Tennessee out of College Football Playoff due to committee’s double standards
Tennessee’s exclusion from the College Football Playoff (CFP) this season has sparked controversy, with critics accusing the selection committee of applying double standards in their decision-making process. The Volunteers, who had a remarkable 10-2 record, finished the regular season strong but were ultimately left out of the four-team playoff bracket. This decision raises questions about the committee’s inconsistency and fairness, especially when compared to other teams that made the cut despite weaker resumes.
One of the central points of contention is Tennessee’s loss to Georgia, a top-tier opponent. While Tennessee’s defeat to Georgia was convincing, they had earlier secured notable wins, including a statement victory over Alabama. However, the committee’s argument for keeping Tennessee out seemed to rest heavily on the quality of their losses and their inability to compete with elite teams. Yet, similar or worse losses were overlooked for other programs, most notably in the case of teams like Ohio State or Michigan, both of whom suffered defeats but still remained playoff-bound due to their overall body of work.
The double standard becomes more apparent when you examine how the committee evaluates strength of schedule and head-to-head matchups. Tennessee’s schedule was formidable, and their two losses came to teams ranked within the top 10, yet they were still penalized heavily. On the other hand, teams with more questionable losses, such as Ohio State’s narrow defeat to a 10-2 Michigan team, remained in contention, despite not having the same level of victory over ranked opponents.
Another aspect contributing to the perceived inconsistency is the treatment of conference championships. Tennessee did not have the chance to play for an SEC Championship due to their loss to Georgia, but teams like Alabama and Ohio State, who didn’t make their conference championship games, were given playoff spots. The committee’s inconsistent weighing of conference titles and their importance in determining a team’s place in the CFP has been a source of frustration for many fans and analysts.
In the end, Tennessee’s omission appears to reflect a larger issue with the selection process—one that often leaves room for subjective judgment. While the committee claims to prioritize performance on the field, its decisions can seem swayed by factors like conference pedigree and reputational bias, leading to outcomes that may not always align with the fairest interpretations of the season’s results.
