Tag: CFP Implications

What the CFP Selection Committee Taught Us: Poll Mentality

The College Football Playoff selection committee has released its third rankings of the year. What hints did they give us for the future?

The College Football Playoff claims that the selection committee “starts from scratch” every week, judging each team and each resume like new each week. The committee’s rankings the past two weeks, though, show that’s not what it is doing. The selection committee came up with its first rankings two weeks ago. That set of rankings seemed to be based on resume more than what the human polls usually do. Since then, though, the committee has very clearly just been sticking to those rankings–moving down teams that lose, and maybe giving a team a bonus for a big win.

How do I know this? It’s simple. If the committee really started from scratch each week, you would see shifts in the rankings. A team would jump a team for seemingly no reason. But it’s not no reason, as resumes change every week. For example, Ohio State’s season opponents went 6-3 on the week, and all three of those losses came to teams that Ohio State also played. The Buckeyes have a stronger resume this week than last week, even though all the Buckeyes themselves did was play Rutgers. These types of things should cause small shifts in the rankings week to week. That’s not happening, which means that the committee is relying on what they thought last week, not starting from scratch every week.

There were only ten real changes in the rankings this week. Minnesota, Baylor, and Auburn all dropped a bit for picking up losses to other good teams. Iowa gained three spots for beating Top 10 Minnesota. Cincinnati slipped a spot (and lost a second spot to Iowa’s jump) after struggling with a weak opponent for the second time in three weeks. Texas, Navy, and Kansas State all fell out with losses. Iowa State and USC both jumped Appalachian State–which makes sense, since the Mountaineers don’t have any resume worthy of being in the rankings in the first place.

None of these are examples of looking at the whole season and starting from scratch. Every single one of these ranking changes is a direct reaction to what happened on the field this week. Hopefully the committee will start from scratch when the all-important final rankings come out in three weeks, but the committee’s outlook the past two weeks has not been encouraging.

Next…The Penn State and Alabama problems

Pages: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4

What to look for in the CFP selection committee’s third rankings

With the CFP selection committee coming out with new rankings Tuesday night, let’s look ahead to what they might say on certain issues.

Usually I can use this space to highlight a few questions the committee can answer with its rankings. We can use them to determine how the committee judges SOS, what it values, etc. Last week, for example, I pointed out that what the committee seems to value most this year is whether a team blows bad teams out or not. And, certainly, it will be important to see if that trend stands.

As always, I am sure that we’ll have plenty to glean from the committee’s rankings. However, the odd trajectory of this season means that we won’t be able to look forward to anything before we see the rankings.

How does the committee value real quality wins? Well, other than LSU and Ohio State, no team has more than one top quality win. Teams like Penn State, Georgia, and Michigan have two good wins, but no one has a real collection there.

As I pointed out in CFP Implications this week, there are 17 teams that have basically locked themselves into the top positions this year. Those 17 will be the committee’s top 17 as well. Splitting hairs among those 17, though, is exactly that–splitting hairs. Will Iowa and Auburn be at the bottom due to their three losses? Probably, though maybe Auburn can sneak ahead of the Wisconsin-Michigan-Notre Dame trio.

Among those 17 teams, there are plenty of reasonable things for the committee to do. And we will certainly learn something from the rankings, and–more importantly this week than in previous weeks–how Rob Mullens explains the rankings. Oklahoma’s placement will teach us a lot, as will Minnesota’s and Penn State’s. But I can’t particularly warn you what to look for, because none of the committee’s choices are particularly binary.

This week, it’s more important to listen. The committee has constantly kept to head-to-head results this year. Will that remain true with Minnesota and Penn State? Will the Gophers stay ahead of Penn State by not falling at all–or will Penn State be forced to drop so as to remain behind Minnesota? Then again, with the emphasis this committee places on dominating games, maybe Penn State will fall a spot or two anyway for struggling against Indiana.

