Schedule strength. Schedule strength. Please stop what you’re doing and pay attention to our schedule strength. That’s been the mantra for most of the past year from SEC coaches, athletic directors, the commissioner and the various members of the league’s industrial media complex.
This was the call to arms after the deepest conference in college football — self-proclaimed but with justification — got only three teams in the inaugural 12-team College Football Playoff. The lobbying first paid off when the CFP agreed in August to tweak one of its schedule strength metrics. It appeared to pay off even more Tuesday night, when the first CFP rankings of the season put six teams in the top 12.
Six! Half the field! OK, never mind that it would only be four, because the ACC and Group of 5 bids would come from outside the top 12. Four is still better than three, and with nine teams in the top 25, the SEC is in a great position to have five teams in the final field. So all the lobbying worked, right?
As good an angle as that may be, the reality is more boring: The SEC is in better shape because it’s better this year.
It did better in nonconference play — 11-3 against power conference teams and Notre Dame (shoutout to Texas A&M) versus 10-7 at the same point last year.
And though the SEC may not have the standard-bearer, national title favorite (shoutout to preseason No. 1 Texas), its better teams are avoiding bad losses and hanging around playoff contention. Even on that account, however, the improvement over last year is fairly slight.
Here are the ranks of SEC teams in the first CFP rankings of the past couple of years:
This year: 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 16, 22, 25
Last year: 3, 5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, 24
The only real difference is that there is one more team in the top seven. Or one more in the top six — however you want to do it. It’s only one more ranked team (nine versus eight last year), and a look at the state of the ranked teams at the same point in 2024 is fairly similar.
A year ago, No. 3 Georgia, No. 5 Texas and No. 7 Tennessee were all 7-1. Those were the three that eventually made the field. There were six SEC teams with two losses, and unranked South Carolina had three. Then-No. 11 Alabama would have made the field, but it lost at Oklahoma, convincingly. Then-No. 16 Ole Miss would have made it, but it lost at Florida. Those two plus South Carolina ended up being the first three out — of the entire field, not just among SEC teams — and the cause celebre of SEC people, who argued the depth of the conference wasn’t taken enough into account.
Greg Sankey, it should be noted, wasn’t one of those voices in the immediate aftermath of last year’s selection. He wasn’t on ESPN complaining. But he did take the lead when pushed by those within his conference.
“How will a 9-3 SEC team be evaluated against others who may have one or two losses?” Sankey said at the SEC spring meetings in May. “The rigor of this schedule is unique, and it stands alone by comparison. How is that best respected in this national evaluation system?”
And so Sankey issued handouts to media members — literal handouts to those in the room — containing data on where the SEC was collectively ranked in various computer rankings. Eventually, the CFP committee accepted the pitch and tweaked its formula on strength of schedule. Selection committee chairman Mack Rhoades, the Baylor athletic director, summed it up Tuesday as putting “more weight on the stronger teams.”
But Rhoades also didn’t make it sound like it was some grand remaking of the thought process. Perhaps it will emerge as a vital metric. There are five more weeks of games. But for now, it still appears the committee is taking the easy way out: ranking by the least number of losses, generally with only a few exceptions, the same thing the SEC was so critical of last year. However, this time it might benefit the conference because it’s doing better.
So the question is whether it will hold up. The answer is that if the teams doing well don’t slip up, the SEC should do well.
Remaining games among ranked teams
3. Texas A&M (8-0): at Missouri, South Carolina, Samford, at Texas
4. Alabama (7-1): LSU, Oklahoma, Eastern Illinois, at Auburn
5. Georgia (7-1): at Mississippi State, Texas, Charlotte, Georgia Tech
6. Ole Miss (7-1): The Citadel, Florida, at Mississippi State
11. Texas (7-2): at Georgia, Arkansas, Texas A&M
12. Oklahoma (7-2): at Alabama, Missouri, LSU
16. Vanderbilt (7-2): Auburn, Kentucky, at Tennessee
22. Missouri (6-2): Texas A&M, Mississippi State, at Oklahoma, at Arkansas
25. Tennessee (6-3): New Mexico State, at Florida, Vanderbilt
Only six games remain among them: Texas A&M at Texas, Texas at Georgia, Oklahoma at Alabama, Oklahoma at Missouri, Texas A&M at Missouri, and Tennessee at Vanderbilt. But only two of those — Oklahoma-Missouri and Tennessee-Vanderbilt — match teams that already have at least two losses.
The four top teams look to be in great shape, especially Texas A&M, Alabama and Ole Miss, considering their schedules. Georgia has some tough games but can afford one loss. Then, the question is whether one of the teams outside the top 10 can squeak in, and Texas at No. 11 despite its lackluster season is a good sign.
That also points to the difference for the SEC this year. Texas needed overtime to beat Kentucky and Mississippi State, but it did win. Georgia has had to come from behind in five of its wins, but it did win. Oklahoma, Vanderbilt and Missouri have little margin for error, but they can win out and have a great case.
Yes, the SEC spent the last nine months complaining and lobbying. But it’s in great shape for this year’s CFP, not because of that complaining but because it did two things: won nonconference games and avoided bad losses.
But there’s one more month. More chances for bad losses. More nonconference games. It looks good for the SEC right now. But it’s not quite over.
