College Football Playoff Selection Committee Releases First Rankings of 2023 Season and Media Conference

Games Played through Saturday, October 28
RankTeamOverall Record
1Ohio State8-0
2Georgia8-0
3Michigan8-0
4Florida State8-0
5Washington8-0
6Oregon7-1
7Texas7-1
8Alabama7-1
9Oklahoma7-1
10Mississippi7-1
11Penn State7-1
12Missouri7-1
13Louisville7-1
14LSU6-2
15Notre Dame7-2
16Oregon State6-2
17Tennessee6-2
18Utah6-2
19UCLA6-2
20Southern California7-2
21Kansas6-2
22Oklahoma State6-2
23Kansas State6-2
24Tulane7-1
25Air Force8-0
Click Here to Download Rankings (PDF).-#CFBPlayoff-
About the College Football Playoff
The College Football Playoff matches the No. 1 ranked team vs. No. 4, and No. 2 vs. No. 3 in semifinal games that rotate annually among six bowl games – the Goodyear Cotton Bowl, Vrbo Fiesta Bowl, Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl, Capital One Orange Bowl, Allstate Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl Game presented by Prudential. This season’s Playoff Semifinals will take place Monday, January 1, 2024, at the Rose Bowl Game presented by Prudential and Allstate Sugar Bowl. The College Football Playoff National Championship will be Monday, January 8, 2024, at NRG Stadium in Houston, Texas.

College Football Playoff
Media Conference
Tuesday, October 31, 2023
Grapevine, Texas, USA
Boo Corrigan
Bill Hancock
CFP Media Conference
BRETT DANIELS: I’d like to welcome everyone to the first
College Football Playoff Selection Committee
teleconference for the 2023 season. Joining us tonight is
Bill Hancock, the executive director of the College Football
Playoff, along with Boo Corrigan, the College Football
Playoff Selection Committee chair.
BOO CORRIGAN: Good evening, everyone. Thank you
for being here. It’s good to be back in Dallas for our first
meeting of the Selection Committee. This is my third year
on the committee and my second as chair.
I’m grateful to my fellow committee members for their hard
work, as I witnessed over the last couple of days.
The committee has three new members this year. We
have 10 who have served on the committee for the last
year or two. As always, the new members participated in a
mock rankings session earlier this fall, and that helped
them hit the ground running.
You have seen our rankings. With several 8-0 teams, the
committee debated it all. Ohio State was ranked No. 1,
due in part to their big wins against Penn State and at
Notre Dame. Georgia No. 2 is an excellent team and they
keep winning decisively. Michigan was ranked 3. The
committee was impressed at how they’ve dominated their
opponents. Florida State was ranked 4 with their win
against LSU helping make their case.
As I’ve walked you through the top four, I want to
emphasize how much time we take for all the rankings.
Each ranking is important. We are aware how closely fans
track these rankings and care about their teams. As much
debate as we have about the top four, we equally debate
the remaining 21.
I won’t say this to you every week, but it is important for the
press to know how we work and what our criteria and
protocol is. The committee begins each week with a blank
sheet of paper. What happened last year does not matter.
The conferences teams play in does not factor into our
decisions. We don’t look at public polls. Instead, we are
instructed by our founders of the playoff to consider teams’
records, their strength of schedule, their head-to-head
match-ups, and results with common opponents.
With these factors in mind, the committee members have
lively discussion and then make their rankings based on 13
subjective expert college football judgments.
We watch games all season. We have considerable data
and statistics on our screen and at our disposal. Our job is
to get it right.
Thank you for listening, and I’ll be happy to answer any
questions.
Q. Boo, Ohio State has the wins over Penn State and
Notre Dame and their defense is obviously very good,
but their offense has been a bit clunky at times.
They’re not scoring the way they traditionally have. In
some ways people would say they haven’t really
passed the eye test. I know that’s a loaded term. If
you could address that in terms of whether the
committee just watches the games, and yes, there are
all these metrics, but is there a certain point where you
have say I think I have a grasp on what these teams
are?
BOO CORRIGAN: Yeah, to your point, and thank you for
asking, the win against Penn State, to win at Notre Dame,
the win at Wisconsin, they’ve proven they can do it at
home, they’ve proven they can do it on the road. They
have explosive plays. Down a receiver, Marvin Harrison,
Jr., who’s clearly one of the top players in the country.
As we look at it, as we evaluate it, it is part of the overall
evaluation, but a top 5 defense that’s given up about 10
points a game really does play into it, as well.
To pick completely on one side when the other side is so
dominant, and the offense is really, really good, so we’ve
got to take all that into account as we’re looking at it, and
we came to the conclusion as a committee that they
138712-1-1002 2023-11-01 00:18:00 GMT Page 1 of 4
deserved the No. 1 ranking.
Q. My question is for Bill. My question is about Warde
Manuel from Michigan being on the Selection
Committee. I know he’s recused for the Michigan
discussion, but because of what is going on with
Michigan, was there any suggestion from Warde about
possibly stepping off the committee? Were there any
concerns from you and your leagues about Warde
being on the committee, just with some controversy
around Michigan right now?
BILL HANCOCK: No, there wasn’t any suggestion that
anything change regarding Warde’s position on the
committee. He was fully engaged in the meeting the last
two days, as usual.
