When the College Football Playoff was released this past Sunday, it was no surprise that the reactions were loud and direct. Every bubble team from Alabama to BYU felt that they had a very real case to be in the Playoff, and based on their reasonings, they did. Unfortunately, there was only one real spot up for grabs, and SMU, Alabama, Miami, Ole Miss, BYU, and South Carolina were all fighting for that spot each with their own unique resume and case to be included.
For BYU, they had a case when they pointed to being a two-loss team with a head-to-head win against SMU on the road. Alabama had three ranked wins, while Indiana and SMU both had zero. Even Miami had a good case, with their losses coming by a combined eight points and statement wins by 24 points over Florida and 21 over Duke.
The issue was that there wasn’t a ton of clarity, and every team felt like they were not being properly evaluated. So how can this be fixed? It’s quite simple, and there is more than one way to do it.
1. Have a Very Specific Format That is Followed

There was one moment that really made me lose trust in the CFP process. Following BYU’s first loss, the Cougars dropped eight spots, and College Football Playoff Committee Chairman Warde Manuel was asked about it and shared this direct quote:
“Look, we give a lot of credit when teams win, and so we don’t penalize teams for winning close or winning too big, in other words, but we do value wins, so that’s where we saw BYU,” added Manuel. “But given some of those games that they played and the close wins that they had, it just was an indicator that some of the teams that were below them in the rankings last week should move ahead of them is how the committee assessed BYU.”
What? Close wins don’t matter, but they do now?
On another occasion, the strength of schedule was cited as one of the main indicators of the rankings (keeping SEC schools ranked as high as they were despite multiple losses). Then, a few minutes later, Indiana was being praised for just winning despite having a terrible SOS, below many G5 teams.
There are dozens of examples of the CFP sharing one message and then changing their tune when the next team is mentioned.
There needs to be a particular format that every team is judged relative to. Whether that is margin of victory, SOS, strength of record, wins against ranked teams, wins against P4 competition, or which team is playing the best at the end of the season, there needs to be some kind of fair and transparent way in which the committee is doing this.
Or even better, get rid of the human element.
2. Go Back to a Computer Model

There isn’t a perfect system to rank teams electronically, but the strength of record (SOR) seems like a good starting spot. The strength of record is calculated by comparing a team’s win total to the number of wins an average top-25 team would be expected to earn against the same schedule. Of course, it is flawed with preseason bias and expectations, but it feels pretty close to being fair.
Essentially, this ignores lucky wins or losses and ranks the teams based on expected results. Yes, results on the field matter, but this is a good base to work on for a starting point.
Following this model would eliminate inconsistencies, biases, or irregular conference schedules. Instead, everything would be backed by data that could be examined and would be almost indisputable.
3. Tighten up College Football

Right now, there is too much that is loose in college football. Preseason rankings are swaying and building narratives around teams that carry so much weight they are almost insurmountable. For example, the ordinary college football fan probably doesn’t know that Oklahoma State, Utah, and Kansas finished at the bottom of the Big 12. They probably also don’t know that Vanderbilt is bowl-eligible or that Illinois finished with three more wins than USC.
Much of this is because narratives and rankings early in the season set a precedent that still holds weight to this day. However, the reality is that 12 of the Top 25 teams in the preseason are not ranked at the end of the season, and five didn’t even make it to a bowl game. Why are we having preseason rankings and allowing narratives to be made when nearly 50% of those teams aren’t
College Football should also explore forcing conferences to play the same schedule format. The SEC only plays eight conference games, while the Big 12 and Big 10 each play nine. Quite a bit of the SOS debate would go away if Alabama and Georgia were playing conference games in mid-November.