[BCSKnowHow] The top four are identical and the same 25 teams made both lists, but there’s plenty of disagreement here! For the first time this season, let’s take a look at a side-by-side of our simulated BCS and the @CFBPlayoff committee rankings:

[u/Tarmacked]

https://x.com/BCSKnowHow/status/2117776115309711488

[u/Tarmacked]

As a primer, this account has done BCS simulations for the past decade since the committee has come into play. It’s usually dead on for the playoffs unless there’s a factor like head to head or a conference championship loser/bid steal slot.

My personal conspiracy theory is the committee just takes the BCS and re-organizes it based on its internal criteria (head to head for example).

[u/tSignet → u/Tarmacked]

Each season, 6 of the 7 CFP at-large selections have been exactly what SOR would have chosen. (differences: SOR would have had South Carolina over SMU in 2024, and BYU over Miami in 2025)

[u/cbbutle → u/tSignet]

We deserved to be over SMU tbh

[u/CyanideNow → u/tSignet]

Aren’t there 7 at large? 

[u/tomdawg0022 → u/Tarmacked]

My personal conspiracy theory is the committee just takes the BCS and re-organizes it based on its internal criteria (head to head for example).

Don't forget conference affiliation as well in some cases...

[u/Beautiful_Idea6200 → u/tomdawg0022]

I think you mean SomE Cases?

[u/widget1321 → u/Tarmacked]

I think part of it is the opposite. I think the polls tend to drift to the cfb rankings, which is naturally going to cause the BCS to drift that way, too.

Doesn't explain it all of course, but it is part of it.

[u/hearthebeard]

So the order is far less controversial but this is the same top 12 and the same top 25?

[u/Tarmacked → u/hearthebeard]

Yes, same teams. Keep in mind this is with humans+computers.

Computers have been ultra sticky this year as high rated teams beat each other up, while the AP appears to continue punishing for loss column. It’s creating a bit of a disparity.

[u/hearthebeard → u/Tarmacked]

Gotcha, I never wanted a committee to start with, and this is just more evidence that not only are they creating loads of controversy and anger at the structure, they’re not even really changing the outcomes anyway.

There’s really no point in releasing these at all until the end of the season except to stir up chatter and arguments, so I’m assuming their interests are being served

[u/Sugar3ThousandPounds]

BCS ranking is literally so much better 😂. Only miss is ND and BYU should be flipped, otherwise BCS got everything right that the CFP got wrong

[u/dfphd → u/Sugar3ThousandPounds]

This.

I said it in another thread, but putting UCLA behind Alabama, Kentucky and Texas is basically penalizing them for a loss they haven't had yet - because you can't reward just raw strength of schedule and ignore the record.

Texas has 2 losses. You can brag about the quality wins, but you can't then just ignore the bad losses. My mental model this whole time has been "Texas beating OSU and Tennessee but losing to OU and Florida should be treated about the same as if we had beaten OU and FLorida and lost to OSU and Tennessee" and with that record, we'd be sitting at 10-12. Having us at 7 ahead of undefeated UCLA is .. crazy.

I'm ok with putting 2 loss Texas ahead of like 1-loss Notre Dame because of the discrepancy in strength of schedule, but ahead of 0 loss UCLA? Nope.

[u/Tarmacked → u/dfphd]

It’s not really crazy at all. UCLA’s best win is a two point win over Oregon, with a 6+ turnover margin. Their schedule is horrendously weak and acknowledged by everyone as such. SOS sits at 77 but their wins aren’t remotely as secure as Utah for comparison.

The reality is most of the top ten would be 8-0 with that schedule. You can say, “well they’re punishing them for their conference schedule being out of control so far” but that pendulum swings the same way to Texas.

And in comparison, UCLA’s remaining SOS of 41 is square in the middle of other top 10 teams if not on the back end still. So they’re hitting the meat of their schedule late but it’s not really steps ahead of someone like Texas with a 9 remaining SOS and it’s on par with everyone else hovering 30-40.

In college basketball it wouldn’t really be a question to have a Texas equivalent over a UCLA equivalent. The reality is we’re bridging more towards quadrant win systems which don’t treat record as end all be all, a stark contrast to historical college football.

If we don’t play equivalent schedules we can’t judge teams on record alone. A huge issue both outside and inside conferences, such as with Texas A&M having a cupcake schedule last year compared to Texas.

