The Joel Klatt Show: A College Football Podcast - CFP Rankings Reax: TCU moves to 4, Clemson too high at 10?

Episode Date: November 9, 2022

FOX Sports’ lead college football analyst Joel Klatt shares his thoughts on the CFP Committee’s most recent rankings. Joel explains why he is happy the committee decided to put TCU in the fourth spot, but does not understand the committee’s decision to rank USC four spots higher than UCLA. Then, Joel discusses why he believes Clemson is overrated and should not be ranked in the top 10 and closes with an olive branch to the CFP Committee. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Well, Duggan finally gets some time, Gus. And watch, he's trying to attack that zone deep in the right middle of the field. He gets the time, and now he's able to get into that throw, and it's a beautiful route. And there's the completion and the touchdown, and Davis walks in. What's up, everybody, Joel Clatt here? This is the Joel Clatt Show. Cannot wait for another college football playoff rankings reaction show, because here we go. And it's a Wednesday morning, and we got another playoff ranking.

under our belt. So we're going to have some thoughts over it. Obviously, you guys know how I felt last week. And by the way, some of these thoughts will have to do with what happened last week. Okay, so let's get right into it. Okay, first and foremost, folks, if you haven't listened to Monday's show, go back, download the episodes, subscribe to the show, share it with a friend, do all that stuff, rate review. We had some really good stuff on Monday's show, including why I ranked Michigan ahead of Ohio State. So those of you that want to figure that out, go back and listen to that show. But this one is all about the rankings, okay?

No, I'm not talking about the election. I know everyone was watching the election all night on Tuesday night. I was watching the college football playoff rankings, though, because I wanted to see what was going to happen and how this committee would adjust because every committee has a little bit of an adjustment. And from the first rankings to the second rankings, you're always going to get adjustments. So let's see what they gave us, all right?

Let's first kind of check out what they gave us up there in the rankings. First and foremost, we knew Georgia was going to be number one. Okay? So Georgia is clearly number one. And then I moved Michigan ahead of Ohio State, but they didn't, and that's fine. I mean, obviously those two are interchangeable. The big change was TCU at 4. Okay?

So they jump all the way up to up there to 4. Tennessee 5, Oregon 6, LSU 7, USC 8, Bama 9, Clemson, 10. So there's your top 10. By the way, UCLA lands at 12 and Ole Miss is at 11. That's really where I kind of stop and then I get to the rest of the rankings later when I try to see like, okay, how do they justify some of these rankings up at the top based on how their ranking teams at the bottom? I didn't have to get past 12 though for or to land on my initial thought. Okay. And so my initial thought in this addition of the playoff rankings is just kind of a shaking my head type of deal. Like they did it again. And I just, I don't understand how you can sit in that room and have UCLA be four spots behind USC. It just doesn't make much sense to me. So my first takeaway is that USC ranked at eight over UCLA at 12. was wrong.

There's kind of no other way to put it. And I think it's an oversight. Now, they corrected their oversight from a week ago when they put TCU now all the way up at four. But let's just look at this. It's like, I just don't understand. I've done the mock committee. And at the end, you know, you sit there and you look at it

and you look at the entire top 25. And if anyone has an objection, it's kind of like a wedding. It's like, speak now or forever, hold your peace. Like, how does someone not raise their hand and say like, hey, like, we probably should revisit UCLA four spots behind USC, because it doesn't make any sense. I've tried to make it make sense, and it doesn't. They both have the same record, and yet UCLA has two wins over college football playoff ranked teams. USC zero.

So it's like, well, wait a second. How did this happen? And I can't tell you. I literally cannot tell you, there is no data point that I can point to that suggests that USC is four spots ahead of UCLA. Now, if you got into the nitty-gritty and they were right next to each other and you ranked USC ahead of UCLA and you just said, like, I think Caleb Williams is just better. Like, okay, I could kind of like see that.