Next … The bottom

Pages: Page 1, Page 2

Week 12 CFP Implications: Static at the top, chaos at the bottom

Looking at the national College Football Playoff picture after Week 12, a few things are becoming very clear. Let’s start at the top.

This past week, all 25 teams ranked by the CFP selection committee were in action. With so many games, a trend that has been slowly developing over the year came to full fruition.

We haven’t seen many upsets at the top of the game this year. And while we have seen some matchups of Top 15 teams–mostly involving Auburn or Michigan–we have yet to really see top teams get upset, or matchups between serious contenders. (Yes, we have had a few, most notably Alabama-LSU, but there have been far fewer than in most years.) That will change over the final few weeks of the season, whether due to scheduled matchups or conference championship games.

While there haven’t been many upsets at the top of the rankings. We’ve had plenty at this bottom. This past week, three of the committee’s teams ranked 19-25 lost, plus a pretty weak display from Cincinnati, for the second time in three weeks. Don’t be surprised if the committee drops the Bearcats a little after this performance.

What that leaves us with is essentially a two-tier ranking system. And while we can subdivide each tier further, the breakdown of the tiers will be very important.

The Top 17 teams are basically locked into those spots. LSU, Ohio State, Clemson, Georgia, Alabama, Oregon, Utah, Minnesota, Penn State, Oklahoma, Florida, Auburn, Baylor, Wisconsin, Michigan, Notre Dame, and Iowa will be the Top 17 teams from here on out. A shocking upset could knock one of these teams out, sure, and Baylor could fall out on its own by losing two of its final three games (to Texas and then again in the Big 12 Championship Game). Other than that Baylor case, though (and assuming no one does something crazy like lose to Northwestern or an FCS team), these 17 teams will be ranked the rest of the way, no matter what, and will like be the Top 17 the rest of the way.

From 18 on down, though, is anybody’s guess. We could see AAC teams stay in, though they’ve been less impressive as the season has gone on. Also, Cincinnati and Memphis still have to face each other. Appalachian State and Boise State can stay ranked by winning out, but one more loss will end any rankings the rest of the way. Maybe SMU slides back in this week.

After that, though, what’s left? What teams are we looking at to be ranked in the back section of the Top 25? Pitt, Virginia, and/or Virginia Tech could slide in, though Pitt plays Virginia Tech this week, and Virginia faces Virginia Tech next week, so only one of those three, at most, will likely be ranked by season’s end. Are we looking at Iowa State, with as impressive a four-loss resume as we’ve seen in a while?

17 teams have basically locked up their year-end rankings, with two weeks left in the regular season. The other eight spots in the Top 25, though, are entirely up for grabs. Who does this help most? Quite clearly, the Pac 12.

Next… How this helps the Pac 12

Pages: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3

Week 12 CFP Eliminator: Still a lot of scenarios

We break down the 12 teams remaining in the College Football Playoff race, as our Eliminator took out three more teams in Week 12.

Welcome back to the Eliminator. I explain the process behind eliminating teams in my Week 1 post. In short, I ask myself a simple question: “If this team wins out, will they have a chance at the Playoff?” I don’t assume that teams will lose–there’s no need to. The losses will come when they come; and when they do, I’ll eliminate those teams. Until then, they’re not eliminated. It’s that simple. I also track every eliminated team on this Twitter thread.

This week didn’t involve any real eliminations. The three teams we knocked out were all long shots. Florida and Michigan needed miraculous conference titles to boost the resumes, and they were eliminated from their division races this week. Auburn, meanwhile, picked up its third loss.

Instead, we have 12 teams. All 12 can win Power 5 conferences, and 11 of them have one or zero losses. If we get chaos, most of these teams can still get in with even two losses. It’s too early this year to present specific scenarios, because there are so many possibilities.

One thing is very clear, though. We probably won’t see very many eliminations next week, either. These are our 12 teams, and unless we see a surprising upset next week, all 12 will still be alive heading into Thanksgiving weekend. What happens after that, though, is anyone’s guess.

