College Football Playoff Committee Changes Selection Criteria With No Transparency
How will strength of schedule and record rankings be used by the committee?
The College Football Playoff selection committee has long been marred by controversy and disagreements over its criteria—particularly because of the teams selected for the first-ever, expanded 12-team tournament following the 2024 season.
As is common in college football debates, much of the disagreement revolved around strength of schedule. Some fans argued that teams like the SMU Mustangs and Indiana Hoosiers should have been excluded, despite 11–2 and 11–1 regular-season records, respectively. Instead, SEC schools like the Ole Miss Rebels and South Carolina Gamecocks should have taken their spots, despite each losing three games.
This week, the committee announced that the metrics it uses to determine strength-of-schedule (SOS) ratings—which help inform playoff selections and rankings—will be adjusted. A new "strength of record" metric will also be added.
That all sounds great; everyone acknowledges strength of schedule matters, and strength of record is arguably even more valuable. Ideally, it evaluates not only the teams on a schedule but also how difficult it would be for an average top team to achieve a particular record against that schedule.
Except—as is often the case with the Playoff Committee—we still don’t know what the new SOS metric is, what the old metric was, who is calculating the new strength-of-record metric, or how it will be incorporated into its decision-making process.
The CFB National Championship logo is set midfield before the College Football Playoffs National Championship game Michigan Wolverines and Washington Huskies on January 8, 2024, at NRG Stadium in Houston, Texas. (Photo by David Buono/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)
Playoff Committee Has Zero Transparency With Its Process
Here's an example of how this is calculated and included matters. Brian Fremeau, creator of FEI, an advanced analytically driven measure of efficiency used to rank college football teams, posted on X Thursday morning about the changes.
Fremeau compared the Indiana Hoosiers strength of record from 2024 in three different ranking systems, and got three different results. One had the Hoosiers at #3, one at #10, and one at #17.
Because like all models and metrics, it depends on what the inputs are; what does the creator of the model value the most in strength of record? There could be valid arguments for putting Indiana in any of those three spots in the rankings. Which would move them from a team that gets a first-round playoff bye, to being the 10th seed, or missing out entirely. We just don't know what these arguments are.
And that's why it's important for the committee to be transparent. Tell the public what will go into their strength of schedule and record calculations. Tell us who's creating them, and what type of weight they'll be given in the selection process.
This is why fans get frustrated with selection committees, because it's so often unclear how the rankings and decisions are reached. There are inconsistencies that seem to change year to year, and what the committee values can change based on different personnel.
Strength of record is great; it's another way of evaluating teams that combines the difficulty of their schedule with the actual wins and losses results on the field. Just tell us who's creating it, and how it'll be used. Not that hard, or at least, it shouldn't be.