Before I look at what we should be focusing on in the committee’s second rankings, let me start with what not to worry about, even though it will be the most-discussed topic by many pundits.
It doesn’t matter whether LSU or Ohio State is No. 1.
One of those two will be the top-ranked team. Each of them has a valid argument. Ohio State is exemplifying dominance in a way that college football hasn’t seen since the 2013 Florida State team. The Buckeyes have historically high advanced metrics. Ohio State is the best team in college football so far this year, without question.
LSU, also without question, has the best resume. Starting with the win over Alabama as a capstone, the Tigers also have wins over Top 10-15 Florida and Auburn, plus a win over a ranked Texas team. Even LSU’s cupcakes, like Georgia Southern and Utah State, aren’t complete pushovers. LSU has an incredible strength of schedule and the most quality wins of anyone in the country.
Which of those two the committee chooses to put at No. 1 will give us a bit of evidence as to whether the voters care more about metrics or resume, but not much. It’s usually some form of synthesis between the two, and with two teams so far ahead of the rest of the pack like Ohio State and LSU, it really doesn’t matter which they pick.
What the committee says about its decision might mean something. If Rob Mullens said the vote wasn’t particularly close, that would give us some real insight into the committee’s thought process and what it values this year. Unless we get that information, though, don’t focus too much into which team is No. 1 and which is No. 2. Each team is a Playoff lock if it wins out, or even if it loses a game but wins the conference. The top seed only matters for geography and matchup purposes, and with Clemson currently a heavy favorite to finish No. 3, it doesn’t look like anyone could be stuck with the nuisance of facing Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. Other than that one, very minor, geographic concern, it really doesn’t matter who is No. 1.
So, what does matter this week? There’s plenty, so let’s break it down.
Poll mentality or not?
The first thing I always focus on in the committee’s rankings is how many teams shift, and by how much. And I don’t mean the teams that win big games or lose games. I mean every team.
The committee claims to start with a blank slate every week. The voters don’t use who they had ranked last week as a starting point. The very best way to tell if this is true or not is by seeing if teams that didn’t do anything noteworthy have their ranking change. Can a team slide up or down after a boring but easy win over a mediocre team? If we’re being honest, that should happen a lot. Every team has played at least eight games by now, so resumes can shift wildly each week.
For example, Ohio State’s previous opponents went a combined 4-2 last week, and Indiana will possibly slide into the rankings during its bye week. That means that, even though a blowout win over Maryland might be meaningless, Ohio State’s resume still improved this past week, and by a decent margin. Now, that’s not going to affect Ohio State’s ranking much because the Buckeyes are obviously either No. 1 or No. 2, but if Ohio State was stuck somewhere in the middle of the rankings, that should lead to new considerations.
The first few years of the selection committee, we actually saw a fair amount of this. Teams would shift on their own, which is a great indicator that resumes were actually being re-judged each week. The past year or two, however, we have not yet really seen much shifting. The committee would make its initial rankings, then stick with a poll mentality unless something changed it. Keep an eye on everyone in this week’s rankings, because it will show if the committee is actually re-evaluating teams.
Next… Where is Alabama
Metrics vs resume
I mentioned above that who gets No. 1 would tell us a little bit about what the committee thinks in terms of using advanced metrics (or the eye test) as opposed to judging a team’s resume. What will tell us a lot more about this issue, though, is where the committee puts Alabama.
By almost all advanced metrics, Alabama is still a Top 3-4 team. The Crimson Tide have a decent defense, plus one of the best offenses in the country. Its offensive efficiency numbers are right up there with Oklahoma. The defense has slipped a little from its peak the past few years, but it’s still pretty solid. Also, just watching Alabama play tells you that the Tide are a very good football team. If we’re basing off metrics and eye test, Alabama could stay somewhere around No. 4 or 5.
If we’re judging Alabama’s resume, though, there’s just nothing there. Alabama’s best win so far this year is an unimpressive Texas A&M squad. Texas A&M is 6-3 with a collection of three excellent losses (Clemson, Auburn, and Alabama), but has not beaten a single team that will end the year with a winning record. There is a decent chance that not one of Texas A&M’s wins this year goes bowling. After that Texas A&M win, Alabama’s next win is over… Southern Miss? A Tennessee squad that has turned things around somewhat?
For the first time since losing ten games in 2010, Alabama has fallen out of the Top 10 in the old BCS computers’ resume rankings (Colley and Anderson). The Tide’s lack of meaningful wins even has it down to No. 12 in Wolfe, which was the ranking most likely (along with Sagarin’s ELO ranking) to not punish a team for a loss to a better team.
If we’re comparing records and quality wins this year, which of the following teams should be behind Alabama:
Undefeated Minnesota, with a win over Penn State;
Undefeated Baylor, with wins over Kansas State and Oklahoma State;
One-loss Georgia, with a bad loss to South Carolina (which Alabama beat) but wins over Florida and Notre Dame;
One-loss Penn State, with wins over Michigan and Iowa;
One-loss Oregon, with no great wins but a collection of mediocre wins far better than Alabama’s wins overall;
One-loss Oklahoma, with a win over Texas, plus several decent wins better than any of Alabama’s (aside from Texas A&M);
Maybe even two-loss teams like Florida and Auburn, with good wins and good losses?
If the committee goes purely on eye test, Alabama could easily stay as high as No. 4 this week. If the committee wants to purely compare resumes, on the other hand, there’s a case to be made that Alabama’s resume doesn’t belong in the Top 10. (Honestly, go compare Alabama’s collection of wins to those of Memphis and see that there’s a compelling case that Memphis has a better resume than Alabama.)
Whether the committee goes straight eye test, straight resume test, or some synthesis of the two will tell us a lot. And the easiest way to see what the committee values this week is by looking where Alabama ends up.
Next… Other small notes
AAC group
The committee might claim it respected the American Athletic Conference last week by ranking four AAC teams, but none of those teams were really as high as they deserved to be. We’ll see if the committee rethinks that this week–especially in the case of Memphis, who has more ranked wins than multiple two-loss teams ranked ahead of it.
Also, the computer resume rankings love Cincinnati. That changed a bit after the Bearcats beat up on the SOS black hole named UConn, but Cincinnati is still a Top 10 team in resume computers like Colley, Anderson, and Wolfe. Will the committee recognize the resume and bump the Bearcats up a bit? Or will they still be treated as a second-class team because they’re in an (officially, at least) Group of 5 conference?
Other correction
Oklahoma being behind Oregon last week made very little sense. Sure, the Sooners had a slightly worse loss, but they also had better top-end wins. Utah being ahead of Oklahoma made no sense, though. Utah has a worse loss, similar SOS, and worse wins. Will the committee correct that this week? Will a close win over Iowa State stop the committee from fixing it?
Head-to-head
The committee very clearly stuck with head-to-head when teams were close last week. Florida ended up in front of Auburn, even though Auburn has a better SOS and better top wins. The committee also went with the head-to-head results in ranking the Wisconsin-Michigan-Notre Dame trio, even though Wisconsin has by far the worst loss of the bunch. (The loss to Illinois does look a bit better now, though.)
