When it comes to College Football Playoff rankings, fans of the sport are divided into two categories. There are those who believe the power conferences and certain teams get preferential treatment solely based on their brand name and which league they’re in, and others make the point that those leagues are just tougher, and the big brands truly are better.
I typically fall into the latter category, so it pains me to say the CFP committee is prioritizing brand names and power conference teams. The most updated rankings featured four Big Ten teams, four SEC teams and the Notre Dame Fighting Irish who would be in. Only auto bids could fill the other three slots.
Now, just having teams from those leagues and Notre Dame alone doesn’t prove anything. However, if you break down the logical inconsistency with where teams stand, it’s clear that the College Football Playoff committee is prioritizing brand name, conference power and recency over everything else. A mix of those things determine the rankings.
Let’s start with the brand name. Notre Dame is a one-loss team that came in at No. 6. One-loss teams behind them include the Miami Hurricanes, Boise State Broncos, SMU Mustangs and BYU Cougars. By every single metric possible, BYU and Miami have higher-ranked strength of schedules than Notre Dame.
It’s one thing to say the Irish belong in the College Football Playoff, but to put them at No. 6 makes it clear as day there is a bias toward their brand. However, it’s also further evidence of bias against lesser conference teams, effectively not SEC or Big Ten teams, which leads to our second point.
The Indiana Hoosiers are currently No. 5. Fair enough. They have a 10-0 record and are one of three perfect teams remaining in the sport. One of those teams is the Oregon Ducks, who certainly deserve to be No. 1. However, the other is the Army Black Knights, who are all the way down at No. 19.
Here’s the crazy part, though. Both programs have an FPI strength of schedule outside of the top 100, and while Army’s is 30 spots worse, a 30-team gap in SOS rankings for two programs outside of the top 100 shouldn’t justify a 14-team gap when it comes to rankings. Both teams have played awful schedules.
Then there’s just the recency bias, and that’s clear as day with how they separated the SEC teams. For context, the Ole Miss Rebels, Alabama Crimson Tide, Tennessee Vols and Georgia Bulldogs are all 8-2. Alabama beat Georgia in September, Tennessee beat Alabama in October, Ole Miss beat Georgia in November, and Georgia beat UT last week.
You can’t separate the tiebreaker by head to head or record against each other. Schedule strength is the only way to go, and it’s worth noting at that point that the Texas A&M Aggies are also 8-2 and belong on this list. If you just went by schedule strength, you would go this way:
- Georgia
- Alabama
- Tennessee
- Texas A&M
- Ole Miss
However, somehow, the committee put Alabama at No. 7 and then put Ole Miss at No. 9, Georgia at No. 10, Tennessee at No. 11 (one spot out of the College Football Playoff) and A&M all the way down at No. 15. Why is this? Well, UT lost just last week, Georgia the week before and A&M the week before that. The three to lose in November are at the bottom.
See the issue? There’s a clear-as-day recency bias.
Luckily for everybody involved, there are plenty of games left, as A&M has to visit the Texas Longhorns, Notre Dame has to face Army and visit the USC Trojans, and Indiana has to face the Ohio State Buckeyes. However, it’s clear the College Football Playoff will come down to brand, conference and recency above resume or eye test in the end.
