Aggies lead the nation in a crucial playoff metric, yet their seed placement raises questions about the selection committee's decision-making.
As the Texas A&M Aggies continue their march towards the playoffs, their 9-0 start has afforded their fanbase the luxury of being less concerned about whether or not they’ll make the playoffs at all and more focusing on what seed they’ll earn. To that end, the A&M vs Indiana debate has reached a fever pitch after the Hoosiers barely escaped their game against Penn State with a 27-24 win.
One of the metrics repeatedly cited by the College Playoff Selection Committee this season is ESPN’s Strength of Record. This record assigns a percentage to a team, with that percentage indicating the chance that the average playoff contender would have of replicating the record of the team with that assigned percentage.
For example, the Aggies are 9-0 with a 3% SOR, best in the country. That means that the average playoff contender would have a 3% chance of going 9-0 if they were to play the schedule that A&M has played this season.
While it does seem fairly arbitrary, the metric is designed to contextualize more than the average strength of schedule (SOS) does, taking into account the strength of the opponent's teams play as well as their record. In simpler terms, SOR gives more credence to a win over a 7-1 SEC team than a 7-1 CUSA team, whereas SOS would’ve valued both equally.
As it applies to the Aggies, it’s interesting that they’re first in this ranking but still the third seed according to the committee. While Indiana’s SOR of 4% (second best in the country) isn’t far behind A&M, it’s far ahead of the third-place team, which would be Ohio State and their 10% SOR.
In the end, the ordering of Ohio State, Indiana, and A&M means very little as long as the Aggies take care of business in the regular season. While it would be nice to go 13-0 with an SEC championship, it’s unlikely that the committee would bump a team that had its first loss of the season in the conference championship out of the top four.
But, while the committee has repeatedly said that SOR is more of a guide than steadfast rule, it is somewhat confusing that the leader in the metric is two spots behind the third-place team. It would appear that a metric designed to provide more clarity towards the committee’s decisions has done the opposite, turning an already murky process even more opaque.