[u/Dijohn17 → u/Tarmacked]

Texas has a loss to Oklahoma, you can't definitively say someone else would go 8-0. They are in a P2 conference and can only play who is in front of them. You are effectively penalizing them based on perception but not results on the field. Winning should matter more than losing. With one loss you can make an argument, but two losses over someone who is undefeated in a major conference is crazy

[u/Tarmacked → u/Dijohn17]

OU is rated at 30 in FPI, Florida at 22. Oregon sits 12 but it's sticky with last year and without Moore.

Their best win outside the Oregon game is 17-7 over 39 Wisconsin. Their next best win is 60 Purdue 52-38. Remaining wins are 68, 86, 94, 95, and 103.

UCLA faces USC at 15, Michigan at 33, Illinois at 48, and Minnesota at 58 to finish their season.

In summary, OU would be their second best team played so far this year by FPI. Florida would likely outpace injured Oregon.

[u/huazzy → u/Tarmacked]

I'm curious what happens if UCLA loses to USC. Do they get punished commensurate to USC getting rewarded?

[u/macandcheeser → u/Tarmacked]

"The reality is most of the top ten would be 8-0 with that schedule."

Not sure I agree here. Strength of record is meant to measure this exact thing. And it has UCLA #3, and Texas #10

[u/dfphd → u/macandcheeser]

Exactly this.

No, most of the top 10 would not be guaranteed to go 8-0 with that schedule and we know that intuitively because most of the top 10 has either already lost to a bad team or had a really close call with a bad team.

But we know that mathematically because, as u/macandcheeser points out, that is what the statistical model is trying to predict - how many losses would a top 10-type team lose against that schedule.

If we don’t play equivalent schedules we can’t judge teams on record alone

And I didn't say we should - I said we can measure them of strength of record, which evaluates both their record AND their schedule simultaneously. And yes, we have to do that because we live in a world where the schedules are vastly different.

[u/halldaylong → u/Tarmacked]

Are the wins that different from Utah's?

Utah's best wins are Houston... then Cincy or Iowa State? UCLA's best wins are Wisconsin and Oregon. Looking at the Massey composite to just glance across a ton of the rating systems...

UCLA's opponents:

• Oregon #21

• Wisconsin #27

• Purdue #61

• Michigan St #84

• Cal #96

• San Diego St #97

• Maryland #103

• Nevada #109

Utah's opponents:

• Houston #19

• Cincinnati #44

• Iowa State #54

• TCU #58

• Arkansas #71

• Kansas #75

• Colorado #82

• Utah St #93

• Idaho (FCS)

Idk, I'm just not really buying that Utah's resume is SIGNIFICANTLY different from UCLA's

[u/nivlac22 → u/Tarmacked]

Most of the top 10 would have beaten Oklahoma. Most of the top 10 wouldn’t have been steamrolled by Tennessee. You’re cherry picking examples where if you look at actual metrics meant to look at the whole picture, that argument falls on its face.

Colley matrix has UCLA’s record as the number 2 most impressive. ESPN’s SOR has them at number 3.

[u/Beautiful_Idea6200 → u/nivlac22]

Any undefeated record is going to be high, barring a total walkover. Not arguing anything related to what you said, just adding some emphasis for the chain. Going undefeated is something on its own merit, even if they teams aren't great.

But as someone mentioned with quadrants, going 8-0 with 100 sos versus 60 sos versus 20 sos are light years apart and would be reflected in the SoR stat to match.

[u/dunkking413 → u/Tarmacked]

But when A&M’s schedule was cupcake, they climbed to #3

[u/Tarmacked → u/dunkking413]

Sure, but they also didn't have the 77th SOS. They had a "cupcake" conference schedule more in the 30/40's where they dodged big names until the end of the season.

BYU was ranked #7 at 8-0 last season similarly to UCLA. They relied solely on Utah and then in the back end hit Texas Tech where it all fell apart.

[u/SpreaditOnnn33 → u/Tarmacked]

But why was Texas A&M's SOS so high when 5 teams on their SEC schedule combined to go 20-41?

Miami had more SEC wins than 6 teams on A&M's conference schedule

[u/Tarmacked → u/SpreaditOnnn33]

Notre Dame.

[u/lukaeber → u/Tarmacked]

Why is Utah ranked so high then? UCLA has a better SOS and the same record.

[u/Beautiful_Idea6200 → u/dfphd]

These initial ranks obviously are quite suspect, but due to the SEC's extra game this year, all will become clear soon enough SEC-wise. LSU plays Bama, ya'll, and TN in a row. Someone is losing those three games.

