The College Football Playoff (CFP) Selection Committee is facing significant backlash after its recent ranking of Ohio State, following Michigan’s upset victory over the Buckeyes in the highly anticipated rivalry game. Despite Michigan’s dominant performance, which handed Ohio State its first loss of the season, the committee chose to rank Ohio State higher than expected in its latest playoff standings.
Many critics argue that the ranking appears to undervalue Michigan’s triumph and overrate Ohio State’s overall resume. Michigan, now with one loss, had convincingly beaten Ohio State, yet the committee kept the Buckeyes in the top four, sparking frustration among fans and analysts alike. Some contend that the committee’s rankings appear inconsistent, as they seem to place undue emphasis on Ohio State’s overall strength of schedule and past achievements, rather than their recent performance and head-to-head result.
Ohio State’s ranking, despite losing to Michigan, further fuels the debate over the criteria the CFP Selection Committee uses when determining rankings. Critics point out that a team’s recent form—especially in critical rivalry games—should weigh more heavily than factors like prior rankings or overall wins. Many feel that Michigan’s upset should have catapulted them into a higher spot, perhaps even securing a berth in the top four, while Ohio State should have dropped further down due to the loss.
The controversy highlights the ongoing tensions surrounding the CFP system, with many calling for more transparency and consistency in the committee’s decision-making process. As the season nears its conclusion, the debate is intensifying over how the committee handles head-to-head results versus subjective criteria like strength of schedule and past performance, especially when determining playoff spots for such high-stakes games.