But four spots? Four spots doesn't make any sense. and there's no rationale to make it make sense. I started with the most obvious, which was that UCLA has two ranked wins. That's two more ranked wins than USC has. They've each taken a loss. And by the way, both of those losses in tough places to play

against very good opponents. But by the committee's own rankings, UCLA's loss better than USC's loss. So like, okay. So then I start looking through like, oh, what does the numbers suggest about these two teams? And what you'll find is they're incredibly similar statistically. You know, there's very few numbers that you can make a case in a strong sense for one over the other. Okay, so there's these two teams that are statistically virtually identical.

Both of them don't play great on defense. They've got good offenses. They've got good quarterbacks. You know, like all of these things. none of it makes any sense. In fact, the only thing that I landed on was really the issue that USC's defense, in a recent issue, is playing much worse over the last three games than what UCLA's is. In fact, in the last three games, USC's defense has given up 524 yards a game and 38 points per game.

So, like, that's a problem. So that's the only like real outlier is you had to take a chunk of the season. look at how they're playing right now, and that actually favors UCLA. And yet UCLA's four spots behind them? Like, wait, why would the committee discount the wins and their own rankings? I could not figure it out. UCLA has two better wins. They have a better loss.

This feels all over again like brand bias. And I know UCLA fans aren't going to want to hear that, but USC kind of carries the day as far as brand goes, right? And I know both of you all are headed. over the Big Ten. But the bottom line for me is that this was a ranking about Lincoln Riley, about perception, about Caleb Williams, and the logo on the side of the helmet. Because there's no number or game or film that you can put on, which would suggest that USC is four spots better than UCLA. So a clear air, like as clear as day. And you've got to correct it. You've got to correct it. Now, from UCLA's standpoint, you probably don't want them to correct this. Because for UCLA,

if you want to get into the playoff, you want as big and bad opponents as you can possibly knock off. So if they overrate a USC at this point or even overrate an Oregon, not suggesting that they are, but I'm just saying that's the potential where you can go and maybe you get a rematch with Oregon in the Pac-12 championship game. You're obviously going to play USC here in a couple of weeks. So from UCLA's perspective, you don't mind this.

All I'm saying from a consistency standpoint is it doesn't, make sense. And I can't make it make sense. So that was my first takeaway. The second takeaway for me is that, hey, how about TCU? They've got the clear path to the playoff now. And they've got thrown all the way up there at number four, which makes me think to myself like, wait, did the committee listen to the podcast?

And I think that they did. I think the committee listened to the podcast. And good on them. Hey, welcome, by the way. And, you know, download the podcast, subscribe to it. it. By the way, if you're on the committee, leave us a review because you're clearly listening, which is phenomenal because we love college football just like you do, and we try to analyze it with clear eyes. What is the Friday night? Like clear eyes, clear hearts or something like that?

I butcher the line, but you get what I'm trying to say. Peer pressure apparently works, and I wasn't the only one. There was a lot of us in the college football media space, those of us that cover the sport that looked at the rankings last week and thought to ourselves, hey, this doesn't make much sense. Kind of like UCLA and USC this week, TCU behind Alabama, behind Clemson, that I was like, wait, what? I'm like, that doesn't, that doesn't make sense. We called them out on it, and they adjusted. There's no other explanation because what they used as their basis for last week's ranking was available to them again. The exact same scenario.

They had an SEC team that took what can only be described as a really good loss in Tennessee at Georgia, number one by a landslide, by the way. It had to be a unanimous number one. They probably moved on from number one quicker than they ever have. Georgia's number one. Bang, great. Okay, now who's number two? Well, let's debate.

You know, and that's where Tennessee loses. And so you've got the one-loss SEC team against a TCU team. And what did TCU do? Well, it's not like they rolled out there and beat like the highest ranked big 12 team. They beat Texas Tech. And Texas Tech had a lead, which is the exact rationale that the committee used last week to say that they weren't good enough to be in the top six or five or four was the fact that, well, they were behind in some games. Well, they were behind last Saturday, too to Texas Tech. So they had the exact same rationale at their fingertips. And I would argue, I really would, that Tennessee has a one loss is a more impressive one loss than what Bama was a week ago. Because remember Bama a week ago, they had the close win against Texas A&M, not a very good team at home. They had the close win against Texas in which Bryce Young had to bail him out late. You know, like Tennessee's been pretty dominant. And then they're the only, they're a one lost team.

