CFP rankings Anger Index: Who should be most upset with their placement?

The 2023 season has already seen its fair share of outrage, from Ryan Day’s feud with Lou Holtz to Dabo Swinney’s talk to a talk show talker, but Tuesday marks the official start of outrage season.

Yes, the first priority of the College Football Playoff rankings is determining which teams are best positioned to compete for a national championship. But hardly less important is the giant pot of gasoline that the rankings inevitably throw on the smoldering fires of fan anger.

In the final weeks of each four-team playoff season, we reenacted a version of the same drama.

Step 1: The rankings are published.

2nd step: Everyone gets angry.

Step 3: The poor sap chosen to lead the committee — in this case, NC State AD Boo Corrigan — must attempt to explain the unexplainable while the nation pelts him with metaphorical tomatoes.

Well, we hear you and we’re happy to serve you tomatoes. We cannot change the committee’s mind, but we can provide a forum to air your grievances.

With that in mind, here is our first installment of the 2023 Anger Index, ranking the teams with the most consistent arguments compared to their current ranking by those idiots in Dallas.

The committee rightly rewarded Ohio State for its two marquee wins over Notre Dame and Penn State, even though the Buckeyes haven’t always looked particularly dominant — even against teams like Indiana or Wisconsin. But if the committee was wise enough to emphasize Ohio State’s strengths rather than focusing on nitpicking, why not do the same for FSU?

Florida State has a win over No. 14 LSU by 21. Ohio State’s big wins, by the way, are a total of 11. Florida State also has wins over top 30 SP+ teams Duke and Clemson. FSU is undefeated against schedule No. 49 (per ESPN Stats & Information) and ranks second in record strength.

And yet, Georgia (No. 100 schedule, No. 7 record strength) and Michigan (No. 111 schedule, No. 9 record strength) both check in higher.

We are willing to give Georgia the benefit of the doubt. The Bulldogs proved they were monsters in the playoffs. But Michigan? Even with a comprehensive 23andMe DNA database on every scholarship player, the Wolverines couldn’t get past TCU.

Given that FSU’s remaining schedule isn’t exactly difficult, starting at No. 4 is a potential red flag if the race for the top four becomes crowded.

The Irish are behind No. 14 LSU, another two-loss team, and, honestly, that doesn’t make any sense.

Notre Dame endured a brutal four-game stretch against ranked teams. He came away with wins against Duke and USC, and if he had remembered that you can play with 11 guys on defense, he might just pull off a win against No. 1 Ohio State. Both of its losses were against two teams ranked in the top 13, and it had a dominant victory over the Trojans.

Are we likely to hold up K-State’s two losses to the Wildcats because they looked bad at the time? In retrospect, losing on a ridiculous field goal late in the game to No. 12 Missouri and by eight to No. 22 Oklahoma State doesn’t seem so bad. K-State is more a victim of bad vibes than bad performance.

A quick comparison of some two-loss teams:

Team A: 3-2 against the FPI top 40 by an average margin of 11.4; top 25 in offensive and defensive SP+, No. 13 overall in SP+

Team B: 3-2 against the FPI top 40 with an average point margin of 3.2; top 5 in offensive SP+ but 43 in defensive SP+, #12 overall in SP+

The A team, you might have guessed, is Kansas State. The B team is LSU, which sits nine spots higher in the rankings.

And don’t even get us started on the fact that USC is also ranked higher than the Wildcats.

Here’s a list of unranked Power 5 teams with two losses: Rutgers, Iowa, North Carolina and Miami.

We can understand the Rutgers snub. The Knights’ best wins came early against teams from Northwestern and Virginia Tech, both of which have improved significantly since then.

We can understand the Iowa snub. The committee members probably fell asleep during the games.

We can even understand the snub of UNC, despite its victory against Miami. The last two losses against Virginia and Georgia Tech are inexcusable. Indeed, the committee could be of service to the UNC. The Heels don’t play well with a small number next to their name.

But Miami? With wins against Texas A&M and Clemson? Well, there should be some real outrage here.

Oh, not in committee. We get his decision. We’re still angry about Mario Cristobal’s refusal to kneel against Georgia Tech. If he did, Miami would be 7-1 and probably in the top 15.

JMU can’t be mad at the committee for its unranked status. This is the result of the ridiculous rule that requires any team moving from FCS to FBS to serve a two-year “transition” period during which they are not eligible for the playoffs. Frankly, JMU is lucky that it doesn’t have to put an “intern” badge on every uniform and also stick a “student driver” sign on the back of the team bus.

But even though they’re not yet allowed to make the playoffs, the Dukes’ performance on the field suggests otherwise. Indeed, JMU has a strong case as the top team in the so-called Group of 5 and, therefore, would otherwise be in position for the New Year’s Six Bowl – a bid that would bring about $4 million to the Sun Belt , from here the path.

Indeed, only three Group 5 teams currently have multiple wins against FPI’s top 60 opponents: Tulane, Wyoming and JMU. Only one of these teams is undefeated.

JMU also owns one road win against a Power 5 opponent (Virginia), has the 10th ranking in the country (ahead of Oregon, Penn State or Notre Dame) and has won 11 straight games dating back to last year.

But hey, if the NCAA says JMU shouldn’t be eligible, who are we to argue? It’s not like the NCAA has ever messed up like this before.