Before the rankings were released, I gave a list of what questions this week’s rankings would answer. How the committee ranked teams would tell us what the committee thinks on things like how to judge quality wins, strength of schedule, and more.
Does the committee care about how a team looks and is perceived, and would therefore put Alabama at the top of the rankings? Or would the committee send us a message about the value of good wins, and put Alabama behind some teams that the Tide are ahead of in the human polls? These questions were waiting to be answered. And, now that the committee has released its rankings, we begin to have some answers.
So let’s get to it. From top to bottom, what do this week’s rankings mean? What lessons can we learn about this year’s selection committee and what it values? Let’s learn what the CFP selection committee taught us.
The obvious big first thing that will stick out is Ohio State at No. 1. The Buckeyes have been impressive, and are the clear No. 1 team according to just about all advanced metrics rankings. The Buckeyes also have the best overall strength of schedule among top teams and have quality wins over Wisconsin and Cincinnati. LSU follows at No. 2, also another obvious decision.
Next… Alabama, Penn State, quality wins, and the Pac 12
Why is Penn State No. 4?
This is the one ranking that will surprise some people, but it really shouldn’t. Alabama at No. 3 makes perfect sense. The Tide have a weak schedule and only one win of even decent quality (Texas A&M). Interestingly enough, Clemson’s only decent win is over that same Texas A&M team. Perhaps the better question isn’t only why Penn State is ahead of Clemson; it might also be why Penn State is behind Alabama.
Ultimately, the answer to that comes back to the relative subjectivity of the selection committee. These rankings are determined by people, not computers. Criteria don’t have to be fully applied consistently, because the committee watches football and judges teams.
This brings us to something that committee chair Rob Mullens mentioned multiple times on air while discussing the rankings. The committee this year seemed very focused on teams that showed “consistency.” Playing impressive football, week-in and week-out, is what the committee is looking for. Aside from maybe Ohio State, no one looks more consistently dominant than Alabama. That earned Alabama the No. 3 slot. Showing some weaknesses, though, especially early in the season, pushed Clemson behind Penn State for the No. 4 slot.
Georgia at No. 6
The selection committee put the Georgia Bulldogs at No. 6, even though Georgia very clearly has the worst loss of any of the contenders. No one-loss team has a loss as bad as Georgia’s loss to South Carolina, and yet the Bulldogs were the highest-ranked one-loss team. Of course, Georgia has wins over Florida and Notre Dame, which is clearly the best set of wins that any one-loss team has. For now, at least, the question of whether quality wins trumps bad losses or not is answered–and it’s a resounding yes.
The Pac 12
I said in my list of questions that the Pac 12 teams, more so Oregon, have actually played decent schedules, even if they lack top-end wins. The committee seems to respect that, putting both Oregon and Utah ahead of Oklahoma. The Sooners have been consistently dominant on offense, but a rough defense led to a loss to Kansas State. Still, it’s a good sign for the Pac 12 moving forward that Oregon and Utah are so high. Whether that lasts or not while other teams play upcoming tough games is anyone’s guess, but at least as of now, it’s a good sign for the Pac 12.
Next… Baylor, Minnesota, and when strength of schedule matters
Baylor at No. 12, Minnesota at No. 17
Alabama and Clemson very clearly got the benefit of the doubt to an extent that Baylor and Minnesota didn’t. Then again, even though Alabama and Clemson have played relatively weak schedules, both Baylor and Minnesota have played far worse schedules so far. Baylor has played one of the worst nonconference schedules we’ve ever seen–a point that Rob Mullens noted.
Minnesota’s schedule, meanwhile, is very backloaded. The schedule has been incredibly weak so far, but the Golden Gophers will face three ranked teams in their last four games. If Minnesota wins all of those games, they’ll definitely be towards the top of the rankings by the end of the season. The real question is how the committee will judge Minnesota next week–whether it wins or loses to Penn State. Will the Gophers jump all the way up to the Top 10 with a win? Higher? Will Minnesota be punished for a loss? Or will the fact that all of the teams behind Minnesota already have at least one loss keep the Golden Gophers more or less stable as long as they don’t get blown out?
Wisconsin, Michigan, Notre Dame, and head-to-head
The committee made a very clear and conscious statement about head-to-head with the Wisconsin-Michigan-Notre Dame trio. Wisconsin, by far, has the worst loss of all three of these teams (against Illinois). However, the Badgers end up as the top team in this group. There is only one possible reason for that, and that’s the committee telling us that, at least at this point in the season, head-to-head matters a lot.
Now, each of these teams have only played eight or nine games. That means that the head-to-head result is over 10% of a team’s resume. By the end of the season, every team will have played 12 games. When all 12 are considered, maybe head-to-head will have less impact. Also, Wisconsin (over Michigan) and Michigan (over Notre Dame) were dominant in their wins. Maybe that’s what influenced the committee more here, and a close win won’t necessarily force the committee to go straight to head-to-head.
Next… Everything else
Wins over teams with winning records
The importance of wins over teams with winning records was something we’ve heard from the committee consistently the past few years. It was only mentioned once by Rob Mullens this week. Maybe that means it’s too early in the season to worry about it, or maybe it’s something that the committee isn’t as interested in caring about this year.
Big 12 love
The committee very clearly is impressed with the Big 12 so far this year. Oklahoma State is the only three-loss team in the rankings, with wins over Iowa State and Kansas State. (Note, regarding the head-to-head point above, that Texas is not ranked, even though the Longhorns also only have three losses and beat Oklahoma State.) Similarly, Kansas State is up at No. 16, largely on the back of its win over Oklahoma. We’ll see if this lasts, but it’s worth noting that the committee clearly respects this conference more than the human polls at this point.
Also, we have to point out that Texas A&M is unranked. Among all three-loss teams, Texas A&M has the best three losses, without question. All three losses came against teams in the committee’s Top 11. And yet, Texas A&M is left out–likely due to the fact that the Aggies have not beaten a single decent team. (In fact, Texas A&M’s best win is over 4-5 Mississippi State.) Similarly, Indiana was not ranked by the committee. The Hoosiers are 7-2 in the Big Ten East, and neither loss is a bad loss, but their best win is over 4-5 Nebraska.
AAC at the bottom
For the first time in selection committee history, it ranked five Group of 5 teams. Also for the first time, four teams from one Group of 5 conference were ranked. Apparently, however, that was not enough to earn the AAC the same (or close to the same) treatment that Power 5 conferences get.
All four of the AAC’s ranked teams appeared between No. 20 and No. 25. It’s an impressive showing for the conference, to be sure, but it’s still a step behind where it wants to be.