They've got wins against Kentucky, LSU, now Alabama. their strength of schedule is second. They've got three wins against the CFP top 25. They're three and one in those games. They lose at Georgia. Nothing to scoff at, which is why the committee put them five, but it's like, well, aren't they better than what Alabama was last week? So again, let's go back to the original point.

I think they listen to the podcast. And good on them. Remember, committee members, love you to leave a review on what we've got going on here at the Joel Clatch Show. Let's move on. Next point. Let's talk about, and I know it seems like I'm beating a dead horse, but there's a larger point to this point, which is Clemson again is overrated. If you look at these rankings with Clemson at 10, they're just not a top 10 team right now. And again, this committee is ranking Clemson based off of the fact that they have been one of the most, along with Alabama, dominant programs in the CFP era.

Now, I've seen a lot of Clemson fans online scoff at the nature like, they've got the crying emoji, and they're like, oh, he's calling us a blue blood. Isn't that little old Clemson is a blue blood? Listen, in the last eight years, Clemson has been a clear number two in all of college football to Alabama. I gave you the numbers, by the way, when was it? On Monday's podcast, let me just revisit these.

I'm just going to go back on my trusty. book right here. Okay, just go back in my trusty book. Alabama and Clemson, 13 of 32 spots overall in the eight years of the CFP. That's 41% of playoff participation points, if you want to call them that. That's kind of a weird way. Of participants, there we go. Ten of 16 championship game participants. That's 63%. And five of eight titles between those two teams, Alabama and Clemson. Clemson, Six of eight playoff appearances. So yes, if you take a look at this sliver of history, this snapshot of history, guess what Clemson is? A blue blood.

They are at the top end of college football. And this committee is ranking them as if they're one of those teams. But the problem is they're not. Okay. So Clemson loses to Notre Dame and it wasn't all that close. and the problem isn't that they lost to Notre Dame. It's not that they lost on the road. It's not even their resume overall.

They're wins and losses against CFP top 25. They're two and one. Strength of schedule 55th. They're like, you know, Florida State, good on them, trounced to Miami, and then all of a sudden they make an appearance. Clemsonson 8 and 1. So on paper, it looks okay to rank them 10th. But all you've got to do is dig just a little bit deeper.

and you realize that team is not anywhere close to what they have been in previous seasons under Davosweeney. They ranked quite simply the Trevor Lawrence Clemson Tigers and not DJ O'Young Leleleys, Clemson Tigers. Let's just take a look really quickly at the team that they lost to. This is not a Notre Dame team that's making a playoff run, okay? This is a Notre Dame team that is unapologetically and, and, you know, strictly one-dimensional. All they can do is run the football effectively, and they did it really well. Just own Clemson at the line of scrimmage, and that defensive line and that front seven

is supposed to be the strength of Clemson's team. Notre Dame's 115th in passing offense. Okay, so they're very one-dimensional. By the way, Notre Dame, they haven't completed over 52% of their passes in any of their last four games. So very one-dimensional, and it's not a team that's, dominating. They have three losses. Three. They lost at home to Marshall. They lost at home to Stanford. Marshall is a team that is five and four right now, barely above 500. Stanford's

three and six. Okay. So like, and it wasn't a close game. Okay. So they lose this game 35, 14. And I get it. Like Notre Dame had, you know, some non-offensive scores, but they were able to get those and Clemson is just not the same. So they're overrated at this point. Now, what does that mean? Why does it matter? Joel? Like, love dub, you're beating a dead horse. Like, get off of the Clemson thing. Yeah, but there's a larger point here. And the larger point here is that I just don't know how you justify a path to the playoff for the ACC. And in large part, due to the fact that Notre Dame has basically ended the ACC's chances this year, at least in my estimation, again, I think it would be incredibly hard to justify

an ACC team. Just look at the facts. Notre Dame against every other opponent outside of ACC opponents is three and three, with losses to Stanford and Marshall, with only one Power 5 win. That was a win against Cal at home. Now, against the ACC, they're 3-0 with wins over Clemson,

