Strength of schedule to have more weight.

CFP selection committee to use enhanced metrics - ESPN

Of course, this still favors the SEC since they have more teams starting in the top 25. Would be better if they waited until Nov 4th to use that top 25.

All SoS and SoR metrics are biased. It is unfortunate, but that is just how they work. If they are going to use these metrics, they should use more than one to try and thin out the biases.

This will be helpful for teams to schedule better teams, maybe help push the SEC to 9 conference games. But it's why I hate preseason prejudicial rankings. They influence mid-season rankings and make some teams look better for early wins, or now losses.

Probably impossible not to have biases in the current system when a league (CFB in this case) has 136 teams in 10 conferences. We don’t even really have a balanced schedule within the B1G, let alone across CFB.

Seems like we’ve gone full circle from BCS computers being the answer, to computers are evil, and now back to needing “unbiased” strength of schedule that throws out those pesky humans.

My take on current reality? Be in a power-2 conference and win 10 games, or else win 11+ if you want some playoff expectations. Otherwise don’t have playoff expectations.

2 hours ago, Tandaian said:

All SoS and SoR metrics are biased. It is unfortunate, but that is just how they work. If they are going to use these metrics, they should use more than one to try and thin out the biases.

Preseason SOS is guess work. The SOR ranking on 12/7/25, will be based on the PO Committee's final ranking.

The SOR is all good IF the metric is truly unbiased. Anything out of ESecPN is suspect. Any metric the committee uses should be disclosed, including the programmer and the factors used by the metric.

This sounds good in theory, but how does the metric rate a loss in the G5 compared to a loss in the Power 2?

The committee's process being opaque and its subjectivity are one reason I like the B1G's 16-team, automatic qualifier proposal. Please explain how, in Hades, a G5 team with zero wins against the P4 was the ninth-best team in 2024?

It looks like the metric could be akin to the CBB committee's Quad System? If so, and administered properly, including disclosing the results along with a weekly ranking, this could be good for CFB.

If the SEC is behind this and uses it to stay at 8 conference games, we all better Duck.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/explaining-the-college-football-playoffs-new-strength-of-schedule-metric-and-the-secs-campaign-behind-it/

Hopefully, this won't mean much if anything, on CFB PO judgement day, 12/7/25, but here's a preseason SOS ranking.

FanSided

College football rankings by initial strength of schedule

With the 2025 college football season kicking off this weekend with some Week 0 action, now is the perfect time to be reminded of this new wrinkle being inserte

The CBB Tournament Committee updates its Quad team records and wins and losses based on which quad an opponent is ranked almost daily during the season.

For the sake of every team outside of the SEC, the CFB PO Committee had best do the same. As of today, the FPI has 15 SEC teams ranked in its top 25, and the above ranking uses this FPI tripe.

If the FPI is the metric the CFB PO committee plans on using, Tony Petitti had best have a Restraining Order at hand.

Georgia's 'Dawn of the Dawg' is on board with the metric's use, mainly benefiting the SEC.

Greg Sankey's propaganda and ESPN's broadcast money appear to be paying off.

The metrics the committee intends to use for SOS and Sor should be disclosed and commented on before being adopted by the PO committee.

Dawn of the Dawg

Georgia owes the College Football Playoff committee a big...

The College Football Playoff committee did not have very many fans at the conclusion of the 2024 season. This was especially the case from fans of the SEC as ma