College Football Playoff Rankings: The Bear's Metrics

Segment Spotlight: Quick Hits From Outspoken With Dan Sileo

Strength of Record and Indiana’s Ranking Raise Questions About the Committee

The committee’s process for selecting teams appeared inconsistent, with strength of schedule, records and the quality of losses seemingly receiving different weight from case to case.

Strength of record may be the most useful metric. It measures what a team accomplishes against its schedule, accounting for factors such as schedule strength, game location and results. That can help explain why a 9-3 team might be viewed more favorably than a 10-2 team.

In its first ranking, the committee appeared to value head-to-head results in several cases and strength of schedule in others. The approach still seemed inconsistent. Some people questioned why Tennessee was not ahead of Alabama, but comparing Texas, Alabama and Tennessee creates a three-team situation that cannot be settled through a simple head-to-head evaluation.

At the same time, Ohio State was ranked eight spots ahead of USC even though USC had beaten Ohio State by double digits. That result received less attention than complaints about the SEC potentially placing multiple teams in the playoffs.

Indiana’s ranking was particularly difficult to understand. Its strength of schedule was not very good, it did not face anyone significant outside the conference and it lacked a major victory.

Recent performances also raised questions. Indiana needed a 60-yard miracle field goal to force overtime against Minnesota at home. It went to overtime against Michigan in a game it probably should have lost, mounted a fourth-quarter comeback against a Nebraska team that had not won in more than a month and lost to Ohio State on a late call. Its offense was also not playing particularly well.

The ranking was baffling, but the situation remained correctable, with the next rankings set to provide more clarity.