DISCLAIMER: THIS IS POST IS NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT MICHIGAN NOT BEING IN. THIS POST IS CRITICIZING THE RANKINGS AS A WHOLE.
WHY THE CFP RANKINGS SUCK
The CFP Committee has stated that strength of schedule is used to compare teams.
UCF is 8-0 and ranked #18, with a ridiculously easy schedule and only one quality win against Memphis, another team that hasn't played anybody. So clearly a good W/L record is more important in the CFP rankings than quality wins and strength of schedule, right?
The comittee ranks Iowa and Northwestern, both 3-loss teams, #20 and #25 because of their quality wins. So it is apparent that the committee thinks that a team with many losses can be ranked as long as they have enough quality wins, right?
NC State is #23 with two "quality losses", one bad loss, and no quality wins. LSU is #24 with two bad losses, one "quality loss", and one quality win. I've figured it out now. The rankings are just a clusterfuck of bias, hype, and "quality losses", right?
SOME TEAMS LEFT OUT OF THE RANKINGS
USF (8-1): One bad loss, zero quality wins
Arizona (6-3): Two bad losses, one "quality loss", one quality win, and 4-1 in last 5 games with their breakout QB Khalil Tate.
West Virginia (6-3): Three "quality losses", one quality win.
Toledo (8-1): One "quality loss", zero quality wins.
Boise State (7-2): One "quality loss", one bad loss, and one quality win.
Troy (7-2): One "quality loss", one bad loss, and one quality win (vs. LSU)
Michigan (7-2): One "quality loss", one bad loss, and zero quality wins.
It is ridiculous that this comittee follows such an inconsistent system for ranking teams. There should be a detailed step by step process in which a team is given a total amount of points, then the teams are ranked based on point totals. I also think the rankings would make more sense to everyone if the committee ranked teams without watching any games at all.