Do any of the initial playoff rankings matter?

The initial college football playoff rankings debuted last night.

If for some reason you missed it, here they are.

1. Oregon

2. Ohio State

3. Georgia

4. Miami

5. Texas

6. Penn State

7. Tennessee

8. Indiana

9. BYU

10. Notre Dame

11. Alabama

12. Boise State

13. SMU

14. Texas A&M

15. LSU

16. Ole Miss

17. Iowa State

18. Pitt

19. Kansas State

20. Colorado

21. Washington State

22. Louisville

23. Clemson

24. Missouri

25. Army

I don’t really have major problems with most of these. We do not get vote totals. If we did, perhaps we would have more gripes than we do, because then the gapping either would or would not make sense. For instance, how close are Notre Dame and SMU? How close are Texas and Indiana? I can’t answer that without vote totals.

1. Do we value performances regardless of the final score? That depends on your helmet.
   
   To ensure better playoff games, more quality TV inventory, and truly include the 12 best teams, we need to value performance beyond just the final win-loss outcome on the scoreboard. People argue that the best part of Penn State's resume is playing Ohio State to within a score, and that’s a fair point. Similarly, Nebraska also played Ohio State closely—and did so in Columbus. But while Nebraska has had multiple close calls and losses, Penn State has taken care of business against all the teams it should beat and went toe-to-toe with the committee's No. 2 team in the country.

   I understand the perspective that the only difference between Indiana and Penn State might just be the helmet logo. However, if we realistically swapped their schedules, it’s likely Penn State would still look as impressive. Wouldn't Penn State also be undefeated against Indiana’s schedule? And do we really think Indiana would beat Ohio State? For these reasons, I’m not as disappointed with the committee’s decisions regarding Indiana.

   Indiana still has big games against marquee teams ahead. If they perform well in those matchups—say, if they dominate Michigan or play Ohio State close and competitively, as Penn State did—they absolutely deserve recognition. If Indiana isn’t given similar credit to Penn State after showing up in those high-stakes games, then Indiana fans would have every right to raise concerns.
   

2. What does the committee think of SMU?
   
   Yesterday I posed this question, writing:

   Ranking SMU 13th is a bit of a slap in the face to the ACC. Not that the ACC will do anything about it (see also: FSU last year).

   The team has several blowout victories over opponents the committee considers to be in the top 25, and it’s clearly performing at a higher level now with Kevin Jennings at quarterback. If you compare SMU’s resume to a team like Texas or Penn State, it’s hard not to be impressed with what they’ve accomplished. Yet, it feels like SMU’s path to the playoff—if they finish 12-1 but don’t win the ACC—might be unreasonably narrow. I’m not sure it should be, especially as their win over Louisville continues to look better.

3. The format of the ESPN show confused me.

   I don’t usually comment on media in this space, and I don’t want this to come off as criticism of the people on the show or those producing the ESPN Rankings show. It’s a challenging show to produce, and this was the maiden voyage with the new 12-team format. That said, I think it’s fair to note that the show wasn’t particularly engaging. Presenting teams with their committee ranking alongside where they’d be seeded felt confusing, even for someone like me who works in college football. I can’t imagine this was a good experience for the average viewer.

   What might improve the flow is presenting the rankings in the traditional power rating style first, and then moving into how the bracket would look with a breakdown. That approach could be more engaging. From there, the show could explore interesting debates, like whether the 5-seed might actually be more advantageous than the 1-seed. For example, the 5-seed could, theoretically, face two easier opponents than the 1-seed. On the other hand, the 1-seed would get a bye week, which could be advantageous. Whether one seed is better than another likely depends on how compressed the top of the sport really is, and that would be a fascinating point of discussion.

4. This is a great year to have the 12-team playoff

   The 12-team playoff might have come just in time. Florida State fans would argue that last year was the right moment for it, and I don’t disagree. But consider what a four-team playoff would look like this year—where would you draw the cutoff? We’d likely end up with some undefeated or one-loss conference champions who, from a power rating standpoint, would fall behind certain two-loss non-champions from other conferences. Some teams playing exceptionally well at the end of the season, perhaps after making meaningful adjustments, might deserve special consideration, especially if their resume is close to that of a team that peaked earlier but didn’t continue to improve.

   When we look at the current compression in college football, the contrast is striking. Take the Football Power Index (FPI) for example: in 2019, the top teams were rated over a touchdown better than the best team in the sport this year. That’s remarkable. Dominance on a week-to-week basis has become rare. Is this due to a lack of desire to dominate weekly? Or maybe teams are taking cues from Michigan last year and resting starters early to save them for a long playoff run or to avoid revealing too much? Another factor could be the transfer portal, which has spread talent across the sport as players prioritize playing time alongside money, tradition, and NFL development opportunities. As a result, maintaining functional depth has become harder than ever, and injuries seem to impact teams more significantly than before.

   This increased parity at the top suggests that the notion of a one- or two-seed always winning a 12-team playoff may not hold if the sport continues to flatten competitively. A four-team playoff might have made sense a decade ago, but it has become uniquely detrimental to college football due to its exclusivity, compounded by the networks’ constant “who’s in?” narrative, which appears in every commercial break and halftime, regardless of whether the teams playing are even in playoff contention.

   If the playoff is going to be the focal point of broadcasts, it needs to be more inclusive to keep fans engaged, hopeful, and invested throughout the season. This is especially true as bowl games continue to be de-emphasized.

5. Who will they rank down-ballot to justify moves they want to make in the future?

   When I asked this question yesterday, never in my wildest dreams did I imagine the committee would rank Missouri.

Quickies

1. Florida announced WR Eugene Wilson is out for the season.
   
   No Nole-inspired snark here: I feel bad for the Gators. They are getting really banged up right as they seemed to be turning the corner. Wilson, Lagway, and a bunch of guys in the secondary hurts. .

2. Based on the line move to Oklahoma, I would be pretty shocked if Brady Cook plays this weekend for Missouri

   
   Also, how much should Marcus Freeman be appreciated for winning as many games as he did with Drew Pyne?

3. Tomorrow:

   -11am: Cover 3 Podcast Locks Episode

   -A few player props

   -”Why are these teams still being offered in the playoff market?”