Next … What teams are still alive?

Pages: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4

Ohio State football rooting interests for week 12

Looking forward to Week 12 of the college football season, what should Ohio State fans root for in all of the games.

We’re back for another week of Rooting Interests. Remember, the goal of this exercise is to look at what will give the Buckeyes the best possible resume in case they lose a game. 13-0 Ohio State is a Playoff lock, so there isn’t much to root for there. But if the Buckeyes drop a game to Penn State, Michigan, or in the Big Ten Championship Game, what will best help the Buckeyes get in to the College Football Playoff.

The first game Buckeye fans should pay attention to is Friday night’s Conference-USA showdown between Marshall and Louisiana Tech. Two of Ohio State’s nonconference opponents (Miami of Ohio and Cincinnati) have already essentially wrapped up division titles. FAU has a decent chance of making it three-for-three, but Marshall needs to lose a game for that to happen. This game is Marshall’s most likely loss in the final three weeks.

On Saturday, there are a ton of important games. As always, Alabama losing wouldn’t hurt, though is obviously unlikely. And while usually upsets always help, Florida has the weakest resume of any SEC contender right now. So as long as Georgia can lose the SEC East, Florida winning is better. Then again, if Miami (Fl) wins its final two games, Florida’s resume could be on par with Georgia’s. And, of course, a Florida loss isn’t a bad outcome, especially if Georgia beats either Auburn or Texas A&M.

In the afternoon, root for Navy over Notre Dame. Not only does an Irish loss hurt Georgia’s resume, but Navy could be 10-1 and meet Cincinnati in the AAC Championship Game. That would be a battle of Top 15 teams, and Cincinnati winning that would only make Ohio State look better. Speaking of Cincinnati, the Bearcats travel to face South Florida at 7 PM. Staying in the AAC in the afternoon, root for Memphis to beat Houston and keep its high ranking.

Moving over to ACC games, it’s always good to root for Clemson to lose. The Tigers, with a loss, should be ranked behind even a one-loss Ohio State team, so them losing to Wake Forest would be good. If they beat Wake Forest, though, pull for a blowout. The worst-case scenario would be Wake Forest being viewed as a more valuable win solely on the back of keeping it close against Clemson. Also, pull for Virginia Tech to fall to Georgia Tech. The Hokies could still be a decent opponent in the ACC Championship Game at 9-3, but a loss to Georgia Tech would erase that completely.

In the evening, don’t waste too much time on LSU at Ole Miss. The Tigers almost certainly won’t lose two games, and even if they do, they still have an incredible resume. LSU winning would help Ohio State by not making any of Alabama’s wins look more valuable.

There are pros and cons for both Baylor and Oklahoma winning. Baylor going undefeated is a bigger issue for Ohio State than 12-1 Oklahoma is, though, so you may as well root for the Sooners here. Either way, though, this game should be a close one, and preferably not a pretty one. Mistakes and turnovers winning the day makes both teams look bad, which is the goal here.

Two other 7:30 games matter, but in contradictory ways. Root for Georgia State to beat Appalachian State so that South Carolina looks worse. At the same time, though, root for South Carolina to beat Texas A&M–because Texas A&M not being a valuable win is more important than South Carolina being an even worse opponent. (Remember, Alabama beat South Carolina but Georgia lost to the Gamecocks.)

Later in the evening, Utah and Oregon losing don’t hurt. It’s better for Oregon to lose, though, for two reasons. First of all, Utah has a weaker overall resume than the Ducks. Secondly, especially if Oklahoma beats Baylor, remember that Oklahoma beat UCLA earlier in the season. Right now, the Sooners only have two decent wins (Texas and Iowa State). UCLA winning out–or at least upsetting Utah–would make Oklahoma look better. And speaking of Iowa State, root for the Cyclones to upset Texas. Not only would that help Iowa stay ranked (more on that in the next section), but it would take the luster off Oklahoma’s best win so far.

