Revised Standings for the College Football Playoff Selection Committee

Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse more stories
Revised Standings for the College Football Playoff Selection Committee
Tom Pennington/Getty Images

There will be no more BCS standings. In fact, there will be no standings with a formula that we can reliably project when the College Football Playoff era begins in the 2014 season. The 13-person selection committee will have sole discretion on which teams make the four-team playoff field.

About a month ago, we introduced a standings model for the committee, and asked for readers' suggestions and comments. We received a healthy amount of responses, most of which were very helpful. After taking much into consideration, we have revised our proposed standings for use by the playoff committee.

Which component should mean most to committee?

Submit Vote vote to see results

We're not arrogant or foolhardy enough to think the committee will necessarily adopt our formula, or admit it publicly. But we do hope that by starting this discussion, we'll move into a more transparent process where we won't be greeted with major surprises come football's version of Selection Sunday.

We more or less stuck to the main criteria, which the committee has emphasized as crucial in its selection process. But we have made major revisions to the distribution of each category:

1) AP poll (30 percent): The eyeball test has to mean something, and the AP poll is the only poll that's completely transparent, with each voter's ballot available for the public to scrutinize each week. It's also the most prestigious poll that's widely used by the media. (Increased from 20 percent)

2) Computer rankings (30 percent): Kenneth Massey compiles the median and mean rankings of each team from more than 100 computers each week. It's less biased than the human polls, and the large sample size removes undue influence by outliers. (Decreased from 40 percent)

3) Strength of schedule (20 percent): While there are many models to choose from, Jeff Sagarin has the most time-tested SoS formula—including results from all Division I games, FBS and FCS—that's meticulously and promptly updated each week. But since SoS is a component in every computer ranking, too much influence by the SoS would create a double-jeopardy situation. (Decreased from 30 percent)

4) Conference championship (20 percent): Only teams that win their conference championships will get the bonus, and it has to be a significant one. A team that fails to win its conference must be so highly-ranked in every other aspect to jump champions from other Big Five conferences. (Increased from 10 percent)

With that in mind, this is what the final standings would've looked like at the end of the 2013 regular season:

College Football Playoff Standings Model (Version 2)
Rank BCS Rank Team CFP Score Conference
1 2 Auburn .9344 SEC
2 5 Stanford .9026 Pac-12
3 1 Florida State .9000 ACC
4 4 Michigan State .7956 Big Ten
5 6 Baylor .7826 Big 12
6 3 Alabama .6808 SEC
7 8 Missouri .5752 SEC
8 7 Ohio State .5644 Big Ten
9 9 South Carolina .5534 SEC
10 14 Arizona State .5252 Pac-12

See Playoff Guru for complete standings

And this is what the playoff and major bowl matchups would be had the committee followed the results of the final standings:

2013 Projected CFP Bowl Matchups
Bowl Tie-in* Matchup
Rose Bowl Semifinal No. 2 Stanford vs. No. 3 Florida St.
Sugar Bowl Semifinal No. 1 Auburn vs. No. 4 Michigan St.
Chick-fil-A Bowl At-large or 'Group of 5' No. 7 Missouri vs. No. 15 UCF
Cotton Bowl At-large or 'Group of 5' No. 6 Alabama vs. No. 12 Oklahoma St.
Fiesta Bowl At-large or 'Group of 5' No. 5 Baylor vs. No. 10 Arizona St.
Orange Bowl ACC vs. SEC/Big Ten/ND No. 8 Ohio State vs. No. 16 Clemson

* Based on 2014 CFP setup

Keep in mind that we now have the benefit of hindsight after the conclusion of the bowl games. When the BCS standings were unveiled at the end of the 2013 regular season, most of you did not think Oklahoma would beat Alabama and be ranked higher in the final AP poll—just as an example.

Do you agree or disagree with the revised methodology? Please submit your comments, and I'll make every effort to answer your questions as we continue to tweak our formula in the offseason. Thank you.

 

Follow on Twitter @ThePlayoffGuru

Load More Stories

Follow B/R on Facebook

College Football

Subscribe Now

We will never share your email address

Thanks for signing up.