The Joel Klatt Show: A College Football Podcast - CFP Rankings Reaction & Updates on the Coaching Carousel

Episode Date: November 5, 2021

Joel Klatt breaks down what the committee did in the first week of the CFB Playoff Rankings. He reveals why he thought the committee got it wrong and gives his reasons for playoff expansion. Then, Bruce Feldman joins to give an update on the head coaching vacancies around the country. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome in, everybody. It is a huge week here as we get into the college football playoff rankings. This is breaking the huddle. I'm Joel Clatt, and this 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 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. 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, Wake 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 what do 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 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. But I think we need to start with this fact. Okay, first and foremost, the playoff. as it's currently constructed is broken. 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. that doesn't allow for a school or a program to evolve. So we shoves 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 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 not anywhere near what you would want to do if you were trying to get a data set

that was unbiased. 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 and 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 1 and 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 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 four most 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 system that we have in college football is broken. So it'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. It's because you would sing the 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 is the second ranked team in the country. You've got Oregon with a loss as the fourth ranked team in the country. Ohio State as number five, but Cincinnati's undefeated at 8-0. 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. If Texas A&M had somehow beat Mississippi State and they also had a loss and were jockeying for position up here, then all the sudden 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 to Alabama. 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. 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, 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. That doesn't work in college football, folks.

Why are we saying Cincinnati, you've got to prove beyond a shadow of doubt? You've got to prove beyond all doubt that you're better than Alabama. But now Alabama, you know, it's more likely than not that you're better than Cincinnati, so we're just going to go in that direction. I think that that is a problem. And folks, the last thing that I would say is that this standard of best versus deserving is not where we should be. Trying to find the four best teams, folks. It's very difficult.

The committee's got a difficult task. This is not good for college football. We need to reward what kids are doing on the field, and we don't tend to do that because of the standard of best versus most deserving. I think that we need to change that. The only way to change this and wrestle this grizzly bear to the ground

is through expansion. And I understand that we're just going to continue to argue when we have expansion, but at least we can fix some of the structure, like how many committee members we have and how many committees we have. Can we get to the fat part of the bell curve? Can we get to a point where we've got more teams that actually control their own destiny? Think about it right now, folks.

We've only got three teams in actuality that control their own destiny. That's a problem. That's a problem. Everyone's saying like, hey, don't worry, you know, if you're Oklahoma or Wake Forest or any number of these teams, like, you went out and you'll be fine. No, no, no, no. Guys, folks, actually, only three teams actually control their. their own destiny. There's three teams in the country that we can say, if you win out, you're going

to be in. Georgia is one of them. Alabama is clearly one of them in Michigan State. If Oregon wins out, we don't know what they're going to do with Ohio State. We don't. We have no idea what they're going to do as far as the value goes. Cincinnati, clearly, it doesn't matter if they went out. Oklahoma matters what happens elsewhere. When there's only three teams that control their own destiny, you're disenfranchising fan bases all over the country. You want to keep Cincinnati's fan base engaged, saying, hey, every single game is a playoff game for you from here on out. If you win that conference, you'll clearly be one of the six best conference champions, let's say, in a 12-team playoff, and you'll go to the playoff.

And guess what? If you win your conference and you're one of those six best champions, you'll host a playoff game. That's college football, folks. That would be better. This structure, this subjective nature, this is not it. This is not it. Hey, we've got to break down the best defense in college football. Might be one of the best defenses in the history of college football.

The Georgia Bulldogs. What makes them so great? Let's take a look. Let's take a peek under the hood. All right, four things, but listen, there's more than these four things. Let's try to just go through a few of them. Talent scheme, effort, and tackling.

First, let's talk about talent. You've got a recruit great, which they have. And you also have to develop. Look at that. They've got 19 five-star players on their roster. That's the most in the country. 33 players that were recruited as four or five stars just playing defense.

