Several factors go into the College Football Playoff participants each season. Here is a snapshot of how the top four teams have managed scoring stats.
Especially at this point in College Football Playoff history, there is a danger of reading too much into any one set of statistics. No singular metric or set of metrics can decisively determine who is a contender and who is a pretender in the eyes of the selection committee.
Even as we get more data points over the coming years, it will still be difficult to determine with any decisiveness that there is strong correlation between the numbers and whether a team is going to succeed or fail.
That becomes especially true when one looks at a couple of key averages. That is going to be the project in this week’s Sunday Morning Quarterback, assessing what we can from the limited data that we have to play with so far and using it to project whether current top-10 teams plus undefeated UCF are legitimate contenders or merely pretenders.
These stats reflect each team’s numbers prior to their postseason appearance. In other words, these are the final figures that the College Football Playoff selection committee was looking at after conference championship games as they deliberated for Selection Sunday.
Where teams are seeded entering the Playoff
The first thing to look at are the statistical scoring averages for each of the four seedings within the playoff fields. What quickly becomes evident is that there is no definitive correlation between a team’s seed and the quality of their statistical performances.
The team with the highest scoring average has traditionally been the No. 4 seed, reflecting the need for that last team to impress the committee more than the No. 5 or No. 6 teams that were also in the running for a spot in the main field.
Correlated to that number is the fact that the No. 4 seed also has a higher point differential, indicating that they score more but continue posting a similar quality of defensive performance.
Also interesting is the fact that the seed which traditionally performs best in the red zone is the No. 3 seed. In terms of offensive performance, only the No. 3 seed scores at a rate above 90 percent in the red zone. At the same time, No. 3 seeds also hold opponents scoreless at a higher rate than any of the other teams to reach the Playoff.
Turnover margin also increases as the seeds decrease. The closer one gets to the cut line, the more impressive teams are at both generating turnovers from their opponents and preventing their own giveaways.
Where teams finish after the conclusion of the Playoff
But where teams enter the playoff is just one half of the equation. Is there a substantive difference between a semifinalist, a finalist, and a champion in a given College Football Playoff season and across seasons?
In this case, there is far less of a correlation between eventual success and the statistics ahead of time. Rather than a definitive split in rates, many of the figures flatten out and show a remarkable similarity across finishing positions.
College Football Playoff champions churn out slightly fewer yards and generate slightly fewer points than their finalist and semifinalist counterparts. But it is hardly a statistically significant level of variance. There is also just 1.3 points per game allowed that separate champions from vanquished semifinalists.
More interesting, from a statistical standpoint, is the way that red zone productivity decreases with greater levels of success. Champions score on average three to four percent less than teams that are knocked out in the semifinals or lose in the championship game.
Over time, it will be interesting to see if these numbers will remain closely interlinked or if greater differentiation will occur.
How current 2018 hopefuls compare to historical averages
The ultimate reason for looking at these numbers is not merely the entertainment of studying numbers, but also seeing how it might correlate to teams currently in the hunt for the present season’s championship.
This year, there are several levels of contender that have the chance to crack open a College Football Playoff spot. Two frontrunners lead a field of a half-dozen legitimate contenders, while several also-rans linger high in the selection committee’s Top 25.
As has been the case for the previous three years as well, Alabama and Clemson once again look like a different breed of team than the other hopefuls in the playoff race. The Crimson Tide and the Tigers remain highly-regarded contenders that are perennially in the playoff picture.
Beyond that, Michigan, Georgia, Oklahoma, and UCF closely resemble the level of scoring differential seen among other contenders. Where they rise or fall in the picture is in terms of red zone offense and defense. Especially when it comes to defense inside their own 20, these contenders have a wide range of success rates.
The Knights, a Group of Five darling with a definite ceiling in recent years, are the least likely to crack into the field. Though they have a better red zone rate both with the ball and on defense than the other three members of this tier, they also have a strength of schedule that is far overshadowed by their Power Five counterparts.
The final tier — LSU, West Virginia, Washington State, and Ohio State — show more significant cracks in the foundations on which their playoff cases rest. The Tigers score too little to be relevant in terms of scoring differential, while the other three are in turn defensively worse than their fellow top-10 hopefuls.
Notre Dame, Michigan, and Oklahoma have their own issues, especially in the red zone. And UCF, despite looking increasingly like a worthwhile candidate for inclusion in the College Football Playoff, has not been performing at the consistent level of dominance that is demanded of any mid-major dreaming of bigger things than the New Year’s Six ceiling.
Add it all up, and Alabama-Clemson IV is increasingly looking like a real possibility. While the stats are hardly a guarantee of future performance, they offer a striking view of who is likeliest to emerge in those final four spots.