Opinion: Oregon's success looming issue for College Football Playoff selection committee

George Schroeder | USA TODAY

Show Caption Hide Caption College Football Playoff rankings: What the committee got right and wrong SportsPulse: Clearly the Big 12 was left out in the cold by the committee. Dan Wolken and Paul Myerberg discuss the latest rankings.

OK, now it’s getting awkward.

Not the College Football Playoff’s latest Top 25. The rankings didn’t change all that much this week, which means – well, it doesn’t mean all that much, but we’ll all argue as if it does.

The questions haven’t changed, either. But who’s providing some of the more important answers? That’s different – which is not necessarily a change for the better.

Before ESPN’s Rece Davis introduced Rob Mullens, the selection committee chairman and Oregon’s athletic director, during Tuesday night’s rankings reveal show, he noted that Mullens was absent from debate and voting that involved Oregon. And then Davis didn’t really ask Mullens much about the Ducks, either, because in a new development for the six-year-old Playoff, its chairman and public spokesman is essentially recused from answers involving Oregon, too – which is a potential issue.

There’s no more important decision than No. 4 vs. No, Not Your Team – which makes the explanation of how and why it happened vital.

But under the CFP’s recusal policy, the selection committee’s chairman was not actually in the Bluebonnet Boardroom for at least portions of Monday and Tuesday when the selection committee evaluated, then ranked its top six teams. That’s a good thing, of course – Mullens shouldn’t be discussing the Ducks – and for Mullens, it’s obviously a very good problem to have.

More: Alabama stays at No. 5 in latest College Football Playoff rankings as top 4 remains same

College Football Playoff: Winners and losers in third rankings include LSU and Oklahoma

It’s probably also not a big deal in terms of administration. Chris Howard, the president of Robert Morris University, runs the meeting in Mullens’ absence. And when Mullens returns, he gets briefed on what happened while he was gone.

“We have a recusal policy that we know has served us well,” CFP executive director Bill Hancock told USA TODAY Sports on Tuesday night. “And yet we also know we have an obligation to tell the people what happened.”

Makes sense. But part of this entire thing is the idea that 13 highly qualified folk who know football will shed their biases and work together to fairly determine the participants in the four-team bracket. And then the committee’s chairman will serve as the sole spokesman to explain how they got there.

That in itself is a thankless gig. Explaining how the members arrived at consensus – or even if they arrived at real consensus – is virtually impossible. Like his predecessors, Mullens does it well. And yet, his every word is parsed, anyway.

But we’ve never encountered anything quite like what might unfold in a few weeks, with the chairman unable to discuss the rationale for several teams near the very top of the rankings – perhaps including who’s in the bracket and who’s out.

Mullens is not the first selection committee member to be recused, or the only one this year. In years past, Clemson athletic director Dan Radakovich, Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith and Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione all were recused, sometimes for long stretches, as their teams were discussed and ranked.

Radakovich and Smith are no longer on the committee, but Castiglione continues to step outside, into the very nice holding room adjacent to the boardroom, whenever the Sooners are under consideration. Former Virginia Tech coach Frank Beamer joins him, because his son Shane Beamer is an Oklahoma assistant coach.

Having both Oklahoma’s and Ohio State’s athletic directors outside the room last year was good policy, because their teams were under consideration, along with Georgia, for the fourth and final berth in the bracket. But then, neither Castiglione nor Smith was tasked with publicly discussing the committee’s eventual decision.

Instead, Mullens told us all why Oklahoma was in at No. 4 (followed by Georgia at No. 5 and Ohio State at No. 6). But with Oregon in the mix, he might not do the talking this time around.

It’s worth noting: This wasn’t on the radar when Mullens was named the selection committee chairman in January 2018. Previous chairmen Jeff Long (then at Arkansas) and Kirby Hocutt (Texas Tech) didn’t have teams involved in the Playoff conversation during their tenures.

And in 2016 and ’17, Mullens’ first two seasons as a committee member, Oregon went 4-8 and 7-6. Last season, his first as chairman, the Ducks were 9-4. But now they’re 9-1. And if they get to 12-1, they might get into the Playoff.

If they do, don’t bother asking Mullens how it all went down.

Even if we knew, of course, the conspiracy theories about the CFP’s selection process would still flourish. Turn on the radio anywhere in college football nation and you’ll hear people talk about how the committee wants this result or that other one (it’s all about TV ratings, or favoring traditional powers, or protecting a certain league, or insert your favorite scheme here). Those are bogus; the process is subjective, but it’s the farthest thing from rigged.

But Mullens’ potential inability to discuss some of the teams under serious consideration does not help to quench the conspiracies.

Hancock declined to discuss how the CFP would handle things going forward, saying the committee does not project what might occur. But during a teleconference Tuesday night with reporters, Hancock chimed in with a couple of answers regarding Oregon and Utah. It’s clear he will handle many of the queries involving Oregon and the teams it is being compared with.

But if Hancock won’t play this out, we will – because projection is what everyone does with these preliminary rankings, and it’s honestly the entire reason for these preliminary rankings: What if?

So: What if Oregon finishes as a 12-1 Pac-12 champion, Oklahoma is a 12-1 Big 12 champion, and oh by the way, there’s Alabama sitting there at 11-1? Everybody has an opinion on how that would go, but no one really knows.

But imagine that’s the situation on Sunday, Dec. 8. One of those teams gets into the bracket at No. 4 – hmmm, Oregon? – while the other two rank No. 5 and No. 6, just outside.

The chairman would be asked plenty of questions about the hows and whys of the decision, because every year the chairman is asked plenty of questions about the hows and whys of it. The abyss between No. 4 and No. 5 brims with frustration: You’re either in or somehow, maddeningly, left out.

But Mullens wouldn’t be taking those questions. He couldn’t legitimately, anyway, because he wouldn’t have been in the room. We’d get Hancock instead. And while he’s a veteran of delivering palatable answers to difficult questions – for goodness sake, the guy used to front for the Bowl Championship Series – this whole situation is weird.

If the chairman wasn’t running the meeting when the most important choices were made – he wasn’t even in the room – and if he can’t tell us anything about it, either? And especially if his team grabs that all-important No. 4 ranking?

It’s just awkward.