The College Football Playoff bubble is looking crowded. How much movement will there be in Tuesday’s selection committee Top 25?
Today’s the final Tuesday of the college football regular season, which means the College Football Playoff selection committee will be releasing another Top 25 — and we’re one step closer to the rankings that matter most on Dec. 7. So what will the rankings look like Tuesday night (7 ET, ESPN)?
I’m here again to do my best at projecting what the committee is going to do, using my Playoff projections model, after a chalky weekend across college football.
Advertisement
Last week, the committee went against my formula and gave edges to Notre Dame over Alabama and Texas over Michigan. After drubbing Syracuse, Notre Dame moved ahead of Alabama in my projections, so I assume they’ll be in agreement with the committee this week. Michigan, however, stays ahead of Texas in my model before its showdown with top-ranked Ohio State.
Overall, I had my worst week when it comes to projecting the committee’s rankings, especially because I missed the top Group of 5 pick (I had North Texas; the committee had Tulane). Back to the drawing board this week.
Here’s what my model thinks will happen in the Nov. 25 rankings:
Projected CFP Top 25 after Week 13
|
Rank |
Team |
Record |
SOR |
SOS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
11-0 |
3 |
75 |
|
|
2 |
11-0 |
2 |
45 |
|
|
3 |
11-0 |
1 |
16 |
|
|
4 |
10-1 |
4 |
22 |
|
|
5 |
10-1 |
8 |
48 |
|
|
6 |
10-1 |
7 |
49 |
|
|
7 |
10-1 |
6 |
27 |
|
|
8 |
9-2 |
10 |
12 |
|
|
9 |
9-2 |
11 |
35 |
|
|
10 |
9-2 |
9 |
14 |
|
|
11 |
10-1 |
5 |
29 |
|
|
12 |
9-2 |
12 |
21 |
|
|
13 |
9-2 |
15 |
51 |
|
|
14 |
9-2 |
13 |
40 |
|
|
15 |
9-2 |
14 |
50 |
|
|
16 |
8-3 |
22 |
5 |
|
|
17 |
8-3 |
20 |
24 |
|
|
18 |
9-2 |
18 |
77 |
|
|
19 |
8-3 |
21 |
28 |
|
|
20 |
10-1 |
30 |
119 |
|
|
21 |
9-2 |
17 |
78 |
|
|
22 |
10-1 |
32 |
120 |
|
|
23 |
9-2 |
16 |
72 |
|
|
24 |
8-3 |
26 |
66 |
|
|
25 |
8-3 |
25 |
62 |
Next five: Arizona State, Arizona, Washington, Navy, Missouri
Strength of record and strength of schedule rankings are based on The Athletic’s model
Biggest questions: Will Miami or Vanderbilt move up? What about Texas and Michigan?
The bubble is crowded, and some teams likely will feel snubbed come selection day
My projections have Vanderbilt (ranked 14th last week) with a better resume than Miami (13th), and both were behind Utah (12th) last week. Miami took care of Virginia Tech on the road 34-17 and Vanderbilt comfortably disposed of Kentucky 45-17. Meanwhile, Utah gave up 472 rushing yards and needed a dramatic comeback to beat Kansas State as a big favorite in the final minute on Saturday.
Will that be enough for the committee to make a move here? Vanderbilt can’t win the SEC championship, so beating Tennessee on Saturday and moving up to get an at-large bid is its only path to the Playoff. Miami still has an outside chance (merely 4 percent in my model) to win the ACC title, but it likely needs an at-large bid as well.
Again, a lot of things can happen on the final weekend of the regular season, and Miami beating Pitt and Vanderbilt beating Tennessee on the road Saturday may not be enough. If they want more comfort heading into the final weekend, they’d like the committee to give them a boost after this week’s performances.
Advertisement
Personally, I think a win at Tennessee gives Vanderbilt the best resume of all three, but the committee has been lower on the Commodores than me.