That's a staggering amount. By the way, just those 33, four or five star players, if you just had their defensive players, they would be one of the most talented teams in the country. And by the way, Jordan Davis, see this big guy? The key to their defense right in the middle, the nose guard, he was a three star. So you know that they're developing the recruits that they do get. And you don't have to be a five star in order to dominate Jordan Davis getting some Heisman. Buzz, excuse me.

Let's take a look at Jordan Davis and some of that talent. Georgia's defense starts with their front seven, and that front seven starts with Jordan Davis. Right here, you've got basically even numbers to block the Georgia front seven. But when you've got a noseguard that's going to take the guard and just shove them right into the backfield, get off of that block and make the tackle,

you've got something special. That's talent, folks. Let's take another look at a different play. Georgia's defense is built for their front seven to run and react and make plays. Arkansas is going to try to get around that left side. Jordan Davis, yeah, I'm 360 pounds, but I'm going to split the double team and I still have the speed and athleticism to run down the running back on the edge and stop him for a one-yard game. That's exceptional stuff from Jordan Davis that speaks to the talent on their defense. Let's take a look now and maybe some of the other elements of this Georgia defense that are really great. Let's take a look at the scheme. What's Kirby Smart doing? Is it elaborate? I would actually argue that it's less elaborate. In fact, they're playing more basic defense and zone coverage in the back end, and that allows. their talent to be great.

Let's take a look at a play against Georgia. First of all, they're just in kind of a four-three defense, kind of a normal defense, and what you're going to see is that they're in straight zone coverage behind it. In past years, they were running more man coverage, but when you have zone, look at all these players. You've got a stunk up front, and everyone's covered

because of that zone defense. The eyes are on the quarterback. He doesn't have anywhere to go with the ball, and then you get a sack because you've got great pass rushers up front. So that's being sound in your scheme. Now, you've also got a good. got to be creative and aggressive at times. Do they do that? Yes, they do. Let's take another look at a play against Florida from last week. Now you've got only two down linemen right there

and one stand-up defensive end. As the linemen go off field, you're going to have a middle plug X of a backer stunt and watch these two guys, the defensive end and the other linebacker drop into coverage. They're playing zone behind an exotic blitz look, only rushing four, but the quarterback thinks that he's got to get the ball out of his hands, and now the talent takes over. That's a 275 pound defensive end that's able to tip the ball and get it up there. A tip ball equals interceptions and they get a turnover in that game. So they're doing everything well. You take a look at this chart. They've got the talent best in the country. Their scheme, it's perfectly suited to what their talent can do. And then they give great effort. You talk

with coaches around the country and they say things like, man, it seems like Georgia wants to rip your face off on defense. They're running to the football. And then they do not miss tackles. None of those clips. You saw them miss opportunities to make a tackle. The worst defenses in the country, the defenses that are struggling the most in the country, they're the ones that get an opportunity to make a play and then don't make the tackle. You fan bases know exactly what I'm talking about. Those missed tackles drive you insane. So that's what's going on with the Georgia defense.

They're doing an amazing job. It's not just scheme. It's about their talent, but it's also about their effort and their ability to make the tackle in the open field. Big news in the coaching ranks, obviously, early this season has come fast and furious. Let's go to Bruce Feldman. Our insider, the best in the business. Bruce, what's going on, man? How are you? I'm doing great, Joel. Good to be on with you today. Okay, so the legend Gary Patterson, like it goes out. He's out at TCU.

I think it was shocking for most people, but tell us what went down. So early last week, I started hearing that they were looking at a coaching change there, probably at the end of the season. As we reported that on our, big noon show last Saturday, in relationship to possibly sunny Dykes moving over from possibly from SMU to TCU. There's been a lot of friction inside the program at TCU. And there's a lot of people there who felt like, you know what, it's probably time. Gary Patterson has a statue in, you know, in front of the stadium. They probably wouldn't be in the Big 12 without him. But things escalated over the week. And then they had a really bad performance against K-State.

The AD had gone to him and said, look, we'd like you to coach out the rest of the year. We'll give you a proper sendoff. Patterson did not feel like it was something he wanted to do to stay on. So Jerry Kill is taken over for his buddy to finish out the year. Yeah, I didn't think it would end like this for a guy. Like you said, has a statue as a legend is basically the reason why they are where they're at from a football standpoint, athletic department standpoint. And you can argue even from a university standpoint.

