Proposed New and Existing Resources

Overview

The 32-team playoff requires a sophisticated, transparent selection process that balances subjective evaluation with objective metrics. This page outlines the combination of existing computer rankings, new analytical tools, and clear scheduling requirements that would guide the selection committee in ranking all 32 playoff teams fairly and consistently.

The system uses three categories of resources:

Following the conclusion of the regular season, the selection committee would utilize a combination of these resources to evaluate teams for playoff spots and seeding positions.

Existing Resources

Bill Connelly's SP+ Football Ratings

Bill Connelly introduced his SP+ ranking system in 2008. SP+ is a measure of the most sustainable and predictable phases of football: success rate (efficiency), explosiveness, finishing drives, and field position. Luck and random variance are filtered out as much as possible. The overall rating of each team equals their offensive rating minus their defensive rating plus their special teams rating. This assessment is similar to the KenPom Ratings for men's college basketball.

SP+ is particularly valuable because it focuses on predictive power rather than simply rewarding wins. A team that wins 10-9 by getting lucky turnovers rates lower than a team that wins 31-28 by dominating yardage and explosiveness. This helps identify which teams are genuinely elite versus which teams have over-performed their underlying metrics.

Former BCS Computer Rankings

Six computer ranking systems that were part of the now-defunct BCS provide additional objective evaluation:

  • Anderson & Hester Rankings: Created by Jeff Anderson and Chris Hester, this system uses mathematical formulas based on teams' performances and results
  • Billingsley Report: Richard Billingsley's system emphasizes win-loss records and opponent strength based on the opponent's record, rating, and rank, with strong emphasis on recent performance
  • Colley Matrix: Dr. Wes Colley's system evaluates teams based on FBS wins (including games against FCS competition) and adjusts for strength of schedule using a mathematical matrix
  • Massey Ratings: Kenneth Massey created this system to measure past performances of FBS teams using least-squares fitting and opponent adjustments
  • Sagarin Ratings: Jeff Sagarin's ratings are based on the Elo Chess System adapted for football, where wins and losses against quality opponents are the primary factors
  • Wolfe Ratings: Peter Wolfe invented this system to rank and rate FBS teams using maximum likelihood estimation, a statistical method that determines the most probable relative strengths of teams

The average of these six computer rankings, combined with SP+, provides a comprehensive objective evaluation that no single system could provide alone. By averaging multiple methodologies, the selection committee gains a more complete picture of team quality.

New Resources

Overall Record and Scheduling Requirements

Standards for Power Conference teams and non-Power FBS conference teams differ due to the nature of their typical schedules. Since it is strongly recommended to eliminate conference championship games, any conference/team can schedule up to 14 games, resulting in a regular season range of 12-14 games.

Key Principles:

  • Each FBS team can play no more than one non-FBS team without penalty
  • For every additional non-FBS team added to the schedule beyond the first, one more win is needed to gain playoff consideration.
  • Schedules must contain at least 90% FBS opponents to gain full consideration. For any regular season schedule length of 12-14 games, that means the following:
    Number of Regular Season Games Minimum Number of FBS Opponents
    12 11
    13 12
    14 13

Each FBS team is categorized into one of three groups based on their overall body of work of their overall record and schedule composition:

Premier Contenders

Premier contenders are teams that have great body of work and would almost be guaranteed to become an at-large selection (given that they are not named the overall conference champion). A great body of work for premier contenders depends on the team's overall resume as well their record based on their given schedule. Here is what a premier contender would look like for those teams:

Premier Contender's Projected Overall Body of Work

Games Played Number of FBS Opponents in Schedule Power Conference Teams Non-Power FBS Conference Teams
12 11-12 10-2 or better 11-1 or better
13 12-13 11-2 or better 12-1 or better
14 13-14 11-3 or better 12-2 or better

Wildcard Contenders

Wildcard contenders are teams that have a good enough body of work to become considered for an at-large selection (given that they are not named the overall conference champion). However, those teams are not completely immune as they could also fall on the wrong side of the fringe. Here is what a wildcard contender would look like for those teams:

Wildcard Contender's Projected Overall Body of Work

Games Played Number of FBS Opponents in Schedule Power Conference Teams Non-Power FBS Conference Teams
12 11-12 9-3 10-2
13 12-13 10-3 11-2
14 13-14 10-4 11-3

Fringe Contenders

Fringe contenders are teams that are truly "on the fringe" for an at-large bid (if those teams do not win their conference). Every win and loss can shift their overall standing from potentially being on the right or wrong side of the fringe. Those teams need significant help to gain one of the final playoff spots. What does a fringe team potentially look like? Here is what it would look like for those teams:

Fringe Contender's Projected Overall Body of Work

Games Played Number of FBS Opponents in Schedule Power Conference Teams Non-Power FBS Conference Teams
12 11-12 8-4 or 7-5 9-3 or 8-4
13 12-13 9-4 or 8-5 10-3 or 9-4
14 13-14 9-5 or 8-6 10-4 or 9-5

Playing More Than One Non-FBS Opponent

Teams that would play more than one non-FBS opponent will likely become wildcard contenders at best. Any additional non-FBS opponents on a teams' schedule beyond the first would require a team to win one more game to gain playoff consideration. Becoming a premier contender while playing more than one non-FBS team would require a team to be nearly flawless for power conference teams or be flawless/nearly flawless for non-power FBS conference teams.

Premier Contender's Projected Overall Body of Work Playing Less than 90% FBS Opponents

Games Played Number of FBS Opponents in Schedule Power Conference Teams Non-Power FBS Conference Teams
12 10 or less 11-1 if two non-FBS opponents on schedule
12-0 if three or more non-FBS opponents on schedule 		12-0 only if two or more non-FBS opponents on schedule
13 11 or less 12-1 if two non-FBS opponents on schedule
13-0 if three or more non-FBS opponents on schedule 		13-0 only if two or more non-FBS opponents on schedule
14 12 or less 12-2 if two non-FBS opponents on schedule
13-1 if three non-FBS opponents on schedule
14-0 if four or more non-FBS opponents on schedule 		13-1 if two non-FBS opponents on schedule
14-0 if three or more non-FBS opponents on schedule

Wildcard Contender's Projected Overall Body of Work Playing Less than 90% FBS Opponents

Games Played Number of FBS Opponents in Schedule Power Conference Teams Non-Power FBS Conference Teams
12 10 or less 10-2 if two non-FBS opponents on schedule
11-1 if three or more non-FBS opponents on schedule 		11-1 if two or more non-FBS opponents on schedule
13 11 or less 10-3 if two non-FBS opponents on schedule
11-2 if three or more non-FBS opponents on schedule 		12-1 if two or more non-FBS opponents on schedule
14 12 or less 11-3 if two non-FBS opponents on schedule
12-2 if three non-FBS opponents on schedule
13-1 if four or more non-FBS opponents on schedule 		12-2 if two non-FBS opponents on schedule
13-1 if three or more non-FBS opponents on schedule

Fringe Contender's Projected Overall Body of Work Playing Less than 90% FBS Opponents

Games Played Number of FBS Opponents in Schedule Power Conference Teams Non-Power FBS Conference Teams
12 10 or less 9-3 or 8-4 if two non-FBS opponents on schedule
10-2 or 9-3 if three or more non-FBS opponents on schedule 		10-2 or 9-3 if two or more non-FBS opponents on schedule
13 11 or less 11-2 or 10-3 if two non-FBS opponents on schedule
12-1 or 11-2 if three or more non-FBS opponents on schedule 		11-2 or 10-3 if two or more non-FBS opponents on schedule
14 12 or less 10-4 or 9-5 if two non-FBS opponents on schedule
11-3 or 10-4 if three non-FBS opponents on schedule
12-2 or 11-3 if four or more non-FBS opponents on schedule
 11-3 or 10-4 if two non-FBS opponents on schedule
12-2 or 11-3 if three or more non-FBS opponents on schedule

Key Insight: The more non-FBS opponents played, the less room for error. A team's schedule with 2-3 non-FBS teams looks far less favorable than a schedule containing only 0-1 non-FBS teams. FBS teams must balance FCS opponents against the schedule strength penalty they incur.

Tier System

The tier system adapts college basketball's quadrant system to college football. It determines the overall resume for all Division I FBS teams by categorizing opponents into four tiers based on their ranking.

Background: The NCAA introduced the quadrant system for Division I Men's Basketball in February 2018 after Monmouth became one of the first four teams to miss the NCAA tournament in 2016 despite winning many games away from their home court. The quadrant system was designed to place greater emphasis on winning away from home and to recognize the difficulty of earning those wins.

For college football, the tier system focuses on opponent ranking rather than game location because FBS schedules have uneven home-road splits. Some teams play 7 home games and 5 road games, while others play 6-6 splits. Since schedule balance varies so widely, tiers are based solely on opponent quality.

