What did we learn from the CFP selection committee’s second rankings? Let’s break down what it all means.
In what is a bit of a first from the CFP selection committee, it actually has a very predictable consistent methodology so far this year. However, it’s not a good methodology, and it’s a trend that’s not a good one. The committee isn’t particularly looking at resumes or strength of schedules. It’s not talking about quality wins or schedule strength. No, this year, the committee only seems to care about how much a team wins by.
Maybe this is a bit of an overreaction based on a small sample size. After all, it’s only the second ranking, and there are potentially somewhat reasonable explanations for all of the rankings. (Well, assuming that “Alabama always gets benefit of the doubt” constitutes a somewhat reasonable explanation.)
Let’s look at it, from bottom to top. SMU–the only team to win but drop out of the rankings–very clearly fell out due to a close win over a bad team. The Mustangs still have a considerably stronger schedule and resume than Appalachian State does. That didn’t seem to matter.
This is the only explanation for both Baylor and Oklahoma being so low. Baylor is one of five undefeated Power 5 teams, and is ranked all the way down at No. 13. Not only is Baylor ranked behind one-loss teams, it’s ranked behind two-loss teams. And, contrary to claims of Baylor having a bad resume (and I’m perfectly fine with the committee punishing Baylor for an atrocious nonconference schedule), the Bears have two ranked wins–more than some of the teams in front of them. Oklahoma also has two ranked wins (and a loss to a ranked team), yet is ranked behind both Utah and Oregon–who combine for zero ranked wins. Rob Mullens did again hint that Baylor was punished for its nonconference schedule, but this message appears clearer.
The committee doesn’t tell us much often. But, for now, at least, the committee seems to have determined that the eye test is king.
Making sense of Alabama, Minnesota, and Penn State
Last week, the committee somewhat contradicted itself with how it ranked Alabama, Penn State, and Clemson. Penn State’s “superior resume” supposedly put the Nittany Lions in front of Clemson, though now it seems far more likely that Clemson was just being punished for a close win over North Carolina. Penn State also has several close wins, but those were all against teams worse than North Carolina.
Alabama, meanwhile, seems to be skating through on the fact that it has blown everyone out. Of course, none of the teams Alabama blew out were particularly good. Alabama has no ranked wins–in fact, this is the first time that a one-loss team has been ranked as high as No. 5 this early in the season without a win over a committee-ranked team.
Minnesota is down at No. 8. The Golden Gophers have–other than LSU’s win over Alabama–the best win of any ranked team. The Golden Gophers are also undefeated, and yet behind four teams with a loss. I honestly have no idea how to explain the fact that Minnesota is behind Utah. Maybe this is just a bit of an oversight by the committee?
Other notes
I said yesterday to keep an eye on if the committee shifts things around, or if teams stay static from week to week. That will tell us if the voters are really re-evaluating from scratch each week, or just moving teams up or down based on who loses.
Well, this week, not a single team is in the same position it was in last week. You would think that’s an indicator that the committee is re-evaluating. Unfortunately, it’s not. 14 of the 25 teams that moved moved only one spot, and all of that was due to teams around them jumping or falling. Minnesota jumped eight spots for beating Penn State, so everyone above Minnesota fell a spot. Penn State dropped, so everyone behind Penn State rose. Wake Forest and Kansas State dropped with losses, so the teams behind them moved up.
No one stayed in the same place, but every team that didn’t lose or pick up a major win stayed in the same relative position. The committee didn’t do any re-evaluating this week. It just took what it had last week, other than teams that deserved major shifts.
Lastly, I should note that the committee is continuing a trend it has shown consistently since 2014. A team doesn’t drop for a close loss to a better team. The example this week is Iowa, which only slid three spots for its very close loss against Wisconsin. One of those spots was Texas, which jumped all the way into the rankings at No. 19 for its upset of Kansas State.
Maybe next week the committee will do more re-evaluating from scratch, and it’s really only the top four that matter anyway. Still, the little we have seen and heard from the selection committee so far this season is not encouraging, to say the least.
