What Would A Better College Football Playoff Ranking Look Like?
This week's College Football Playoff rankings have generated controversy, to say the least. While the expanded playoff field was supposed to fix some of the issues exemplified by last season's Alabama over Florida State decision, many of the same problems continue to persist.
Opaque decision-making, nonsensical criteria, inconsistent enforcement, and the seeming benefit for some teams of avoiding a conference championship game. It's a mess, and no one is happy. Not the least of which is Ole Miss head coach Lane Kiffin, who did some excellent, and inaccurate, SEC superiority posturing on X Wednesday morning.
So what would a better system, a better ranking, look like?
Fortunately, we have an idea.
COLUMBIA, SC - OCTOBER 05: Mississippi Rebels head coach Lane Kiffin complains to an official during the game between the Ole Miss Rebels and the South Carolina Gamecocks on Saturday, October 5, 2024 at Williams-Brice Stadium in Columbia, SC (Photo by Peter Joneleit/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)
College Football Playoff Rankings Don't Have To Be This Way
Instead of a committee of inconsistent voters, an unbiased, dispassionate ranking system could be created based on predetermined criteria. There are already such systems in use, including the FEI rating system from Brian Fremeau, who runs the BCFToys website.
On the site is a "strength of record" ranking, where teams are sorted based on the amount of losses that an elite, good, or average team would be expected to have against their schedule. Essentially, it attempts to equalize for strength of schedule in a more unbiased way, based on actual team quality. Wins and losses can be deceiving, making this potentially a better way of evaluating teams, especially in an expanded playoff field.
So what does the current ranking look like? Well based on the expected record for elite teams, which is what we want from the College Football Playoff, here's how the top 12 would look:
- Oregon
- Penn State
- Georgia
- Texas
- Indiana
- Notre Dame
- Ohio State
- Boise State
- Army
- SMU
- Tennessee
- BYU
What about based on how an above average team would do against that schedule? Here's how that looks:
- Georgia
- Oregon
- Texas
- Penn State
- Notre Dame
- Ohio State
- South Carolina
- Alabama
- SMU
- Tennessee
- Indiana
- BYU
Or an average team:
- Texas
- Oregon
- Georgia
- Notre Dame
- Penn State
- SMU
- South Carolina
- Alabama
- Iowa State
- Arizona State
- Ohio State
- BYU
Notice who's never in the top 12? Ole Miss, Clemson and Miami. The three teams that are the most upset with the current rankings. Though Ole Miss and Miami both are in the top 12 of the FEI ratings, based on team efficiency and not record.
What you value impacts how you view each of the three lists. Do you want to reward teams for performing as well as an elite team against their schedule? Or do you want to evaluate based on what an above average team would do? At the very least, these rankings would provide clarity instead of the endless hemming and hawing the current committee does.
You could even award points for ranking at a certain spot in each list. For example, say you receive 36 points for ranking #1 in the elite team list, 24 for the above average list, and 12 for the average team. With points decreasing by 2 for each spot in the elite and above average rankings, and 1 in the average ranking.
In that format, you'd have this list:
- Oregon
- Georgia
- Texas
- Penn State
- Notre Dame
- Ohio State
- SMU
- Indiana
- Tennessee
- Boise State
- Army
- South Carolina
Making it 12 points for first in all three rankings, with one decreasing point, and you wind up here:
- Oregon
- Georgia
- Texas
- Penn State
- Notre Dame
- Ohio State
- SMU
- South Carolina
- Indiana
- Alabama
- Boise State
- Tennessee
Devise the point system however you choose, but the idea is that it provides more fairness and transparency. Anything's better than this.