.  Limiting playoff accessibility adds to this disparity.

Building a winning program over time is challenging enough; if winning games is not rewarded, then how will programs outside the Power-2 conferences ever have a chance to participate in the playoff unless they win their automatic conference championship bids? 

Yes, the SEC is a great conference; top to bottom it is the best. But it over-expanded this year.  So did the playoff.  Is either a bad thing?  SEC regular season games were great this year, but the playoffs do not need to be a second SEC season.  

And the expanded playoff is better than the four-team format.  It is far superior to the days of voting on national champs based on opinions.  So let's not revert to those olden days by putting teams in the playoff based on perception.  

As a society, we love the underdog.  The “Cinderella Story” is ingrained in our history through sports.  If we assemble a playoff based on rosters and expectations, we don’t allow underdog stories to carry into the post-season.

And we will limit the pool of schools with opportunities to raise a banner. A 12-team playoff that includes both the best and the most-deserving teams is the format for all.  It makes every regular season game matter, and it keeps the dreams alive for the little guy.

In the end, the “best” teams will advance to the finals – it’s football, the best teams usually make it to the end.  They don’t always win – just ask the undefeated Patriots of 2007 – but isn’t it great for the sports world when the unexpected happens?

Mr. Herbstreit, you are a former athlete who played at a high level, so I hope you will think more of your days of sweat and sacrifice when you look at the playoff system and how it should allow for teams to win their way in.  It should enable fanbases to dream – and see those dreams have a chance to materialize.

And I hope you can appreciate the great Cinderella stories of our past and realize how they would disappear if a college football playoff was manipulated by opinion rather than on field results. 

The landscape of college football might be dramatically changing, but it doesn’t have to leave the Davids home while the Goliaths play on.

In the end, this year’s field was the right one.  Sure there were blowouts, but the best teams are moving on, winning was rewarded, and banners will be raised by teams who weren’t expected to be so successful.

That’s a good year in college football.

Respectfully,

Rich Luttenberger

Virginia Tech Class of 1993