As the college football regular season inches toward its conclusion, debates surrounding the College Football Playoff (CFP) reach their annual fever pitch. Fans, analysts, and committee members alike are consumed with parsing resumes, scrutinizing strength of schedule, and dissecting margin of victory. But what are we truly arguing about when it comes to these playoff resumes? What factors genuinely matter, and what aspects are simply distractions—noise masquerading as insight?
These questions go to the heart of how we evaluate risk, reward, and performance in college football, and they highlight the conditional hypotheticals that shape how teams are judged.
At its essence, the argument over CFP resumes is about conflicting philosophies: do we reward teams based purely on what they’ve accomplished on the field (“resume”) or on how good they look based on their talent and potential (“eye test”)?
The resume approach is rooted in tangible metrics—wins, strength of schedule, head-to-head victories, and conference championships. It’s objective and values outcomes over speculation. On the other hand, the eye test asks us to go beyond the numbers, relying on subjective assessments like athleticism, dominance, and hypothetical matchups against other top teams. It assumes we know which teams are “better” even if their records don’t tell the whole story.
This philosophical tension creates endless debates. Consider the case of an undefeated Group of Five team like Tulane versus a one-loss Power Five team like Oregon. Tulane’s resume reflects perfection, while Oregon’s reflects strength of schedule and a single blemish. Which is more deserving? This conundrum underscores the larger question: should the Playoff reward the “best” teams or the “most deserving” ones?
In the chaos of these debates, it’s crucial to separate what genuinely matters from what functions as noise. Here are the key elements worth paying attention to:
- Strength of Schedule (SOS):
SOS is often touted as a critical metric because it reflects the difficulty of a team’s path to success. However, it can be misleading. While playing and beating ranked teams is impressive, the quality of wins often changes as the season progresses—teams initially thought to be strong may falter, weakening the SOS in hindsight. Additionally, SOS can punish teams in weaker conferences, even if they dominate their competition. - Head-to-Head and Common Opponents:
These are some of the most logical ways to compare teams. If two teams have faced the same opponent, the results can offer insights into their relative strengths. Similarly, head-to-head outcomes should weigh heavily—though they’re often downplayed in favor of other metrics. - Game Control and Dominance:
This is where the “eye test” meets tangible performance. Teams that consistently dominate their competition, regardless of opponent strength, make a strong case for their inclusion. A narrow win over a weak opponent or a blowout loss can hurt even the most impressive resumes. - Conference Championships:
Winning a Power Five conference is still seen as a significant achievement, often serving as a tiebreaker in close debates. However, not all conferences are created equal, leading to disputes about the relative difficulty of winning in the SEC versus, say, the Pac-12.
While these factors are substantive, the CFP debate is often drowned out by less meaningful arguments. Here are some of the most common distractions:
- Margin of Victory Against Weak Opponents:
Blowing out an FCS team or a struggling Power Five opponent might pad stats but says little about a team’s playoff viability. Style points against inferior competition can create the illusion of dominance without meaningful context. - Preseason Rankings:
Many debates are influenced by where teams began the season in the polls. These rankings are often arbitrary and fail to account for changes in team performance or injuries. - Hypothetical Matchups:
Arguments about “who would win” between two teams that haven’t played each other often rely on speculation rather than evidence. While fun for fans, these hypotheticals shouldn’t overshadow what teams have actually accomplished. - Historical Bias:
Certain programs, like Alabama or Ohio State, carry the weight of their history in debates. While these schools often perform at an elite level, their past success shouldn’t influence how their current teams are evaluated.
The CFP selection process is inherently about risk assessment. The committee must weigh the risks of excluding a potentially elite team (e.g., a one-loss Alabama) versus including a team with a lesser pedigree but a perfect record (e.g., a Cincinnati from 2021).
Conditional hypotheticals dominate these debates. For example, would Team A perform better than Team B in the Playoff, even if Team A has a worse record? Would an undefeated non-Power Five team stand a chance against an SEC powerhouse? These questions highlight the tension between meritocracy and entertainment value.
Ultimately, the arguments over CFP resumes boil down to one question: do we value what teams have done or what we think they’re capable of doing? While the eye test and hypotheticals are unavoidable parts of the debate, the selection process should prioritize results over speculation.
By focusing on tangible metrics like strength of schedule, head-to-head outcomes, and conference championships—and minimizing distractions like preseason rankings and historical bias—the CFP can maintain its credibility and integrity. In the end, the goal is to crown a champion based on performance, not perception.