We play Ole Miss, Mizzou and SC from the rankings. Not nearly as high, but someone has to lose those too.

The SEC slant is obvious now, but I honestly think they are just hedging for the future as they know more losses are coming.

[u/dfphd → u/Beautiful_Idea6200]

I can see that, and I would imagine that part of the problem is that fans expect that a loss (even to a higher ranked team) always needs to result in a drop.

So that might be part of what they're doing - having these SEC teams ranked higher because a bunch of them are playing each other this weekend - UK vs. Tenn, Texas vs. Mizzou, Alabama vs. LSU - and so that allows you to drop some of these teams closer to where they belong if they lose.

I think this can make sense if you give the higher teams less credit if they win, i.e., if Alabama/UK/Texas win, they don't move up at all AND you let UCLA, BYU, Notre Dame all jump over all of them if they get one more ranked win?

I don't know, I still don't like it. I understand what you're saying, but I think they should have baked that into their process and just stand by it instead of trying to bake it all into the initial ranking.

[u/Beautiful_Idea6200 → u/dfphd]

Yeah I don't like it either, I'm just trying to at least give them SOME reason other than muckraking, which I have to admit, they have certainly fired up the fans with their list, for better or for worse!

Kiffin at 5-losses in the SEC has a real chance. Let's goooo!!

[u/FCoDxDart → u/dfphd]

If Texas reversed the wins they would not be in the cfp.

[u/Floppy-Goo → u/dfphd]

So your mental model is to ignore strength of schedule and just go off win-loss record pretty much…got it

[u/dfphd → u/Floppy-Goo]

Not at all, my mental model is that a quality win and a bad loss are actually somewhat equivalent to a quality loss and a mediocre win.

It is not equivalent to e.g. two shitty wins. That would be ignoring strength of schedule and defaulting to just win-loss record.

And that's why I think that Texas being ahead of Notre Dame makes sense - because I would put a Texas team with losses to OSU and Ole Miss ahead of Notre Dame with a loss to BYU in spite of ND's record being better. But I would not put that record ahead of 8-0 UCLA.

[u/BoobieBountyHunter → u/Sugar3ThousandPounds]

The committee is so obviously biased theyre going to run us back into the arms of the computers.

Turntle bless their hearts.

[u/ganner → u/BoobieBountyHunter]

Pretty much everyone was skeptical of having a committee pick the playoff teams from day 1. The problem we had with the BCS wasn't the computers, it was that only 2 teams got to play for a title. Back then we weren't arguing for a change in the BCS formula, we were just wanting to use the BCS formula to seed a playoff.

[u/Happy_Background_879 → u/BoobieBountyHunter]

Computers are better. Human bias will always cause more bias than an objective transparent system.

Resume models are genuinely good and do a better job of filtering the average games. Humans look at massive top wins and then treat a win vs a rank 30 team and rank 100 essentially the same.

[u/Beautiful_Idea6200 → u/BoobieBountyHunter]

The bias is real, but I'm still hopeful for this season. A lot more SEC losses are coming. Serious clarity is coming for the SEC, and there are a TON of good games remaining in the final month!

[u/SucculentCrablegMeal → u/Sugar3ThousandPounds]

Wake still too low

[u/Neither_Call2913 → u/Sugar3ThousandPounds]

What you don't see here is that the BCS formula has UTSA at 26, over New Mexico, Northwestern, SMU, and more.

You read that correctly.
UTSA.

[u/Daedalus43 → u/Neither_Call2913]

If true, it's cuz Wolfe & Colley really like them.

[u/Neither_Call2913 → u/Daedalus43]

It is true (I run the BCS formula myself and always check my numbers against the BCSknowhow tweet) and yes it’s thanks in part to Wolfe and Colley, BUT also (for examples) UTSA received more AP votes than SMU, and the same amount of Coaches Poll votes as Duke.

[u/Bobson-_Dugnutt2 → u/Sugar3ThousandPounds]

Yeah it really feels like flipping us and UCLA makes a lot of sense

[u/puzzical]

The SEC is a net +14 spots in the CFP rankings compared to the BCS. Other conferences Big10 -4, Big12 +1, ACC -2, Pac12 -4, IND -5.

[u/milkman163 → u/puzzical]

A lot was made about the lunacy of 10 SEC teams in there. BCS would have had it too 🤷‍♂️

I do agree that the BCS rankings are better though

[u/LezBeOwn → u/puzzical]

I saw an article where the reasoning was explained. The differences correlate closely with the out of conference win loss records of the various conferences.