North Carolina, on the road, and Syracuse on the road. Those are three of the top five teams in the ACC right now. Currently, two of those, North Carolina and Clemson, are probably going to meet, most likely, in the ACC championship game. So there's a good chance that Notre Dame's worst team in the last, I don't know, four, five, six years beat the two participants in the ACC championship game and did so handily,

one on their turf and the other 3514. So how do you justify leaving Clemson in a position where they've got a path to the playoff? I find that very hard to believe. I just, I don't see it. I don't see it. For me, if I'm sitting there and I'm evaluating and I'm in the, the committee room. There's zero chance for the ACC. Now, there might be for some other people in that room. Heck, the, you know, boo is the North Carolina State Athletic Director. So I'm sure some down there

are fighting for the ACC. But if you just look at it like that, this conference can't even beat Notre Dame. Their lone chance is going to be now with Boston College. If Boston College doesn't beat Notre Dame, then Notre Dame will be undefeated against the ACC this year, including wins over Clemson and North Carolina, the two participants in the ACC championship game. At that point, I just can't justify in good conscious a path to the playoff for the ACC nor Clemson. Therefore, I think Clemson a little bit overrated, they're at number 10. All right, last thing that I want to talk about before we get out of here, because I rail against this, you know, against the committee and this process and everything. And I just want to acknowledge,

and I want them to hear me acknowledge since they're listening. It's hard, and I get it. And regardless of what you give us, there's going to be some discrepancies. The problem is that I would rather the discrepancies happen with UCLA at 9 instead of 12. Because the four-team gap is just kind of like, I think it makes you lose credibility a little bit. And then the TCU thing, when there's such an about face on philosophy, it screams lack of consistency. So I want to acknowledge that this is a broken process and it's nearly, if not completely impossible for this committee to give us something that we agree on and that we think is just like totally bulletproof. And listen, I get that.

I get that. It's a really hard job in particular because there's no set criteria. Without concrete criteria, I mean, this is a very important. very subjective thing. And it's basically a subjective four-team invitational, which is why I will continue to harp on the fact that not only do I think that this committee in its current structure is a failed experiment, not the people on the committee, but the committee in its current structure is a failed experiment. I think the four-team playoff is a failed experiment. We need to expand both quickly as in like tomorrow. We need more participants in the college,

football playoff, and we need more committees and or bring in an extra poll like a computer poll so that we can start to diversify some of these rankings. So if this committee were to give us UCLA at 12 and another poll gives us UCLA at 8 and then USC at 10, maybe if evens out so that we get what's probably right, which is like, you know, USC at 8 and UCLA at 9 or one difference, right, 10 and 11, wherever it is. that way we can iron out some of the statistical variance that inevitably happens in a 12-person room. So that was my final point. It's an olive branch, folks.

It's an olive branch. I'm just trying to be nice. I'm trying to be nice. I really love this show talking about the playoff rankings every week. And we're going to do it again next week. So next Wednesday, make sure that you tune in to the Joel Clatt show because I'll have more thoughts about the college football. playoff rankings. Tomorrow on Thursday, I've got a really good show for you. I guess I'm saying tomorrow. I'm going to be breaking down Indiana, Ohio State. That's a 40 point spread,

by the way. TCU, Texas, Texas favored by 7. LSU, Arkansas. Did anybody else see that line? I'm sorry, what? LSU's favored by only three on the road at Arkansas? Thoughts on that game. as well as I want to clarify kind of who controls their own path to a conference championship throughout the country in the Power 5. So I'm going to get to that tomorrow. Make sure to tune in for that. But this one has been fun. Folks, college football is just better with a friend.

So invite a friend to the Joel Clatch show. This show is always brought to you on Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday. And you can follow me on some. social media at Joel Clatt on Twitter at Joel underscore Clat on Instagram and you can follow this show on all the social medias. In fact, I hear we have an exploding TikTok. So that's exciting. So you can follow us on all the social media platforms at Joel Clatt show for all the exciting stuff that we've got going on there. And remember, leave us a review, rate us, subscribe to the podcast because college football is better when we're enjoying it together.

I'm Joel Klatte. Be with you tomorrow with my game breakdowns for this week, and we will see you then.