Now, having said that, the big fish are still out there. I'm not talking about coaching candidates. I'm talking about the jobs. LSU and USC. Give us an update. What are you hearing about the Tigers and Trojans? Well, USC is really going through the search committee process to sort out what direction they think is best. I think they're trying to tap into a lot of people because there's a lot of different viewpoints on what USC needs.

I mean, we obviously know James Franklin as a guy that people have looked at whether James Franklin is willing to leave Penn State at this point. He's not having a great year now. I mean, since this job came open, just in the last month, they're on a three-game losing streak. I mean, it's not a stretch to think they could go eight and four, even seven and five. You know, how would that play, whether it was at USC or potentially even at LSU? The LSU one is really interesting because even though Jimbo Fisher at Texas A&M had said he plans to remain on at A&M, and that kind of doused a lot of the speculation that Scott Woodward, the AD at LSU, would be able to hire him again.

Remember Woodward when he was the AD at A&M was able to pry Jimbo Fisher away from FSU. From what I'm hearing from people around LSU is that Scott Woodward is not giving up easily. And he feels like he may be able to pull Jimbo Fisher again, even though the A&M people are like, you know, that's not happening. So we'll see how that plays out. Mel Tucker's a guy that is obviously had a terrific use. and done really good job turning around Michigan State. He's a former LSU assistant, former Nick Saban assistant.

He is very well thought of by a lot of people inside LSU, especially some really influential people. But ultimately this will be Scott Woodward's higher. Can Jimbo Fisher really say no to him? We'll see. Well, he's got what are the nine million reasons to stay. So I guess Woodward would have to come up with 10 or 11 million reasons to leave. But I have been told also, Bruce,

that the check is blank at LSU and it's large. Whatever he needs, speaking of Scott Ward Words, he's going to get from some of the donors down there to go and get their next coach. Bruce Feldman, the best in the business. Thank you so much for your insights, man. All right, thank you, Joel. Oh, clap back time.

Let's go to the social media sphere and check out what's going on. Let's hit it and get right to it here. Jay comes in with, nah, this isn't the NFL. Just because you win your conference doesn't mean you should be in the play. If Oregon chokes and loses to a four-loss team from the Pact 12 South, it would be a mockery if that four-loss team made the playoffs. Okay, Jay, lots to get into and you're making some assumptions that are not true about my model.

I talked about quickly my model there in the first segment. Listen, I would like 12 teams, maybe even 14 teams, and I would give six of those spots to conference champs. But those are not automatic bids for conference champs. They're the four, or excuse me, six best conference champions. So you could get a conference champ that gets left out. Let's say if a four-loss team were to win a conference championship. But there's more. And this is something that I hadn't gone into yet.

But that is, this would never happen if I were the commissioner. If I were commissioner for a day, one of the first things I would do is get rid of divisions in college football. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that we have a four-loss team playing another team from a said division and a chance to win a conference championship. We should do away with divisions, play a more round-robin style of schedule, not a complete round-robin. style of schedule, but more round robin style of schedule, similar to that, and then pit the top two teams from the conference in the championship game. Kind of exactly what the Big 12 does. That's the best model. You would get the best games and the best champions and even a second place team in that type of model that I'm talking about would at least have some sort of argument to be considered one of the six best champions included in the playoffs. So there you go. Jay, I just solved both of our problems and now we won't have this issue with a four loss team. be being considered in an automatic birth for the playoff. None of that would happen. That's going to do it for breaking the huddle. I'm Joel Clatt. Folks, college football is the best.

Enjoy what we've got on Saturday. I'm going to be in Lincoln, Nebraska, Ohio State, at Nebraska with Gus and Jenny, Big Noon Saturday. And then next week, we start diving into November. More rankings, more clat back, more breakdowns, all that's coming up. This show, as always, is brought to you by Dr. Pepper. It is the one fans deserve.