Bubble
`:E:”—”)(d.bracket_seed),one_week_change:g,colors:{…d.colors,one_week_change:k},colors_dark:{…d.colors_dark,one_week_change:y},display:{…d.display,one_week_change:v},is_elim:!1}});const u=[o,{col:”bracket_seed”,th_content:”PROJ. SEED”,td_class:”center”},…Io([{col:”make_playoffs”,th_content:”MAKE
PLAYOFF”}]),{col:”one_week_change”,th_content:”1-WEEK
CHANGE”,td_class:”center bold”,td_component_name:”Circle”}];return e.$$set=d=>{“confForecast”in d&&n(3,r=d.confForecast),”confLastForecast”in d&&n(4,i=d.confLastForecast)},[s,f,u,r,i]}class xf extends Re{constructor(t){super(),Se(this,t,Ef,Tf,Ie,{confForecast:3,confLastForecast:4})}}function Mf(e){let t,n;return t=new xf({props:{confForecast:e[2],confLastForecast:e[3]}}),{c(){yt(t.$$.fragment)},m(r,i){at(t,r,i),n=!0},p:ee,i(r){n||(ae(t.$$.fragment,r),n=!0)},o(r){be(t.$$.fragment,r),n=!1},d(r){lt(t,r)}}}function Cf(e){let t,n;return t=new wf({props:{confForecast:e[2],confLastForecast:e[3],conference:Ve(e[1])}}),{c(){yt(t.$$.fragment)},m(r,i){at(t,r,i),n=!0},p(r,i){const o={};i&2&&(o.conference=Ve(r[1])),t.$set(o)},i(r){n||(ae(t.$$.fragment,r),n=!0)},o(r){be(t.$$.fragment,r),n=!1},d(r){lt(t,r)}}}function Nf(e){let t,n,r,i=e[6][e[7]]+””,o,s,a,l,f,u,d,p,g,k;const y=[Cf,Mf],v=[];function b(E,R){return E[0]===”confOdds”?0:E[0]===”playoffOdds”?1:-1}return~(a=b(e))&&(l=v[a]=y[a](e)),{c(){t=U(“main”),n=U(“div”),r=U(“h2”),o=ue(),s=U(“div”),l&&l.c(),f=ue(),u=U(“div”),d=U(“p”),d.textContent=`As of ${e[4].toLocaleDateString(“en-us”,e[5])}`,p=ue(),g=U(“a”),g.innerHTML=’See the full CFP projections ‘,A(r,”class”,”svelte-5l5omq”),A(s,”class”,”table-container center-content svelte-5l5omq”),A(d,”class”,”last-updated svelte-5l5omq”),A(g,”href”,”https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/article/6560541/”),A(g,”class”,”svelte-5l5omq”),A(u,”class”,”recirc-button svelte-5l5omq”),A(n,”class”,”recirc-container center-content graphics-container-impressions svelte-5l5omq”),A(n,”data-module-label”,”ncaaf_forecast”),A(n,”data-module-type”,”conference”),A(n,”data-module-id”,e[1]),A(n,”data-module-context”,e[0]),A(t,”class”,”app-wrapper center-content svelte-5l5omq”)},m(E,R){J(E,t,R),q(t,n),q(n,r),r.innerHTML=i,q(n,o),q(n,s),~a&&v[a].m(s,null),q(n,f),q(n,u),q(u,d),q(u,p),q(u,g),k=!0},p(E,[R]){let j=a;a=b(E),a===j?~a&&v[a].p(E,R):(l&&(En(),be(v[j],1,1,()=>{v[j]=null}),xn()),~a?(l=v[a],l?l.p(E,R):(l=v[a]=y[a](E),l.c()),ae(l,1),l.m(s,null)):l=null),(!k||R&2)&&A(n,”data-module-id”,E[1]),(!k||R&1)&&A(n,”data-module-context”,E[0])},i(E){k||(ae(l),k=!0)},o(E){be(l),k=!1},d(E){E&&Z(t),~a&&v[a].d()}}}function Af(e,t,n){var v,b;let{data:r}=t,{teamsData:i}=t,{recircType:o}=t,{conference:s}=t,a=Xc(r,i.teamsv2),l=(v=a[0])==null?void 0:v.forecast,f=(b=a[1])==null?void 0:b.forecast;const u=l.filter(E=>E.conference===Ve(s)),d=f==null?void 0:f.filter(E=>E.conference===Ve(s));let p=new Date(u[0].last_updated);const g={year:”numeric”,month:”short”,day:”numeric”},k={confOdds:`Austin Mock’s favorites to win the ${Ve(s)}`,playoffOdds:`Austin Mock’s CFP favorites from the ${Ve(s)}`},y=o;return e.$$set=E=>{“data”in E&&n(8,r=E.data),”teamsData”in E&&n(9,i=E.teamsData),”recircType”in E&&n(0,o=E.recircType),”conference”in E&&n(1,s=E.conference)},[o,s,u,d,p,g,k,y,r,i]}class Of extends Re{constructor(t){super(),Se(this,t,Af,Nf,Ie,{data:8,teamsData:9,recircType:0,conference:1})}}new Of({target:document.getElementById(“graphics-app-playoffOdds-SEC”),props:{data:JSON.parse(document.getElementById(“graphics-data-playoffOdds-SEC”).textContent),teamsData:JSON.parse(document.getElementById(“graphics-teamsData-playoffOdds-SEC”).textContent),recircType:JSON.parse(document.getElementById(“graphics-recircType-playoffOdds-SEC”).textContent),conference:JSON.parse(document.getElementById(“graphics-conference-playoffOdds-SEC”).textContent)}});
Beyond that trio, Texas and Michigan are lurking ahead of huge Rivalry Week games. Texas (17th) got the nod over Michigan (18th) last week, and both could move up a couple of spots on Tuesday after USC and Georgia Tech lost in Week 13.
Texas hosts No. 3 Texas A&M on Friday night, and Michigan hosts No. 1 Ohio State on Saturday. A win for either could be resume-changing. Could they make the jump above those three aforementioned teams? I’m not sure — Texas has three losses but did beat Vanderbilt — but the margins are going to be razor thin. Of course, there is a world where Michigan can still win the Big Ten if it beats Ohio State, but if it’s in need of an at-large bid, how these five teams are ranked this week will be important to watch.
Source: Utah News
