Here we go again.
The College Football Playoff committee’s first rankings drew immediate criticism from fans and analysts, many of whom questioned how the teams had been evaluated.
Committee chair Hunter Yurachek’s post-release comments did little to ease the frustration. His explanations included some questionable logic and what sounded to many like hard-to-understand justifications. Still, after the backlash, there was some hope that the second set of rankings might address the concerns—or at least show the committee had not leaned too heavily on strength of schedule in favor of one conference.
That hope didn’t last long. Tuesday night’s rankings largely reinforced the same complaints, and in some ways made them more pronounced. The apparent preference for one conference seemed even harder to ignore, while Yurachek’s defense of a surprising ranking change left the impression that the committee’s reasoning shifts from week to week.
Start with Miami, which had been No. 1.
The Hurricanes were undefeated before traveling to face Notre Dame, ranked fourth in the AP poll and 11th in the playoff rankings. Miami was also without its best player, Malachi Toney. Late in the game, down 31-24, the Hurricanes faced fourth-and-six at Notre Dame’s 18-yard line with 3:36 remaining. They appeared to complete a touchdown pass that would have tied the game. The receiver seemed to get a foot down in bounds before stepping out, then lost control of the ball. Officials ruled it incomplete, and a review upheld the call.
Miami lost by seven in a close road game against a highly ranked opponent, without a key player. You might expect a modest drop. Instead, the Hurricanes fell six places, to No. 7.
That’s difficult to square with how other teams have been treated. When Georgia lost at home to an average Auburn team, AP voters dropped the Bulldogs four spots. The standards for evaluating losses don’t appear very consistent, and the results often seem to favor one conference.
Indiana’s slide was even harder to explain. The Hoosiers were ranked fourth, then had a bye week before a major game against USC. They didn’t play—and dropped to ninth.
Asked about the move, Yurachek said Indiana may have been hurt by having its bye during a week with seven games between ranked teams. He said the committee was impressed by recent performances from UCLA, Texas, Notre Dame, Alabama and LSU.
He also pointed to losses by Indiana’s Big Ten opponents, which he said affected the team’s strength-of-schedule standing. Yurachek added that the committee had discussed Indiana’s quarterback and offense, saying the Hoosiers had won games with their defense rather than their offense.
That’s a strange criticism. Does it matter how a team wins? When Alabama under Nick Saban or Georgia in the early years of Kirby Smart’s tenure leaned on defense, it was usually treated as evidence of toughness and championship quality. Indiana’s defense seems to be getting a different reception. And while Alabama isn’t being penalized for Mississippi State’s struggles, Indiana’s opponents losing is being used to explain the Hoosiers’ drop.
Indiana’s nonconference schedule is often described as a weakness. Yet ESPN’s Football Power Index gives North Texas, the Hoosiers’ strongest nonconference opponent, an 8.5-point edge over Georgia Tech, arguably Georgia’s toughest nonconference matchup. Georgia Tech is 2-7. Team reputations don’t always tell the whole story.
There’s another wrinkle: the committee said it was impressed by UCLA’s win over Minnesota. Indiana had beaten that same Minnesota team the week before its bye. UCLA won by a larger margin, but it’s not clear that margin has been applied consistently elsewhere.
So Miami lost six spots after a close road defeat to a top-11 team, while Indiana fell five places without playing. Kentucky, meanwhile, dropped only five spots after a blowout loss to Tennessee. Both of the Wildcats’ losses have been by 28 points. Apparently, margin matters in some cases—and not in others.
There are more puzzling choices lower in the rankings. USC, at 7-2, moved up two places to No. 18. The Trojans remain behind 7-2 Iowa and several three-loss teams, including South Carolina. Missouri, also with three losses, is still ranked despite a resume that’s difficult to make a strong case for.
Missouri’s nonconference opponents were Arkansas-Pine Bluff, Kansas and Troy. The Tigers lost to Mississippi State, beat Florida and Texas A&M—both struggling teams—were blown out by Ole Miss, beat Arkansas and then lost to Texas. Still, they’re ranked, with a game against Kentucky coming up this weekend.
Missouri is also ahead of Arizona, whose two close losses came on the road against BYU and Texas Tech. Arizona is 6-2 and dropped one spot after beating 4-5 TCU by a single possession at home. South Carolina, by contrast, moved up four places after a one-possession home win over 4-5 Texas A&M.
LSU remains in the rankings despite lacking a particularly impressive win. The Tigers have lost to each of the stronger opponents on their schedule—Ole Miss, Kentucky and Alabama. They did beat McNeese State 63-14, at least.
Some have also questioned why Tennessee sits five places behind Alabama despite beating the Tide head to head. Yurachek brushed aside that comparison, saying the teams aren’t in the same “pods” the committee uses to evaluate them. Head-to-head results, it seems, matter only sometimes.
After two weeks, the committee’s standards still look inconsistent. Strength of schedule seems to rely heavily on reputation and perception. Head-to-head results carry weight in some comparisons but not others. Injuries to important players may matter, though apparently not in every situation.
The committee appears to settle on the rankings it wants, then explain them afterward. That would help explain why Indiana dropped five places during a bye week and why the reasoning offered by Yurachek has been so easy for critics to challenge.
A reasonable first step would be to establish clear standards and apply them consistently. The committee could also explain the specific measures behind its strength-of-schedule assessments instead of relying on shifting judgments about which wins look better from one week to the next. Whether that happens is another question. For now, the rankings remain a source of frustration.