Next… Who to root for in Big Ten games

Pages: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3

Week 12 CFP Bubble Watch: What rankings don’t make sense?

Let’s start to look at the resumes of the 15 teams still alive in the Playoff discussion. Who deserves to be ranked higher or lower?

Welcome to the Bubble Watch. If you’ve been reading through my Eliminator articles, you’d know that I still count 15 teams with a shot at reaching the College Football Playoff. (And if you haven’t been reading them, please feel free to go back to them.)

Now that teams have played enough games, we can get a real look at every team’s resume. So, for the 15 teams still alive, I am going to present all of the resumes to you. We’re going to look at every resume so that we can compare what positives and negatives each team has. It’s the easiest and best way to understand what each team is bringing to the table in the College Football Playoff discussion.

How this works

Let’s go over what I’m looking at and why.

Quality of wins

For the purposes of determining quality wins, things like Top 10 and Top 25 are arbitrary numbers that do more harm than good. There is no reason the gap between No. 25 and No. 26 is considered significantly larger than the gap between No. 24 and No. 25. Therefore, to counteract this, I am being very lenient as to who is considered Top 10 or Top 25. Any team in the Top 25 of one of the major polls (CFP, AP, or Amway Coaches), or in a significant number of the accepted computer rankings, will be considered in the Top 25 for resume purposes. This leads to the awkwardness of having more than 25 “Top 25″ teams, but it presents a more accurate picture of the overall resume. Moreover, it just makes sense. The committee is aware of who is a good team and what counts as a win of decent quality, even if that team didn’t quite make it into the rankings.

I also split up every game each team has played into different groups. The groupings are important. First of all, I focus on Top 10 and Top 25 wins. These are, obviously, the quality wins. Next, I’m looking for teams in the Top 40. These are solid wins and deserve respect. The next group is teams somewhere between 41st and 80th in FBS. These are mediocre teams–they are games that any Playoff contender should win, but could in theory lose on an off day. Everyone outside the Top 80 is a complete cupcake game, and should be valued as a negative. To determine where each team is and who is outside the Top 80, I use a collection of computer rankings that focus on different things (e.g. Sagarin and Anderson) to get broad perspectives on who is a cupcake and who isn’t.

The selection committee has consistently mentioned “wins over teams with winning records” as an important metric over the past few years, so I’m going to show that to you. It is a less detailed way to view a win than looking at where each win is ranked, but the committee seems to care about it so we have to. I will not count a win over an FCS team as a +.500 win, regardless of record. Again, even though the metric is a stupid one–there are cupcakes with +.500 records (for example, Buffalo or Western Kentucky)–the committee cares about it, so we have to as well.

Offensive and defensive performance

I include the rankings in yards per play of each team. On one hand, the resume focuses on which teams you have beaten, so I stick to only identifying the quality of wins and losses and show you each contender’s remaining games. On the other hand, the committee “watches teams play,” which is really not a quantifiable statistic, but something that we can at least try to get a bearing on. Still, it’s hard to find an offensive or defensive metric that accurately represents all teams and styles of play.
Some metrics will over-value “air raid” type offenses while some will prefer more consistent, but less explosive, gameplans. The rank in offensive and defensive yards per play gives a basic metric of how efficient and/or consistent a team is on both sides of the ball.

SOS range

The SOS range is taken from numerous computer rankings. Ranges can be quite large, especially as different rankings favor different things. They do, however, give a decent picture of the possibilities of how strong the schedule actually is. Keep in mind, it’s still a little early in the season, so the different SOS methodologies could bring up radically different results. Ranges could still be wide in some cases, but in general they should narrow over the next few weeks.

Next… Teams that control their own destinies

Pages: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4

What the CFP Selection Committee Taught Us: Blow teams out

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.

What to look for in the CFP selection committee’s second rankings

With the College Football Playoff selection committee about to release their second rankings of the year, here’s what to look out for.

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

Pages: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3