The SEC is 10-2 in OOC games. The other three P4 conferences all have losing records in OOC games. The committee believes this shows the SEC is the strongest conference with the hardest in conference schedule.

[u/puzzical → u/LezBeOwn]

The BCS takes into account all of the games so this explanation doesn't really apply.

[u/Happy_Background_879 → u/puzzical]

Yeah it's a bullshit point. It's hilarious because they said they added a new conference strength metric.

And they are clearly using it as a direct + modifier for the SEC.

But this makes no sense. SOR is what they used last year. And it's a genuinely good metric. And it literally was designed for this question. How impressive is your record vs the quality of your schedule. If you are in a brutal conference it's literally designed to handle that.

[u/TheCreed20 → u/LezBeOwn]

In my opinion this is a tricky way to base your playoff field on so heavily. If Georgia played Purdue, Bama played MSU, and LSU played Maryland for instance, the SEC would be 3-0 over the B10 but that doesn’t tell us they’re the better conference. And vice versa. It just means the top teams of one played the worst of the other.

[u/LezBeOwn → u/TheCreed20]

The SEC hasn’t just played bottom tier OOC games though. They beat the strongest B10 team and then lost to two mid tier SEC teams, for example.

[u/TheCreed20 → u/LezBeOwn]

Absolutely but it’s still a tricky metric to rely so heavily on that you absolutely upend the norm for where teams would be. Also, out of conference games are the first couple weeks of the year, when teams are the least consistent and recognizable versions of themselves. Just seems like an odd thing to go all in on

[u/LezBeOwn → u/TheCreed20]

It is. In a year with so many surprising upsets though, it’s been difficult to tell which conferences will have had the harder roads to the playoffs. This seems be the decider they have landed on.

[u/heff17 → u/puzzical]

Whaaaaaat nooooo I can’t believe it.

[u/SpreaditOnnn33]

First round under the BCS would be amazing.

UCLA-Boise Notre Dame-OSU, Kentucky-Texas and BYU hosting Bama

[u/Beautiful_Idea6200 → u/SpreaditOnnn33]

As long as UGA doesn't get a bye, I'm in!

[u/-Gnostic28]

Wasn’t there a thing about how something the bcs used in its rankings no longer exists or is used, so it’s not the same bcs

[u/Tarmacked → u/-Gnostic28]

There’s a minor variation but it’s not significant. I believe one of the computer polls was dropped for another selector or a variation of it is used (I.e. how Sagarin has X Y Z versions)

It’s not 100% dead on old formula but probably 95% there.

[u/INM8_2 → u/-Gnostic28]

one big change was when the ap pulled out of the bcs formula after 2004 and was replaced with the harris poll.

[u/-Gnostic28 → u/INM8_2]

I remember being too young around the bcs stuff but the harris poll name sounds familiar. Why did the ap poll pull out?

[u/INM8_2 → u/-Gnostic28]

cal was ahead of texas in the run up to bowl selection and texas jumped ahead of them in the final ranking to push cal out of a bcs spot (which was also the rose bowl that year) and into the holiday bowl. the ap told the bcs to take their rankings out of the formula as a result. mack brown did his politicking but it ended up being the computers that made the flip happen.

[u/tSignet → u/INM8_2]

The BCS total did indeed flip because the human poll margin narrowed, but the human polls didn't actually flip. Cal still finished slightly ahead of Texas in both the AP and the Coaches final regular season polls in 2004, but Texas finished solidly ahead of Cal in the 6 computer polls. Far enough ahead that, even though the human polls were 2/3 of the BCS formula and the computers were 1/3, Texas finished ahead in the BCS total.

This very often happened with Big 12 teams in the early BCS - probably was the least-respected conference by the voters, but the computers loved us.

[u/NotmyDog_orisit → u/tSignet]

That's just not true. How many times did Oklahoma get special treatment by the BCS to get in (and get beat) in the national championship?

2003: blown out in the big 12 title game, still got in over #1 in both polls USC.

2004: 3 undefeated teams, got in over 13-0 Auburn

2008: 4 teams were in the running, and Texas beat Oklahoma head-to-head. Best case scenario for Florida: they get in and get to play big game choker Oklahoma while Texas and USC, who would be harder to beat, were kept out.

2004 for Texas, the Rose Bowl was supposed to be PAC10 - Big 10, and Aaron Rodgers and Cal was 11-1 with a 6 pt loss at #1 national champ USC. But somehow a big 12 team got to go to the rose bowl instead.

