Two weeks into the College Football Playoff rankings, controversy around the selection committee shows little sign of letting up.
The committee’s priorities appear to differ sharply from those of many fans and analysts. Several of its decisions have been called confusing or inconsistent, and chair Hunter Yurachek’s explanations after the rankings were released have done little to clear things up.
It’s easy to argue that a particular ranking feels wrong. A more useful question is whether there’s a better way to compare teams—one that relies less on subjective impressions and the committee members’ biases.
ESPN analyst Bill Connelly has put together a blended ranking system that combines several measures of a team’s résumé, including strength of record and the Football Power Index, with ratings intended to project future performance. The formula leans 80% on résumé-based measures and 20% on forward-looking ones.
Those forward-looking ratings adjust for opponents and focus on efficiency across offense, defense and special teams. The idea is that wins and losses can be shaped by unusual or fluky events, while efficiency may offer a better indication of how a team is likely to play next.
The comparison with the committee’s poll raises some familiar questions. Miami, for instance, is ranked five places higher in Connelly’s system than in the playoff poll. That’s a notable gap, especially after the Hurricanes fell six spots following their loss to Notre Dame.
It’s only one set of rankings, and it shouldn’t be treated as definitive. Still, the differences offer a glimpse of what the committee may be emphasizing—and what it may be overlooking.
Kentucky stands out as one of the biggest discrepancies. The Wildcats continue to receive substantial credit for playing in the SEC, despite results that, according to Connelly’s rankings, don’t support their position. South Carolina is also eight places higher in the committee poll than in his system.
Boise State goes the other way: it sits nine places lower in the committee’s rankings. Indiana and Wake Forest also appear underrated, while Alabama is rated higher than in Connelly’s list.
Ohio State and LSU are more complicated cases. Both have three losses, but the computer-based ratings still give them credit for their performances. Those systems don’t account for Ohio State quarterback Julian Sayin’s injury, and they tend to respond more slowly than people do when a team loses to strong opponents.
Ohio State’s losses came against Texas, USC and Oregon. Its win over Indiana, along with strong performances against teams such as Iowa, helps keep the Buckeyes in the top 15 in Connelly’s rankings. LSU, meanwhile, is credited for how it played in losses to Ole Miss and Kentucky, leaving the Tigers higher than they are in the committee poll.
The broader pattern is hard to miss. Nine SEC teams appear in the playoff poll’s top 25, and seven rank higher there than they do in Connelly’s system. Missouri, for example, is 28th in his rankings but 22nd in the committee poll. Even with LSU as an exception, SEC teams average about two and a half places higher in the committee rankings than in the performance-based list.
That gap points to a recurring concern: the SEC’s reputation may be influencing how its teams are evaluated. The conference has spent years promoting its strength, and critics argue that those assumptions can carry over into rankings even when a team’s results don’t fully justify them. With money and jobs at stake, that raises questions about the fairness—and credibility—of the selection process.
Correcting any perceived imbalance could bring its own backlash. SEC fans, boosters and commissioner Greg Sankey might object forcefully if the conference’s teams were ranked lower. That reaction, in turn, could put pressure on the committee to change course again.
Privilege can be difficult to give up once people have grown used to it.
