When the sport’s powerbrokers first pitched the expanded College Football Playoff, one of their biggest selling points was its impact on the month of November. And as we sit here in the first week of the final month of the regular season, there are more than two dozen teams with a path to the 12-team CFP.
Some are the teams still in the mix because they’re alive in their conference races, with a chance (however slim) to get to a league championship game with a CFP auto-bid at stake for the winner. Others are one- or two-loss teams that still believe themselves to be deserving of at-large consideration. Still others are the top Group of 5 contenders, jockeying for positioning amongst their competitors in their conferences and their peer conferences, too; the highest-ranked G5 champion is assured a spot in the 12-team bracket as well. There are a lot of teams with a lot to play for.
So, yes, this system is already working. We did not write teams out of the national championship picture after one September loss as we have in years past. But we still don’t know a lot about how this all will unfold down the stretch, because we’ve never gone through the selecting, seeding and bracketing of a 12-team field yet. On Tuesday night, we’ll finally start learning.
The CFP rankings set to be revealed Tuesday night are the first of five in-season top 25s, released each week through the first week of December. They provide a window into the thinking of this year’s selection committee, an understanding of what it values and how it sees these teams near the top. As a reminder, it is an incomplete evaluation. But it’s a start, and it can be a signal.
These rankings will be more useful than ever before as we all experience a 12-team CFP for the first time. Though the committee has always put together a full ranking of 25 teams, we (the public) have not always parsed through the various two- and three-loss teams to this extent before. But I’m interested in more than just the pecking order of the bubble teams.
Here are the most pressing questions heading into the first rankings release:
1. How does the committee view Notre Dame’s loss to Northern Illinois?
This is the big unknown. I’ve spilled a good bit of ink already with my personal opinion on the situation, but for those who missed it: I believe that the Fighting Irish have proven over their six subsequent games that they’re a better and different team than they were the day they lost to NIU. They have a productive passing game now with quarterback Riley Leonard, who was still adjusting to a new school and a new offensive system following two offseason surgeries that caused him to miss all of spring ball. They’ve also got a good win over Texas A&M (a team that should be in the top-15 range in the first rankings) and a dominant victory over Navy. But there are plenty of pundits who think a loss to a not-very-good MAC team should essentially prevent the Irish from making the field at all. If Notre Dame wins out, this team will be in the field. There are seven (!) at-large spots. There are lots of flawed teams and/or resumes with blemishes. So, I’m not worried about the final set of rankings in December.
But I am curious to see if the committee agrees with me that Notre Dame has already done enough to offset its bad loss. Or, if the Irish haven’t, how far removed from the CFP picture are they right now?
2. How is the committee evaluating schedules that differ in strength even among teams in the same conferences?
The Big Ten has 18 teams, the ACC has 17 teams, and the SEC and Big 12 both have 16 teams. None of these leagues have divisions anymore, and (obviously) none of them have a true round-robin conference schedule. That means that there are imbalanced schedules even among teams in the same league. Indiana hasn’t faced nearly as challenging a schedule as Ohio State to date. Does the selection committee have the tools to compare not just general relative schedule strength — committee members consider SOS in “bands,” so if Team A’s SOS is 13 and Team B’s is 18, they’re close enough to not be considered a differentiator — but also the schedule differences between two contenders in the same conference? Can it fault Indiana for a schedule given to it by the Big Ten conference, which was trying to balance schedules among its teams based on historical success? What about the schedule Texas drew vs. that of Tennessee? Alabama? There are some data points and common opponents, but it’s going to be difficult regardless. And how do those resumes compare to, say, Iowa State’s?
3. Will big wins carry more weight than bad losses?
This is another way to frame the Notre Dame question. Does the big win on the road at Texas A&M mean more than a bad loss to NIU? Does Alabama’s win over Georgia offset its loss to Vanderbilt? I’m curious to see what message the committee sends with its ranking order — and the explanation given by chair Warde Manuel — and whether that’s any different than the message we’ve received over the past decade about good wins/bad losses. Typically, the committee has credited those good wins more than it has penalized bad losses … but I wonder if that shifts in a 12-team bracket that will undoubtedly include more teams with losses than there were in the four-team field. We’re so used to debating the merits of unbeaten and one-loss teams for these coveted spots … but there’s so much more wiggle room now with more at-large spots.
For what it’s worth, I’m sharing my Week 11 projection for the 12-team CFP.
I don’t expect it to match the committee’s at this stage of the game. But we’ll see if I’m on the right track.
A quick housekeeping note: Each Tuesday night following the reveal of the CFP rankings, Joshua Perry and I will record a reaction podcast that will publish on our Rushing The Field feed (in addition to our regular weekly show). Please be sure to subscribe, rate and review us!
