Former Alabama quarterback and ESPN analyst Greg McElroy has built a reputation for his sharp analysis of both college football and the NFL. Recently, McElroy made a thought-provoking comment about the Baltimore Ravens, highlighting a message that resonates far beyond professional football and could serve as a critical lesson for the College Football Playoff (CFP) committee. His insight centers around the Ravens’ ability to win games in a variety of ways, a trait that often separates contenders from pretenders.
McElroy emphasized that the Ravens, under head coach John Harbaugh and led by MVP-caliber quarterback Lamar Jackson, have demonstrated remarkable adaptability this season. Whether it’s dominating with a high-powered offense, leaning on an elite defense, or grinding out wins in less-than-ideal circumstances, the Ravens showcase a multidimensional approach to winning. McElroy argued that this adaptability makes them not just a great team, but one built for sustainable success in the postseason.
The message for the CFP committee is clear: adaptability and resilience should matter in evaluating college football teams. In the current system, too much weight is often given to flashy statistics, margin of victory, or strength of schedule. While those metrics are important, McElroy’s point about the Ravens underscores the value of rewarding teams that can win in diverse ways.
### Why Adaptability Should Matter
In the NFL, the Ravens’ ability to win ugly when necessary or light up the scoreboard when the opportunity arises makes them a nightmare matchup for any opponent. Similarly, in college football, teams that can adjust to different styles of play—overcoming bad weather, injuries, or unique opponents—are often the ones that make deep runs in the postseason.
Take, for example, recent CFP contenders like Georgia and Alabama. Both programs have shown that they can win with a dominant defense, a potent offense, or a mix of both. On the flip side, teams overly reliant on one-dimensional strategies—whether it’s a pass-heavy attack or a bend-but-don’t-break defense—tend to falter when faced with elite competition.
### The Problem with Overlooking Resilience
Too often, the CFP committee seems enamored with blowouts and eye-popping offensive numbers, which can mask a team’s lack of versatility. A program that thrives in perfect conditions may struggle when the stakes are highest and the environment is hostile. McElroy’s praise of the Ravens reminds us that true greatness isn’t about perfection but about finding ways to win when the odds are stacked against you.
This lesson feels especially relevant as the CFP committee nears its final rankings. Should a team like Florida State be judged solely on its undefeated record, even if injuries have left them less dynamic? Or should the committee prioritize a team like Oregon, whose late-season surge demonstrates a complete and adaptable style of play? McElroy’s Ravens analogy suggests that adaptability should weigh heavily in these deliberations.
### Conclusion
Greg McElroy’s observation about the Baltimore Ravens transcends the NFL and offers a blueprint for how the College Football Playoff committee can better evaluate teams. Football, at every level, is a game of adjustments. The ability to adapt, to win in multiple ways, and to thrive under pressure is what separates the good from the great.
As the CFP committee prepares to finalize its rankings, it would do well to heed McElroy’s unintentional advice. Just as the Ravens are proving their mettle in the NFL, college football teams that show resilience and versatility deserve to be recognized and rewarded. In the end, these are the teams most likely to rise to the occasion when it matters most.