CFP committee adds strength of conference metric to selection process

The College Football Playoff selection committee will incorporate a new data point in late November to help determine the strength of each conference based on the schedule strength of each team in its league. ESPN reporter Heather Dinich announced the development on X, stating that the metric is designed to assist in separating teams within the same league that hold similar records. The committee intends to use this new measure to evaluate how tough league opponents were for teams with comparable records in different conferences.

The addition of this metric addresses a long-standing criticism regarding the opacity of the committee's evaluation tools. For years, committee members have spoken about incorporating strength of schedule and resume into their deliberations and their top 25 poll, but there has been little transparency as to how they determine those factors. The new strength of conference data point is intended to provide a clearer method for distinguishing between programs that have faced different levels of competition within their respective leagues.

Dinich noted that the metric will help separate teams in the same league with similar records based on the strength of their conference opponents. She cited an example where Penn State does not play Oregon, Ohio State, or Indiana, illustrating how intra-league scheduling can create disparities in competitive exposure. The data will also help separate teams with comparable records in different conferences based on how difficult their league opponents were.

The decision to add this metric comes amid ongoing debate over the criteria used to select the 12 teams that reach the playoffs. Playoff appearances have become the ultimate sign of success or failure for a program's season, influencing coaching changes and conference bragging rights. With competing priorities at play, the committee's choices inevitably lead to disagreement and debate among fans, coaches, and institutions. There will always be a 13th best team in the country, or a Power 4 school that feels it missed out to allow a Group of 6 school to reach the tournament.

Critics argue that the rankings are based on human evaluation, which can introduce bias and individual priorities. The lack of transparency in how strength of schedule and resume are currently determined has frustrated many observers who prefer objective, analytics-based systems. Some fans rely on wins and losses or head-to-head matchups, while others use ranked wins, though those can be misleading depending on when the games occur. For instance, Texas A&M may count as a ranked win for LSU even if the Aggies are not considered a top 25 team. Others prefer analytics-based systems that aim to remove bias and evaluate teams objectively.

The committee's new approach seeks to limit the importance of campaigning and the AP Poll by combining metrics to find the best teams that fit specific criteria. However, questions remain about how the committee will evaluate which teams have faced the strongest conference opponents. It is unclear whether they will use win-loss records, AP Top 25 poll appearances, or computer analytics to determine these rankings. The outcome of this new metric will be evident in a few months, followed by continued argument over its application.