We knew Alabama and Clemson would be the top two teams in 2018’s initial College Football Playoff top 25, and we had a pretty good idea about the rest of the top 10 or so, but that was about it. Now we have a rankings starting point for the rest of the season.
2018’s first College Football Playoff rankings, quickly explained
Alabama and Clemson are an easy top two, LSU and Notre Dame are flawed top-four teams, and UCF might be a little overrated now.
Photo by Kevin Jairaj - Handout/Getty Images
It’s still very early, and these will fluctuate quite a bit before Selection Sunday. Explanations on some things about this week and the general process are below these rankings.
- Alabama, 8-0 (at LSU next)
- Clemson, 8-0 (Louisville next)
- LSU, 7-1 (Alabama next)
- Notre Dame, 8-0 (at Northwestern next)
- Michigan, 7-1 (Penn State next)
- Georgia, 7-1 (at Kentucky next)
- Oklahoma, 7-1 (at Texas Tech next)
- Washington State, 7-1 (Cal next)
- Kentucky, 7-1 (Georgia next)
- Ohio State, 7-1 (Nebraska next)
- Florida, 6-2 (Missouri next)
- UCF, 7-0 (Temple next)
- West Virginia, 6-1 (at Texas next)
- Penn State, 6-2 (at Michigan next)
- Utah, 6-2 (at Arizona State next)
- Iowa, 6-2 (at Purdue next)
- Texas, 6-2 (West Virginia next)
- Mississippi State, 5-3 (Louisiana Tech next)
- Syracuse, 6-2 (at Wake Forest next)
- Texas A&M, 5-3 (at Auburn next)
- NC State, 5-2 (Florida State next)
- Boston College, 6-2 (at Virginia Tech next)
- Fresno State, 7-1 (at UNLV next)
- Iowa State, 4-3 (at Kansas next)
- Virginia, 6-2 (Pitt next)
First things first: don’t freak out.
There are still four more rankings releases before the one that matters.
- In the first three years’ initial rankings, a non-Alabama SEC team started in the top four and finished in the teens or worse. 2017 Notre Dame did the same.
- All four years have had a team start in the teens and finish in the Playoff (2014 Ohio State, 2015 Oklahoma) or just shy of it (2016 Penn State, 2017 Auburn).
A ton will change. If you’re a Power 5 team with only one loss, you’re not out yet.
The only change to the postseason picture after seeing these rankings:
Let’s slide Kentucky into the New Year’s Six for now. The Gators are a spot or two lower than I expected. Here are the latest bowl projections.
Clemson and Alabama would’ve been fine No. 1 seeds in just about any season.
Bama’s demolished everything placed before it, something very few teams with average schedules (yes, Bama’s schedule is average so far) in history can say through two months.
Meanwhile, the Tigers’ close calls were on the road against a ranked Texas A&M and against Syracuse when suddenly down to the guy who’d been a third-string QB days prior (something the committee says it takes into account). Otherwise, they’ve rampaged, and they’ve arguably beaten more good teams than anybody else in the country besides LSU, which has a loss.
LSU and Notre Dame are flawed top-four teams, but fairly top four nevertheless.
They’ve both beaten Playoff contenders. One-loss LSU stomped Georgia and beat several other top-40-type teams, while undefeated Notre Dame outlasted Michigan. CPI ranks LSU’s schedule-adjusted accomplishments No. 2, while ESPN’s Strength of Record has Notre Dame No. 2.
Looking at how they’ve actually played, though, it’s murkier. S&P+ would pick 12 other teams to beat LSU on a neutral field right now. Resume S&P+, which estimates how an average Playoff-worthy team would’ve scored against a particular schedule, was not impressed by ND’s one-score wins against Ball State, Vanderbilt, and Pitt, to say the least.
A year ago, I was one of the first national media people (or whatever) to show UCF was being seriously undervalued by the committee, and I defended their title claim in the context of CFB history.
But this year’s start is generous, per the numbers. The Massey Composite, which piles together tons of different computer ratings and other stuff, has the Knights No. 16, well below their AP perch of No. 9. S&P+ ranks UCF’s strength of schedule No. 121 out of 130.
If the future’s theoretically undefeated Knights can’t ever crack the top 10 once their schedule significantly ramps up in difficulty, though, then we can complain.
The only team I’m surprised to see ranked: Iowa State.
The 4-3 Cyclones have lost pretty competitively to ranked Oklahoma and Iowa teams, but also to a bad TCU. Their demolition of West Virginia evidently made up for that TCU thing.
The numbers aren’t all impressed, but it’s clear the Clones are a bit better than their record on the year. Iowa State isn’t top 30 in S&P+, CPI, or Resume S&P+, but they are No. 22 in the Massey Composite.
In case you need to refresh on how this all works:
The top four teams on Selection Sunday in December. make the Playoff. The committee’s rankings then help decide the four other New Year’s Six games.
With a few exceptions, grouping Power 5 teams by loss totals is a pretty predictive starting point for what the committee will do. (After that, pretend non-Power 5 teams have a loss or two more than they really have.)
Here’s how to make the Playoff, based on some metrics (such as they are) the committee’s cited in public:
- Reach Selection Sunday with one or fewer losses (100 percent of Playoff teams have done this).
- Beat at least three teams in the committee’s Selection Sunday top 25 (93 percent, excluding 2017 Alabama, which means facing a weak schedule is better than losing two games).
- Win at least six games against FBS teams that have .500-plus records on Selection Sunday (100 percent).
- Win a Power 5 conference (88 percent). The exceptions were pitted against two-loss champs.
Beyond that, the committee pretty much just ranks teams by how good it thinks they are, then applies light reasoning to it if specifically asked during a 90-second window on ESPN. This is the stuff the committee rep (now Oregon AD Rob Mullens) will get made fun of for trying to explain. Game control! Body clocks! Balance! Injury mulligans!
OK, let’s do this all again next week.
See More:
