Last year, the College Football Playoff selection committee threw us a huge, if not completely unexpected, curveball on Selection Day. No one was sure how the committee would deal with the TCU/Baylor/Ohio State debate. TCU was expecting to be in because they were sitting at No. 3 the previous week, but we have learned in the committee era that it is no longer “win and stay put”, which is what we expected in most of the poll and BCS eras.
This year, another Big 12 school came into Selection Day as the No. 3 seed. This year, though, there was no real nervousness. The only other conference champion with a chance to jump them, Stanford, had an extra loss and fewer ranked wins. There was no real debate about who would be in the Top 4. The only potential question was the order. Michigan State, by virtue of picking up its fourth Top 15 win against committee-ranked teams, jumped Oklahoma for the No. 3 spot. A lot of people are saying that this drop is further evidence that the committee does not like the fact that the Big 12 doesn’t play a conference championship game. I don’t see that here, though. Michigan State had a better resume, pure and simple. They probably even had a better resume than Alabama, but that bad loss weighed them down.
But the committee is about far more than just the top four teams they rank. They rank 25 teams and there is still a ton we can learn from them about what they value.
Of course, there is always a major caveat when analyzing the committee’s rankings. The committee is not a monolithic unit. It is 12 members debating and ultimately voting (by secret ballot) who they think are the best teams. And several members on this year’s committee will not be on next year. Even switching up the four members whose terms end this year means that almost 33% of next year’s committee will be different, something that could easily sway just about every vote. So comparing the committee from one year to another is a dangerous and risky business, but hopefully future committees will recognize precedents and at least explain themselves if and when they go against those precedents.
The first notable spot is Iowa at No. 5. This is a real trend the committee has shown. They are happy to reward a team for a “good loss”. The Hawkeyes have a decent resume to speak of, but not one that is better than Stanford’s. However, and Jeff Long said this explicitly, the committee thought Iowa looked good enough in their loss that they shouldn’t really drop. This is important. The committee has done this time and again this year, much more than last year. When a team loses a close game to a higher-ranked (or about equal, in this case) team, there is no punishment for the loss. This trend is the reason that Florida State, with no notable wins to speak of, was in the Top 15 for much of the reason. This explained Notre Dame’s high rank for much of the year. The committee rewards a team for playing close against a better team. That’s something that we should get used to. It is a fair policy in many cases (especially when looking at nonconference games), but it can also lead to the committee being unable to correct themselves when a team with no real resume to speak of loses a game to a better team. For example, North Carolina stayed at No. 10 this week when its best win is against Pittsburgh, while three two-loss teams behind them actually have wins over ranked teams.
The committee also set a potentially-important precedent with Stanford and Ohio State this year. The Cardinal jumped the Buckeyes, even though Stanford has an extra loss. On the other hand, they didn’t jump Iowa. Of course, this is an easy precedent to set when it has no bearing on who gets into the Playoff (or on any bowl matchups at all). Still, it is something to look at in future years if the debate comes down to a two-loss conference champion versus a one-loss team. And what exactly kept the Cardinal behind Iowa? That could matter too. Of course, the real reason is that it’s easy to do this when a Playoff spot isn’t on the line. There was no real hair-splitting necessary, which makes the decisions a lot easier to make.
A very interesting spot is Baylor at No. 17. The Bears lost to 5-7 Texas this week yet stayed well within the top 20. Maybe this is partially due to the loss being close, even though it’s too a bad team. Maybe this is the committee respecting the talent that they had before getting decimated by injuries, especially at the quarterback position. Whatever it is, it is a weird position for a team with a weak SOS, three losses, and only one Top 40 win to be in.
Speaking of Baylor, they are one spot behind Oklahoma State, who the Bears beat a few weeks ago. A similar phenomenon can be found with Michigan and Northwestern. The Wolverines beat the Wildcats handily earlier in the year, but the Wildcats appeared one spot ahead in the final rankings. Jeff Long admitted that this was a dilemma in the committee room. We also saw this exact same thing happen with Michigan and Utah a few weeks ago. Basically, it feels like the committee’s way of reconciling head-to-head with the losing team having a better record is to put the losing team exactly one spot ahead. It’s a weird compromise and it kind of works, but it just ends up feeling to many like both teams are wronged.
The last team I want to discuss in here is Houston. The Cougars seem to be part of a troubling trend in how the committee looks at Group of 5 teams. Yes, the committee has very high on Memphis (and Navy) earlier in the season. And yes, Houston has a poor loss. But they are 12-1 with wins over two teams in the current Top 25. That is more ranked wins than ten of the teams in front of them (including the five directly in front) have. To put it bluntly, Houston is ranked behind six teams with worse records and fewer ranked wins. Yes, those teams have a better overall SOS, but Houston being ranked so low is baffling. I understand that there is no practical difference between being No. 25 and No. 25 for them this year, but this is still strange. And Houston isn’t like Marshall and their awful SOS last year; the Cougars played (and beat) two teams from Power 5 conferences. It just doesn’t add up.
