The College Football Playoff, AI: Proceeding With Caution

Photo by Kimberly P. Mitchell/USA TODAY SPORTS

In a recent meeting with the media, College Football Playoff executive director Rich Clark discussed the idea of having AI (artificial intelligence) being a part of the College Football Playoff selection process.

“AI will never take over, but might be a tool committee members might use,” Clark said during

a Dec. 17 news conference.

The advent of AI technology has been the source of much intrigue and debate in recent years,

with conversations going back and forth regarding how it should be used. Its use in the sports

world is no different, with items such as Sports Illustrated allegedly being caught using AI writers

being hot topics.

The recent development of the College Football Playoff Committee potentially using it is simply

the newest installment, and while there may be some benefits to using AI technology, there are

also drawbacks.

Benefits of CFP AI Selection Tools

While not much is known about AI technology being used for this purpose, as it is completely

untested, going off of what is already known about AI tools and uses could point to its potential

benefits.

For one, AI technology for data analysis could provide huge benefits toward making the right

selections. Using AI for data analysis and interpretation has been one of the major benefits, with

programs showing great accuracy and deduction abilities using numbers and other quantitative

data.

Take its use in the medical field, where it’s been used to transcribe documents, improve patient-

to-physician communications and even diagnosing patients. It has intuitive, data-driven uses

that could prove to be very beneficial in helping determine who the best possible teams are for

the College Football Playoff.

Stats, strengths of schedule and other numbers-driven items can easily be muddied up by

human error. By using AI, there’s a possibility that this process will be streamlined and made simpler.

It could also determine things at a faster pace than human judgment by better utilizing known

facts and quantifiable stats.

Drawbacks of CFP AI Selection Tools

The streamlining and simplification of data certainly prove to be a major asset, along with the

limitation of human error in decision-making. However, there are simply just certain things that

human judgment and the human eye can determine better than AI.

Plain and simply put, quantitative data is one part of the College Football Playoff selection

process. Streamlining things such as the strength of schedule, team and individual stats and overall

FPI ratings do prove to be beneficial but take a look at what determines things like strength of

schedule. It’s not just statistical analysis, it’s knowing what teams simply look good against

stronger competition and what teams don’t.

This cannot be determined by simply looking at stats. A team could be extremely strong against

Group of 5 competition, yet lack any strength against a Power Four opponent. Things like

stat-padding, teams being able to schedule their own nonconference matchups, how those wins look, how consistent in-play teams are and other items need to be taken into account.

This is where the benefit of human judgment lies and where AI lacks. AI can take all the

quantifiable data it wants to take but in the end, the true strength of a team lies in the eye of the

beholder as well as what types of stats they can put up.

Things like bad data leading to algorithmic bias, potential security issues, cost concerns and

concerns with increased dependence also rear their ugly heads. While Clark stated that AI will

never take over, it doesn’t mean that there won’t be an increased reliance in the future should

there be any sort of growing apathy or laziness.

It’s more possible than one might think. In fact, this year already many are upset with the

committee in their relaxed demeanor in a released video of them watching the conference

championship games. While it’s a small, perhaps nit picky part being viewed of this committee that likely should be taken with a grain of salt, it could potentially speak volumes.

If the committee ends up being more people who aren’t as in tune with the game of college football, this problem could get worse and AI will not remedy it. It’s why some are calling for more in the committee whose focus and expertise is college football.

The Verdict

Going back to the initial point made, this is why AI, if to be used at all, must be used with caution

and cannot be fully depended on to make the College Football Playoff selections. Human error

is certainly a thing and AI can help in mitigating that, but it won’t eradicate it completely.

Not only that but having qualitative football knowledge is imperative in making these types of

selections. As of now, five of the 12 selection committee members have direct football

experience. Having committee members that have this direct focus and that are experts in the

game’s qualitative and quantitative data and facts proves to be more beneficial in the long run,

while potentially combining that with AI tools. The current committee does have members who

have this expertise, but many are saying there’s room for more within.

Proceeding with optimistic caution while also making sure to have committee members who are

focused on football and who are experts seems to be the main path to take. While the committee

has members plenty worthy of respect, there’s concern that there isn’t enough expertise and

passion in the realm of football to make these major decisions. AI will not solely remedy that,

having members who are passionate and focused on the game will on top of having potential

data tools.

In the end, the committee has its faults, but this year’s College Football Playoff only upset a

select few because of the committee’s attention to detail and parity. The Alabama Crimson Tide

did not deserve to be in the College Football Playoff, no 3-loss team does and anyone with

zero bias toward the Southeastern Conference and its interests knows this. The teams that

were supposed to make it from that conference made it, plain and simple.

The same goes for the BYU Cougars and Miami Hurricanes, who while going 10-2, did not

make their respective conference championships and did not have the quantitative strengths to

usurp anyone currently in the playoff. The committee did a fine job, controversy is unnecessary and AI probably wouldn’t have made very different decisions. If anything, there’s potential it could have muddied the waters even further with how tight things were down the stretch.

Using AI tools to help streamline the selection process is a fair decision to make, but proceeding

with caution and further utilizing experts in the field is the one rational course of action. People will complain no matter what, but it’s a matter of getting it right and upsetting the least amount of people in the process. The committee did just that with this past selection.