If it’s November, BYU must be getting hosed.
That’s the prevailing sentiment in Provo and every nook and cranny of Cougar fandom: The College Football Playoff selection committee hates BYU.
It hated the Cougars last year, when they were the lowest-ranked two-loss team from a power conference, and it clearly, indisputably hates the Cougars this year:
In the CFP rankings released Tuesday, BYU was No. 11 — the lowest-ranked one-loss team and, in fact, the only one-loss team outside the top 10.
The Hotline is not here to condone the committee’s process, which is highly flawed, or to justify the way BYU (10-1) is being treated.
We’re here to explain it, as best possible, using 12 years of close observation.
Our modus comprehendi includes 1) thorough readings of the committee chair’s transcripts that are provided each week following his teleconference with reporters, 2) discussions with former committee members and 3) numerous background interviews with industry sources who have been briefed on committee machinations.
But before we start, one nugget of context: No media outlet was more critical of the committee’s treatment of BYU last year than the Hotline.
We devoted several columns to the topic and offered reams of supporting data:
— On Nov. 7, 2024, the Hotline addressed the Big 12’s destiny as a one-bid conference based on BYU’s placement in the initial rankings and noted:
“Brigham Young (8-0) has two wins over ranked opponents (SMU and Kansas State), yet the ninth-ranked Cougars are five spots behind Miami (9-0), which has one win over a ranked opponent, and four spots behind Texas (7-1), which has zero wins over ranked opponents.”
— On Nov. 20, we published a column titled “Holy Score: BYU is getting a raw deal from the CFP selection committee and we have the facts to prove it.”
The column wasn’t entirely data-driven; there was a morsel of opinion mixed in: “We chuckled at the sight of the Cougars being slotted behind SMU — the situation is pure comedy.”
— On Dec. 5, we examined how BYU’s fate in the CFP rankings — in particular, its placement relative to SMU — should prompt the Big 12 to reassess its strategy:
“The Big 12 contender with the best strength-of-schedule and the best strength-of-record and the best victory over a Power Four opponent and the best overall resume in the conference isn’t even playing for the Big 12 championship.”
Put another way: We are assessing the committee’s treatment of BYU this season from the perspective of having skewered the committee for BYU’s placement last season.
And in full candor, the Hotline doesn’t view the situations as identical. The treatment last year was worse.
Granted, the Cougars aren’t receiving an entirely fair shake in the rankings this fall, but the situation isn’t as egregious as it was in 2024 for one reason: There is no equivalent to the SMU result. BYU isn’t 10 spots behind a team it beat head-to-head on the road.
To this point, the Cougars are winless against the 10 teams slotted above them Tuesday evening. They have played one, Texas Tech, and lost badly.
In fact, the outcome of the Nov. 8 collision in Lubbock is vastly more damaging to BYU than fans realize.
Let’s attempt to consider the situation from the committee’s perspective.
The Texas Tech showdown took place just four days after the initial rankings were released — rankings that placed the undefeated Cougars in the seventh position, one spot ahead of the one-loss Red Raiders.
At the time, BYU was the lowest-ranked undefeated team from a power conference but had played a fairly weak schedule, with one win over a Top 25 opponent.
The chance to assess the Cougars and Red Raiders directly was ideal for the committee, which could judge which team was the best in the Big 12 and whether either, or both — or neither — might be worthy of an at-large berth on selection day (Dec. 7).
And the Cougars failed miserably.
They were completely overpowered in the 29-7 loss that could have been far worse if the Red Raiders had stayed on the gas in the fourth quarter.
The Cougars didn’t look like they belonged on the same field as Texas Tech.
Even worse, they didn’t look like they belonged in the playoff.
This committee cares deeply about the visuals. That became evident with the initial rankings (Nov. 4), when chair Mack Rhoades, who has since stepped down, was asked the following:
How much do “the eye test and the things that you guys see and believe while watching the games take weight in comparison to the actual data?”
Rhoades’ response:
“We refer to it as art and science. I think the art is watching the team on film and tape and how good they are, how physical they are up front, offensive line, defensive line play, how good are they up the middle, their quarterback play, their skill players, and then certainly contemplating and looking at metrics.”
And in case there was any doubt about the importance of one specific metric, margin-of-defeat, CFP executive director Rich Clark addressed that very topic with reporters this week.
“There’s a difference when a team gets beat 70-7 versus a team that gets beat by a walk-off field goal,” Clark said Tuesday evening in response to a generic question about the margin-of-defeat factor.
“There’s always an assessment of how well they played in the game, and if they do lose, how badly did they lose? Were they competitive in the game or were they not? I would say that it’s a factor.”
BYU lost badly.
BYU was not competitive.
So yes, that performance had a greater impact on BYU’s profile than a single loss, especially for a committee that clearly leans into the eye test.
Now, outraged fans are surely aware that the team ranked one spot above the Cougars, Alabama, opened the season with a loss to Florida State, which is currently 5-6 and closer to the bottom of the ACC than the top.
It’s a bad loss for the Crimson Tide that’s getting worse by the week.
But Alabama has a stronger collection of wins than BYU, including a road victory over a top-five team (Georgia) and three victories over ranked opponents (No. 4 Georgia, No. 14 Vanderbilt and No. 19 Tennessee), whereas BYU has just two (No. 13 Utah and No. 25 Arizona).
What’s more, Alabama has a significantly stronger strength-of-schedule than BYU, while BYU has a slightly better strength-of-record.
In other words, the respective resumes and eye tests are close, which is reflected in the one-spot disparity in ranking.
And guess where the current cutoff line is positioned? Between Alabama and BYU. If the CFP began today, the Crimson Tide would be the last team in and the Cougars would be the last team out.
We’ll say it again: BYU did not look like a playoff team in the biggest game of its season. It wasn’t just a loss. It was a you-don’t-belong-in-our-club loss.
And that isn’t going to change, folks.
Barring absolute mayhem, BYU’s only path into the CFP is through the Big 12 championship: Handle UCF this week, take down Texas Tech in a rematch in Arlington next week and claim the automatic bid that accompanies the trophy.
The at-large path appears blocked for BYU, and that has been the case for two weeks.
Is the process more subjective than it should be? Yep.
Do committee members make it up as they go along? Absolutely.
Does brand bias exist in the selection process, favoring the SEC and Big Ten? No question.
It’s a flawed system, and BYU once again has been left with the short straw.
But if you’re attempting to parse injustices, the Hotline would argue the committee’s treatment of the Cougars was more egregious last season, when a head-to-head road win seemed to count for nothing, than this season, when a head-to-head road loss appears to count for everything.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716
*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline