Greg McElroy’s Statement About the Chicago Bears That the College Playoff Committee Needs to Hear
Greg McElroy, a former college football star and now an insightful commentator, recently made a bold statement that sent ripples across the sports world. While McElroy’s primary focus is usually on college football, his recent remarks about the Chicago Bears have a surprising connection to the ongoing debates surrounding the College Football Playoff (CFP) selection committee. His thoughts highlight an important lesson that the CFP committee should take into account as it continues to shape the future of college football’s postseason.
The Statement That Caught Attention
In a recent broadcast, McElroy spoke candidly about the Chicago Bears’ current situation and the importance of perspective when evaluating a team’s trajectory. His main point? It’s not just about what a team looks like on paper right now, but the potential they have for future growth and development.
“Sometimes, it’s easy to look at a team like the Chicago Bears, who are struggling at the moment, and write them off,” McElroy said. “But that ignores the possibility of future improvement, of growth, and the potential of the pieces they’re putting together. What’s important isn’t just the record today—it’s where you’re headed tomorrow.”
This comment, while focused on the NFL, offers an important insight that the College Football Playoff Committee would be wise to consider when evaluating teams for postseason spots.
The Parallels to College Football’s Playoff System
The CFP committee is tasked with choosing the four best teams for the playoff, but the criteria for selection can sometimes feel a bit too narrow. As McElroy points out in reference to the Bears, too much emphasis can be placed on a team’s current status and not enough on their potential or trajectory. This is where college football’s playoff selection system often faces criticism: teams with great potential or solid performances against tough schedules might be overlooked because of a single loss, while other teams that may not be as strong on paper can be elevated because of a well-timed victory or favorable matchups.
For example, a team that starts the season strong, then falters with a couple of key losses, might still be a contender based on its overall improvement or strength of schedule. The committee sometimes values wins and losses without fully appreciating the “growth curve” of a team over the course of the season.
The Case for Considering Growth and Future Potential
What McElroy is advocating for—the need to see beyond the present and evaluate the potential—makes a lot of sense in the context of college football’s playoff. The College Football Playoff committee should be more willing to recognize teams that are peaking at the right time. For instance, a team that has a late-season surge after a rough start or has had several close losses to high-caliber opponents should not be automatically excluded from playoff contention. Growth and improvement, especially late in the season, are important factors that shouldn’t be ignored.
Additionally, strength of schedule should play a bigger role in assessing a team’s overall value. A team that plays a tough non-conference schedule or faces tough conference opponents week in and week out should be given more leeway when evaluating the quality of their season. Even if the team stumbles early, their strength of schedule and eventual growth should make them more worthy of a playoff spot than a team with a perfect record, but a significantly weaker schedule.
Real-Life Examples in College Football
There have been several instances in college football where teams that struggled early on or faced tough schedules were still among the best come the end of the season. Take, for example, the 2019 LSU Tigers. Early in the season, they were already seen as a team with a lot of promise, but their eventual dominance came after several key victories, including a decisive win over Alabama, pushing them to an undefeated season. If the committee had ignored the growing pains and early challenges LSU faced, they might have missed the chance to see a true contender emerge.
Similarly, a team like Ohio State in 2014 had a major injury to their starting quarterback but still managed to find their way into the playoff and win the national championship. Their growth over the course of the season—despite their early struggles—was the key to their success.
A Call for a Broader Perspective
McElroy’s analogy to the Bears teaches a valuable lesson for the CFP committee: evaluation should not just be about the static performance of a team at any given moment, but also about their trajectory and the overall body of work they produce throughout the season. College football, like the NFL, is a dynamic sport where growth and potential matter just as much as current success. The committee needs to take into account not only the current landscape but also how a team has evolved over time and where they stand heading into the postseason.
As college football continues to grow and evolve, it’s crucial that the playoff system adapts as well. The committee should not dismiss teams that are on the rise, even if they faced early setbacks. Looking at the bigger picture—acknowledging the context of a team’s growth and improvement—could lead to a more fair, inclusive, and representative selection process.
In the end, Greg McElroy’s comments about the Bears may have been about the NFL, but they hold a powerful message for the College Football Playoff committee as well: the potential of a team can often be just as valuable as its present record. And the CFP should reflect that.