College Football Playoff: Transparency Is Key for New Postseason System

Michael Felder touched on this issue this morning, but it's worth revisiting. Jim Delany--whose opinions we haven't exactly help in high regard around here when it comes to the upcoming playoff structure--spoke to ESPN.com about transparency in whatever the selection process for the four playoff teams would be. And frankly, he nailed it:

"That would mean if we're going to use computers, people are more up front about what's in those computers," he said. "It would mean perhaps the pollsters that we have would have to refrain from ranking teams before they ever play. It would mean we would have to honestly discuss strength of schedule and how we measure it. ... If a computer guy is unwilling to explain to me and everybody else what's in his program, I don't think it ought to be part of the process. If a coach is arguing for championships, I'd like to hear the rationale behind that. If someone is arguing that you don't have to win championships and they're willing to live with a poll that is not even transparent, I'd like to hear that. 

"And I'd like to hear coaches talk about the influence that a poll-only process, how that plays out in the nonconference scheduling."

The last point is especially salient, as currently there are very few incentives for most teams to schedule a BCS-level opponent unless it's a marquee, "put the team on the map" type of game. Past those types of games, though, ADs would usually rather schedule Eastern Illinois than Actual Illinois, and that bears consideration.

Speaking to the larger picture, though, Delany is absolutely right. There is no reason why, in this day and age, there should be any question as to what a mathematical formula is going to produce if all the data is known. Well, there is a reason, but it's legitimacy's old familiar foe: monetary interests.

ESPN obviously covets the secrecy of the BCS computer formulas so it can get an exclusive weekly show out of the reveal, but in terms of actual legitimacy, the previous setup was an absolute disaster, and it's good Delany realizes that. If there are going to be computers used in the selection process ever again, their formulas need to be public. Period.

The solution for the new playoffs, whatever it's going to be, will be imperfect. There is no "perfect." Not with so many small sample sizes and highly contradictory data. The "best four teams" in college football aren't always going to be easy to define, even with objective formulas in place, and there's always going to be controversy.

The correct approach to that controversy, then, is exactly what Delany discusses here: transparency. Explain why conference champions are preferred to poll leaders or vice versa. Explain it way too much. Bore people with the explanation. Be able to explain it succinctly too, of course, but be as up-front as possible about what you're doing here. It'd be a nice change of pace for a previously loathsome BCS.