CFP rankings Anger Index: Who must be most upset with
- Hale, ESPN Staff WriterOct 31, 2023,
- 08:12 PM ET Close ACC reporter.Joined ESPN in 2012.
- Graduate of the University of Delaware.The 2023 season has currently enjoyed its share of outrage, from Ryan Day’s fight with Lou Holtz to Dabo Swinney’s lecture to a radio program caller, but Tuesday marks the main start of outrage season.Yes, the first concern of the College Football Playoff rankings is to determine which groups are best placed to make a run at a championship game. But just somewhat lesser is the giant tub of gas the rankings undoubtedly throw on the simmering fires of fan anger.Throughout the final weeks of each season of the four-team playoff, we’ve reenacted some variation of the same drama.Step 1:
Rankings are released.Step 2: Everybody gets mad.Step 3: The bad sap chosen to head the committee– in this case, NC State AD Boo Corrigan– needs to try to explain the inexplicable while the country showers him with metaphorical tomatoes.Well, we hear you, and we enjoy to work as your tomato. We can’t alter the committee’s mind but we can supply a soapbox to air your grievances.With that in mind, here’s our very first installation of the 2023 Anger Index, ranking the teams with
the most coherent arguments against their current rankings by those fools in Dallas. The committee rightfully rewarded Ohio State for its 2 marquee wins versus Notre Dame and Penn State, even if the Buckeyes haven’t always looked particularly dominant–
even against the similarity Indiana or Wisconsin. But if the committee was smart enough to worth Ohio State’s strengths rather than focus on nitpicking, why refrain from doing the exact same for FSU?Florida State has a win over No. 14 LSU by 21. Ohio State’s big wins, by the way, are by a combined 11. Florida State likewise has wins over SP +top-30 teams Duke and Clemson. FSU is unbeaten versus the No. 49 schedule(per ESPN Statistics & Info)
and ranks second in strength of record.And yet Georgia (No. 100 schedule, No. 7 strength of record )and Michigan (No. 111 schedule, No. 9 strength of record )both check in higher.We’re open to providing Georgia the benefit of the doubt. The Bulldogs have actually shown they’re postseason behemoths. However Michigan? Even with a complete 23andMe DNA database on every scholarship player, the Wolverines couldn’t surpass TCU.Given that FSU’s remaining schedule isn’t precisely difficult, starting at No. 4 is a potential
warning if the race for the leading 4 gets crowded. FSU is ranked No. 4 in the first CFP rankings of the 2023 season. David Jensen/Icon Sportswire The Irish lag No. 14 LSU, another two-loss group, and, truthfully, it makes no sense.Notre Dame withstood a harsh four-game stretch versus ranked groups.
It came away with wins over Duke and USC, and if it had remembered you can play with 11 guys on defense, it
might well have a win over No. 1 Ohio State. Its two losses are to 2 teams ranked in the top 13, and it
has a dominant win over the Trojans.Are we perhaps holding K-State’s two losses versus the Wildcats because they looked bad at the time? In retrospection, losing on an outrageous late basket to No. 12 Missouri and by eight to No. 22 Oklahoma State does not seem so bad. K-State is a victim of bad vibes more than bad performances.Editor’s Picks 1 Associated A quick comparison of some two-loss teams: Team A
: 3-2 vs. FPI top 40 with an average points margin of 11.4; top 25 in offensive and protective SP+, No. 13 total in SP+T eam B: 3-2 vs. FPI leading 40 with a typical points margin of 3.2; top 5 in offending SP +but 43 in protective SP+, No. 12 general in SP+T eam A, you might have guessed, is Kansas State. Group B is LSU, which checks in 9 areas greater in the
rankings.And don’t even get us began on USC being ranked higher than the Wildcats, too.Here’s a list of the unranked two-loss Power 5 teams: Rutgers,
Iowa, North Carolina and Miami.We can understand the Rutgers snub. The Knights ‘finest wins came early versus Northwestern and Virginia Tech teams that have both vastly improved considering that then.We can understand the Iowa snub.
The committee members likely fell asleep throughout its games.We can even comprehend UNC’s snub, despite its head-to-head win over Miami. The past 2 losses to Virginia and Georgia Tech are inexcusable. Undoubtedly, the committee may be doing UNC a favor. The Heels don’t play well with a little number next to their name.But Miami? With wins over Texas A&M and Clemson? Well, there need to be some authentic outrage here.Oh, not at the committee. We get its choice. We’re simply still fuming over Mario Cristobal’s refusal to kneel against Georgia Tech. If he had, Miami would be 7-1 and likely in the leading 15. JMU can’t seethe at the committee for its unranked status.
This is the outcome of the absurd guideline that requires any group moving from FCS to FBS to serve a two-year”shift” period in which it is disqualified for postseason play.
Frankly, JMU is fortunate it does not have to apply a”trainee” badge on every uniform and stick a” trainee chauffeur “sign on the back of the team bus, too.But while they are not permitted to contend in the postseason quite yet, the Dukes’on-field efficiency would recommend otherwise. Undoubtedly, JMU has a good case as the best group from the so-called Group of 5 and, therefore, would otherwise be in position for a New Year
‘s 6 Bowl– a quote that would net about$4 million for the Sun Belt, by the way.Indeed, there are only 3 Group of 5 teams that presently own multiple victories over FPI top-60 opponents: Tulane, Wyoming and JMU. Only one of those groups is undefeated.JMU likewise owns a roadway win over a Power 5 opponent (Virginia ), has the No. 10 strength of record in the nation(ahead of Oregon, Penn State or Notre Dame)and has
won 11 straight games dating to last year.But hi, if the NCAA says JMU should be ineligible, who are we to argue? It’s not like the NCAA has actually ever gotten something like that incorrect before.