Tier Definitions:

Tier Opponent Ranking Quality Level
Tier 1 1-35 Elite opponents - wins significantly boost playoff resume
Tier 2 36-70 Good opponents - wins strengthen playoff case
Tier 3 71-105 Average to below-average opponents
Tier 4 106+ and all non-FBS Weak opponents - losses severely damage playoff case

How Tiers Work

  • Tier 1 wins are the holy grail: Defeating top-35 opponents significantly strengthens a team's playoff case. These are resume-defining victories
  • Tier 2 wins demonstrate quality: While not as impressive as Tier 1 wins, defeating teams ranked 36-70 shows a team can compete against solid competition
  • Tier 3 losses aren't terrible: Losing to average teams (71-105) isn't ideal but doesn't severely damage playoff hopes if balanced with quality wins
  • Tier 4 losses are devastating: Losing to teams ranked 106+ or to non-FBS opponents can eliminate playoff chances, especially if the team lacks Tier 1 and Tier 2 wins

Dynamic Tier Adjustments

Opponent tiers change every week as teams' rankings fluctuate. A win over a team initially ranked #25 (Tier 1) might become a Tier 2 win if that opponent falls to #45 later in the season. Conversely, a loss to a team initially ranked #110 (Tier 4) might improve to a Tier 3 loss if that opponent surges to #85.

Teams won't know their true tier wins and losses until the conclusion of the regular season. This prevents teams from claiming victories over "top 25 teams" when those opponents finish with losing records. What matters is opponent quality at season's end (especially when it comes time to evaluate how teams do vs playoff-bound competition), not at the time the game was played.

Exception for Neutral Site Rivalry Games: For teams that always play one of their rivalry games on a neutral site (such as the Red River Showdown between Oklahoma and Texas, or the Florida-Georgia rivalry in Jacksonville), these games count as road or home wins depending on who the designated home and visiting teams are for that particular season.

Tier Evaluation Sources

Tiers are determined based on the average rankings from:

  • Bill Connelly's SP+ Football Ratings
  • Anderson & Hester
  • Billingsley
  • Colley Matrix
  • Massey Ratings
  • Sagarin Ratings
  • Wolfe Ratings
  • Playoff Evaluation Tool (PET) rankings

Playoff Evaluation Tool (PET)

The Playoff Evaluation Tool (PET) is one of the main resources for selecting and seeding the FBS playoff field. PET works similarly to the NET rankings in college basketball, taking into account Strength of Schedule (SOS), Net Efficiency, and Winning Percentage.

Strength of Schedule (SOS)

Strength of Schedule determines how each team's opponents perform based on their wins and losses. SOS is critically important because not all regular season schedules are created equal. The SOS formula considers only games against FBS opponents.

FBS Strength of Schedule Formula:

FBS Strength of Schedule = (FBS Total Wins) / (Total Games Played)²

FBS Total Wins Formula:

FBS Total Wins = Total Winning FBS Opponent Percentage × (Games Played vs FBS Teams)²

Total Winning FBS Opponent Percentage Formula:

Total Winning FBS Opp. Percentage = (Total FBS Opponent Wins) / (Total FBS Opponent Wins + Total FBS Opponent Losses)

Why This Formula Works:

The formula adjusts for schedules that don't contain all FBS opponents. If a team plays one or more non-FBS opponents, the (Games Played vs FBS Teams)² factor normalizes the total wins of FBS opponents. This prevents teams from inflating their SOS by playing weak FCS opponents.

Example 1: Team with 1 FCS Opponent

A team plays 11 FBS opponents (each playing 12-game schedules) and 1 FCS opponent. The 11 FBS opponents have a combined 58 wins.

Total FBS Opponent Wins + Losses = 11 × 12 = 132
Total Winning FBS Opponent Percentage = 58 / 132 ≈ 0.439
FBS Total Wins = 0.439 × (11)² = 0.439 × 121 ≈ 53.2
FBS Strength of Schedule = 53.2 / (12)² = 53.2 / 144 ≈ 0.369

Example 2: Team with 2 FCS Opponents

A team plays 10 FBS opponents (each playing 12-game schedules) and 2 FCS opponents. The 10 FBS opponents have a combined 50 wins.

Total FBS Opponent Wins + Losses = 10 × 12 = 120
Total Winning FBS Opponent Percentage = 50 / 120 ≈ 0.417
FBS Total Wins = 0.417 × (10)² = 0.417 × 100 ≈ 41.7
FBS Strength of Schedule = 41.7 / (12)² = 41.7 / 144 ≈ 0.289

Example 3: Team with All-FBS Schedule

A team plays 12 FBS opponents (each playing 12-game schedules). The 12 FBS opponents have a combined 78 wins.

Total FBS Opponent Wins + Losses = 12 × 12 = 144
Total Winning FBS Opponent Percentage = 78 / 144 ≈ 0.542
FBS Total Wins = 0.542 × (12)² = 0.542 × 144 ≈ 78
FBS Strength of Schedule = 78 / (12)² = 78 / 144 ≈ 0.542

Key Insight: Playing FCS opponents significantly lowers SOS. Example 2 (SOS = 0.289) has a much weaker schedule than Example 3 (SOS = 0.542) despite both teams playing 12 games. The all-FBS schedule is rewarded appropriately.