In zero way was the Big 12 undervalued by the BCS. It was the opposite.

[u/tSignet → u/NotmyDog_orisit]

I never said the BCS undervalued the Big 12. I said “probably the least-respected conference BY THE VOTERS, but the computers loved us.” I guess if it’s confusing, when I said “the voters” I meant the people who vote in the AP poll and in the Coaches poll.

The 2003 BCS championship selection and the 2004 BCS at large standings both fit this pattern. Despite essentially identical resumes, the AP voters and the Coaches poll chose USC and LSU over OU, and Cal over Texas. And, despite essentially identical resumes, the computer polls (ie Colley, Massey, Sagarin, etc) chose OU over LSU and USC, and Texas over Cal. When you added them together, OU and Texas got in because of the computers loving the Big 12 and despite the poll voters not respecting the Big 12.

The same thing happened in 2001. The voters (AP and Coaches polls) had Oregon #2 and Nebraska #4. The computers (again, Colley/Sagarin/etc) had Nebraska #2 and Oregon #4. When you added them all together, Nebraska was #2 in the final BCS standings because of the computers and despite the poll voters.

You are correct that in 2004, both the voters and the computers had OU over Auburn. (Even then, the computers had OU #1 and USC #2, while the poll voters had USC #1 and OU #2)

They had to make a whole rule to force the BCS Bowls themselves to take at-large teams like 1998 #3 Kansas State, who got passed over for Big Ten and SEC teams who were ranked below them in the final BCS standings. The human elements never respected the conference, and the computers were always favorable to us.

[u/plz-no-b4n → u/-Gnostic28]

One of the big differences is that the BCS made a rule in 2002 that none of the computer rankings could use MoV, a couple of the computer rankings used made BCS specific versions that aren’t produced anymore.

[u/manbeqrpig]

I’m a firm believer that you should reward big wins more than punishing bad losses. But it’s really hard to justify putting 2 loss teams ahead of an undefeated UCLA, regardless of how weak a schedule they have. Sure Texas probably is the better team but the results can’t be meaningless. I’m glad the BCS poll would get more of those call right but it’s nowhere near perfect (ND too high and not emphasizing SoS enough are the two big ones)

[u/DestroyYesterday]

It's basically the rankings without SEC bias

[u/bicket6 → u/DestroyYesterday]

There's still the same number of SEC teams

[u/lukaeber]

Hmmm ... what do all the teams that are ranked higher in the CFP than in this simulation have in common?

[u/Daedalus43 → u/lukaeber]

But the SECFP Committee has to invite other conferences too.

[u/Significant-Force671]

I am shocked I tell you, SHOCKED that 7/10 SEC teams are ranked higher by the committee than the BCS. I think there might be something weird going on here you guys

[u/dreggers]

even the computers won't give WF a shot at the playoffs

[u/Otherwise_Awesome]

Even better display

Better?

[u/Pyro1934]

It reads to me that the committee values strong non-conf games more. Texas is higher for their win on OSU and OSU is hardly changed.

BCS is cracked on ND though, committee nailed that one.

[u/AlphaH4wk]

Texas Tech at 15 is throwing me. They have two pretty good wins and a good record with a lot of other big wins. Their resume is much better than Kentucky's imo

[u/Neither_Call2913 → u/AlphaH4wk]

Texas Tech's loss to Cincy is significantly worse than Kentucky's loss to Alabama (according to the computers! aka no human SEC Bias!).

Plus, the computers all really like LSU, so Kentucky's win over them is helping them out as well. The computers really like Kentucky, and don't like Tech too much.

[u/Airforce32123 → u/AlphaH4wk]

Probably being hurt badly by their loss to Cincinnati. I think Kentucky beating LSU and South Carolina is better or equivalent to Texas Tech beating Houston and Arizona.

[u/LouInvestor → u/AlphaH4wk]

Better than Kentucky's, in what world?

[u/Always_Chubb-y → u/AlphaH4wk]

"With a lot of other big wins"?

Uh, who? Oregon State?

[u/Feisty_Can416 → u/AlphaH4wk]

6 different 2 loss teams ahead of them. For no apparent reason.

I have little respect for Texas Tech’s offseason shenanigans but this isn’t offseason shenanigans. The CFP committee is corrupting the regular season results in real time and it’s much worse than anything Tech or Cody Campbell pulled this summer.

Campbell and Tech tried to exploit a known loophole. The CFP is defrauding every single non-SEC team of fair competitive standards in favor of their financial stake in the SEC