The College Football Playoff rankings came out over the weekend and in my mind the committee got it wrong and Alabama should not have been put in. Putting the Crimson Tide in tells me that conference championship games don’t matter and that you can schedule garbage out of conference and get away with it. Alabama’s non-conference slate wasn’t as garbage as Washington’s was last year, but there should be no FCS teams on your slate. I looked at a couple of factors and really USC has a better profile/resume then people think.
Record: 11-1, 7-1
Ranking the wins: LSU (18), @ Mississippi State (20), Florida State (30), @ Texas A&M (45), Fresno State (56), Ole Miss (59), Arkansas (75), Colorado State (77), @ Vandy (83), Tennessee (92), Mercer (149)
Average Sagarin Win: 64
Loss: @ Auburn (8)
Record: 11-2, 8-1
Ranking the wins: Penn State (6), Wisconsin (7), @ Michigan (21), Michigan State (25), @ Indiana (52), Army (64), @ Nebraska (74), Maryland (80), @ Rutgers (99), UNLV (118), Illinois (126)
Average Sagarin Win: 61.09
Losses: Oklahoma (5), @ Iowa (22)
Record: 11-2, 8-1
Ranking the Wins: Stanford (11), Stanford (11), Texas (28), Utah (37), @ Arizona State (40), Arizona (49), UCLA (51), @ California (53), Colorado (66), W. Michigan (88), Oregon State (131),
Average Sagarin Win: 51.36
Losses: @ Notre Dame (10), @ Wazzu (27)
As you can tell, the Trojans have the best average wins and the toughest schedule. Yes, they lost two games, but they did not have a bye week nor did they get too many opportunities to “rest” like Alabama did Mercer week and Ohio State’s games against UNLV and Illinois. If we’re simply going to take teams with the least amount of losses, then UCF really deserves to be in the mix since they have zero. The system is a bit flawed when the committee puts in a team who didn’t even play in their conference championship and is considered to be the third best squad in the SEC.