Net Efficiency

Net Efficiency measures how effectively a team performs on offense, defense, and special teams. It uses efficiency (points per possession) rather than total points to account for different game paces and possession counts.

Overall Net Efficiency Formula:

Net Efficiency = Net Offensive Efficiency + Net Special Teams Efficiency - Net Defensive Efficiency

Net Offensive Efficiency Formula:

Net Offensive Efficiency = (Total Team Points) / (Total Team Possessions)

Where Total Team Possessions = Touchdown-Ending Possessions + Turnover-Ending Possessions + Special Team-Ending Possessions

Net Defensive Efficiency Formula:

Net Defensive Efficiency = (Total Opponent Points) / (Total Opponent Possessions)

Where Total Opponent Possessions = Touchdown-Ending Opp. Possessions + Turnover-Ending Opp. Possessions + Special Team-Ending Opp. Possessions

Note: Special team-ending possessions include drives that end in punts or field goal attempts.

Net Special Teams Efficiency Formula:

Net Special Teams Efficiency = Net Offensive Special Teams Efficiency - Net Defensive Special Teams Efficiency

Net Offensive Special Teams Efficiency Formula:

Net Offensive Special Teams Efficiency = (Total Special/Defensive Team Points) / (Total Special Team Possessions)

Net Defensive Special Teams Efficiency Formula:

Net Defensive Special Teams Efficiency = (Total Opp. Special/Defensive Team Points) / (Total Opp. Special Team Possessions)

Total Special Teams Possessions Include:

  • Made extra point or field goal possessions
  • Kickoff or punt return possessions
  • Special teams touchdown possessions
  • Defensive touchdown possessions
  • Blocked/missed field goal or extra point possessions
  • Muffed kickoff or punt possessions
  • Kickoff or punt possessions

Winning Percentage

The simplest metric, but still essential:

Winning Percentage = (Number of Wins) / (Total Games Played)

Note: PET does not utilize scoring margins, margin of victory, average scoring margin, total scoring margins, or Team Value Index. The system focuses on efficiency (how well teams perform per possession) rather than raw point differentials.

Fringe Watch

As the regular season progresses, certain teams become wildcard and fringe contenders. "Fringe Watch" is a projection of FBS teams contending for the last Division I FBS playoff bids. It has a similar meaning to "on the bubble" in college basketball.

To qualify as a fringe contender, FBS teams must:

  • Meet the minimum win requirement for at least fringe contention based on their schedule composition
  • Have a realistic mathematical path to reaching the required win total

Teams fall off the fringe when they:

  • Fail to meet their respective minimum win requirements
  • Lose to multiple Tier 4 opponents
  • Lack any Tier 1 or Tier 2 wins
  • Have too low a strength of schedule combined with too many losses

Selection Criteria for Fringe/Wildcard Contenders

When deciding the final playoff spots among fringe and wildcard contenders, the committee considers:

  • Overall Record: Did the team meet or exceed their category threshold?
  • Strength of Schedule: How difficult was their schedule compared to other contenders?
  • Tier 1 and Tier 2 Wins: How many quality wins does the team have?
  • Tier 3 and Tier 4 Losses: Did the team lose to weak opponents?

How the CFP Can Implement Fringe Watch

The College Football Playoff rankings can utilize this feature in two ways:

  • The bottom five teams of the CFP Top 25 are considered "on fringe watch"
  • The CFP can also release a list of the top ten teams outside the Top 25 (in alphabetical order) that are in contention for an at-large playoff bid

This dual approach provides transparency: teams ranked #21-25 know they're on shaky ground, while teams ranked #26-35 know they're still in the conversation if they finish strong.

Impact on Seeding: When a fringe or wildcard contender makes the playoffs, they typically receive lower seeding and face tougher matchups. A team that barely squeaks into the playoff as the #32 seed will face the #1 seed on the road in the first round—a difficult path to the championship, but still an opportunity to prove themselves.

How the Committee Uses These Resources

The selection committee would create the College Football Playoff (CFP) rankings using a combination of all mentioned resources:

The committee would rank teams from 1-32 for the playoff field, with additional rankings through #40-50 to identify teams in consideration for at-large bids. Alongside the Top 25, the committee would list ten teams outside the Top 25 (in alphabetical order) that are in contention for a playoff spot.

Benefits of This System

This comprehensive evaluation system ensures that the 32-team playoff field is selected based on a combination of objective data and informed judgment, creating a fair and defensible selection process.