College Football Playoff Selection Committee Shouldn't Mirror NCAA Basketball

Michael FelderNational CFB Lead WriterApril 30, 2013

LONDON, ENGLAND - SEPTEMBER 28:  Arsene Wenger manager of Arsenal (R) and Ivan Gazidis, CEO of Arsenal (L) look on prior to the UEFA Champions League Group F match between Arsenal and Olympiacos at the Emirates Stadium on September 28, 2011 in London, England.  (Photo by Clive Rose/Getty Images)
Clive Rose/Getty Images

Last week, we expected to get word on how the new College Football Playoff's selection committee would be set up. Instead, we got a lot of hemming and hawing as the powers brokers were unable to decide what they were looking for in a selection committee.

As we've said at Your Best 11 before, you have to have football guys on board to make this whole thing work.

That means not going the basketball route that so many people are clamoring to see.

Football is not basketball. It's not a sport with a 30-game regular season. It's not a sport with games upon games of cross-conference competition. And it certainly is not a sport that lends itself to simple computer formulas; as evidenced by folks constant complaining about the computer portion of the BCS formula.

So, when SEC commissioner Mike Slive tells the Associated Press that he is looking for "football expertise," he makes sense.

"But, but, but former players and coaches will have biases!"

Right, that is certainly true. Their affiliations with certain schools or coaches might help sway their voting. They might have an idea of how they like to see football played.

However, when you look at the basketball model, with administrators pulling the triggers, it has some of those same issues where bias is concerned. Plus, there's the whole "we have to get money" aspect that comes with being part of the sports power structure driven by getting the green.

Thus, the difference is not the biases. They exist and have to be balanced. That means the selection committee should represent different regions, work to make the process transparent and create a strong sense of accountability.

The difference is that one group, the group that understands football, can help explain why teams No. 5 and 6 got in over team No. 4, while the other group is asking you to take them at their word. Perhaps some magic computer number was not right. Perhaps one team was not sexy enough in the ratings. Perhaps it is Conference A's turn to win because they lost out to Conference C last year.

Either way, point is, if a team is getting cut out of the top four spots, I'm sure they'd rather lose out because of what's on tape, instead of being left out because they didn't have the sizzle to draw administrator's votes.

Stocking the 14-to-20 member committee with guys who possess "football expertise" will go a long way to help create the credibility this new playoff needs.