Welcome in, everybody. It is a huge week here as we get into the college football playoff rankings. This is breaking the Huttalam Joel clad in the show is brought to you by Dr. Pepper. It is the one fans deserve. Okay, let's get right into it. We finally got the first iteration of our playoff rankings from the committee. Let's see what we're going to do.

Let's take a look at what the committee gave us. This is what the committee gave us here as we sit with Georgia number one. Everyone knew that that was going to happen. No one knew what was going to happen from like two down to about nine. They came out with Alabama at number two. I'm sure everyone was curious about that. We'll get into it a little bit. Michigan State three Oregon at number four. And then Ohio State just ahead of Cincinnati as the first two out. It was Michigan at seven. It was Oklahoma at eight week forest at nine.

So that's what the committee gave us. Interesting. Let's look at what I would have done. If I was a committee of one, this is how I would have ranked the teams. This would be my playoff today. And it's different than the way I would rank teams who I think would win this week. I do it much more on one of these teams deserve versus some subjective metric like four best. Georgia would be number one. That's pretty clear. I think Michigan State and that win. What they were able to do last week against Michigan. Oklahoma is an undefeated. And then Oregon State is going to win this week.

Oregon with the single best win in the country so far would overcome the one loss just ahead of Cincinnati. Alabama at number six and Ohio State at number seven. So very different. These are vastly different lists. My playoff as a committee of one versus what the 13 person committee gave us. So let's dive into it. Okay. So folks. There's a lot of people up in arms today about the committee's rankings. And I know I took a few shots in a sarcastic way at the committee and have done so over the last few years.

We need to start with this fact. Okay. First and foremost, the playoff as it's currently constructed is broken. Okay. But it was never really right to begin with. So it's not right to say it's broken. It was just never correct in the first place. What was never correct about the playoff? Well, I think it's pretty simple. One is four teams is two few teams. Everything in our sport now is defined by whether you're in the playoff or not. That's the only way you can define yourself as.

Successful. Well, that's not good for our sport because it doesn't allow for growth. It doesn't allow for a school or a program to evolve. So we've shoved too much meaning inside of just these four teams. It's too narrow of a scope in a large sport like college football. So that's number one of why it's it's broken or maybe never right to begin with. I don't think that the committee as it's currently constructed is the right way to rank teams. 13 people in a room talking with one another is is

not anywhere near what you would want to do if you were trying to get a data set that was unbiased. Okay. So I think that we need to expand the current committee to have more variables or we have more committees. Because we need to dilute the power of the committee. And we need to allow for wild variations or bias to be thrown out. Anybody that has taken a statistics course or dealt with any math course would tell you that you want to take

kind of the high in the low and you throw them out and you want to get to the fat part of the bell curve. Well, we don't do that with a 13 person committee. You can have wild biases that lead to rankings like this, Georgia, one in Alabama, number two, even with a loss ahead of all these undefeated teams below them. So that's a problem. The last thing that is a problem is kind of how I derived my list versus how the committee derived theirs. They're trying to seek the four best teams. How subjective is that? It's completely subjective.

That's that is no way to rank teams. You have to honor what these kids and players and coaches are doing on the field. You've got to honor that. So I think you should always be putting a list together like this so that it's the foremost deserving teams. I think that's better than a list that is the four best teams, which is what the committee is going to give us over here. Highly subjective in particular with a team like Alabama at number two. So that's number one. I think that the the system that we have in college football is is broken.

That's not necessarily the committee's fault for what they give us. That's the bad hand that they were dealt and they're trying to make the best out of that bad hand. That's number one. I've got four points here. This is number two. The committee devalues the actual game on the field. We play college football for the games. This is why we go to college football games. This is why we love it. This is why when you went to school, you felt like you were a part of the program.

You were a fight song. You would be at the game and you would watch your team compete with a scoreboard at one end, with a clock at that end as well. And you would say there's going to be a winner and there's a loser. And that's going to define which team is better moving forward. Well, that doesn't happen anymore because we've totally devalued the games. And I think that that's bad for the sport. I don't think that that's very good for us moving forward. What's the evidence of that? Well, the evidence of that is that Alabama with one loss.

This is the second ranked team in the country. You've got Oregon with the loss as the fourth ranked team in the country. Ohio State as number five, but since the Natties undefeated at eight, no. Why does it matter what Alabama's ranking is? Well, it matters a great deal. And the reason is is because they of the teams that have a loss here up in the top of the playoff rankings have what I would consider to be a bad loss. Oregon has a bad

loss, a far worse loss than Ohio State or Michigan or even Notre Dame. So you're suggesting that it pays to lose to a lesser opponent than a better opponent. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Think of it this way.

Texas A&M had somehow beat Mississippi State and they also had a loss and were jocking for position up here. Then all the sudden the head to head would matter because A&M would be a little bit better. So then Alabama would have to be behind A&M similar to how Ohio State has to be behind Oregon.

But since A&M is worse, Bama gets to just rise up the rankings. So it actually paid dividends for Alabama that A&M has struggled to a point where they've got two losses and are not a similar team.

How does that make any sense? So the structure of the playoff is broken. The committee is not honoring the actual games on the field and they're giving us two different standards of proof. And I think this is a big one folks and just bear with me because it takes a little bit of time to get through this one.

We have two different standards of proof in college football. If you're a blue blood like Alabama or Ohio State, you're going to get the benefit of the doubt.

In our country right now, we've got two different standards of proof. We've got a criminal case and we've got a civil case. In a criminal case, you've got to be found guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt.

In a civil case, it's just the quote preponderance of the evidence. So basically like a majority decision. All right, it's got to be more likely than not that whatever happened or you were accused of happened and you can be found guilty.

Well, we've got two different standards of proof in college football. If you're Alabama, you don't have to prove on the field that you're better than a bunch of teams because we just think and expect that you're better than other teams.

Meanwhile, Cincinnati, boy, your standard of proof is way up there. I mean way up there. We care about who you played and where you played. It doesn't matter that Alabama only has one win against a currently ranked team. No, no, no.

It doesn't matter Cincinnati that you went to Notre Dame and you beat an Irish team that hadn't lost in that building since 2017. No, no, no, because we have two different standards of proof.

...