BOO CORRIGAN: I would just add, and I know you didn’t
ask me, but to Bill’s point, was completely engaged in
everything that was going on. Obviously he’s recused
early in the process, if you will, with our ranking, but was in
the room, was engaged, was making the points that he had
seen for the teams that we were talking about, was a really
good committee member, as all 12 of them were.
Q. If I could follow up, I’m sure Warde is probably into
it. I’m sure it’s a bit of a respite considering all the
things that are going on. There is just this idea of
credibility and with some things floating around
Michigan right now with the sign stealing, I guess was
there any concern from either of you, do we want
somebody who is high ranking at Michigan right now
on the committee; does that reflect well on our
credibility?
BILL HANCOCK: It just wasn’t an issue. Warde brought
credibility when he came to the committee, and he still had
it and still has it, and as Boo and I both said, he was fully
engaged today.
It’s just not an issue here.
Q. Boo, I heard you on television saying that the
Michigan sign stealing didn’t come up in the room and
that it’s an NCAA issue. You also said at the top of the
call here that the committee was impressed with how
Michigan has dominated their opponents. Given the
level of detail that I know the committee likes to use to
evaluate all these teams, I’m curious how you can
properly determine that Michigan is the No. 3 team in
the country if you didn’t discuss whether part of their
dominance is using information they shouldn’t have
had?
BILL HANCOCK: Michigan has played well all season.
The fact of the matter is no one knows what happened.
We’re dealing right now — the NCAA is dealing right now
with allegations only. The committee makes its judgments
based on what happened on the field, and clearly Michigan
has been a dominant team.
Q. On the Group of Five side, obviously Tulane and
Air Force the only two teams that made the top 25
there, curious the committee’s thoughts on slotting
those two teams where they did, specifically one over
the other, and just kind of their general observations
about the seasons those two teams have had so far.
BOO CORRIGAN: Yeah, I think I said it on TV, we
understand that it matters, and the amount of time that we
spend 5 through 25, if you will, is an enormous amount of
time to make sure that we get this right.
From a Tulane standpoint, to go on the road and beat
Memphis really stood out to the committee. Michael Pratt,
their quarterback, did not play against Ole Miss, even
though it was a 17-point game. That was a factor there.
From an Air Force standpoint, Coach Calhoun has really
done a great job leading the nation in rushing. Their
defense has played really well.
A little bit came down to their big win over Wyoming and
kind of that overall strength of schedule as you look at it,
and those are the reasons that we had Tulane at 24 and
Air Force at 25.
Q. I know there’s a lot of metrics that you mentioned
you looked at. In many of them, Georgia’s strength of
schedule did not compare favorably with some of the
other top teams. Did the committee overlook that to
some extent putting the Bulldogs No. 2? Could you go
over some of the attributes that led to you elevating
Georgia that high in the rankings despite the strength
of schedule rank?
BOO CORRIGAN: Well, I think you look at the rivalry
game with Florida and the way they played the game
against Kentucky, and to win that 51-13, added to the fact
that Brock Bowers did not play against Florida, their overall
team makeup, team speed, defense allowing about 14
points a game, in total body of work, you’ve got to be able
to make these decisions as you’re looking at it, and again,
the beauty of it is to have Coach Taylor, Coach Ault, Jim
Grobe and have Coach Grobe in there as former coaches
and their ability to talk about what they see as well really
enhances kind of the overall experience of everyone in the
room to make sure that we’re getting this right.
Q. What is the primary reason why the Michigan sign
138712-1-1002 2023-11-01 00:18:00 GMT Page 2 of 4
stealing issue that’s now under investigation, why
wasn’t it part of the conversation?
BILL HANCOCK: You have to remember that these are
allegations at this point and not facts, and so there’s no
substantive evidence that anything happened that might
have affected the game. All this committee does is
evaluate what happens on the field during games. That’s
why we are where we are.
Q. You mentioned Michigan’s dominance. How much
of a factor has been their strength of schedule in
ranking them third?
BOO CORRIGAN: It’s a factor in what we’re looking at.
Again, when you can point to from a Georgia standpoint
Florida and Kentucky, with Ohio State when you can point
to Penn State, the win at Notre Dame, the win at
Wisconsin, while UNLV, Rutgers, Nebraska, Minnesota are
good wins, I think looking at it in total, even with the
dominance offensively and defensively, defensively giving
up about six points a game, it really turned the committee’s
head from that standpoint, but that was the reason they
came in at third.
Q. How did you guys work through the round-robin
basically with Louisville, Pittsburgh and Notre Dame,
where that’s Louisville’s loss, its convincing 51-point
win over Pitt, and then the fact that Notre Dame’s other
loss, I understand a two-loss team, was somewhat
early and somewhat controversial at the end against
Ohio State?
BOO CORRIGAN: Well, again, I think there’s head to
head, as we’ve talked about before, is always going to be a
factor, and I think the 33-20 win that Louisville had over
Notre Dame, the additional loss to Ohio State, again, really
good football teams as we’re looking at it, but to this one,
we talked a great deal about the Louisville win over Notre
Dame, the Pitt game. For Louisville, their running back, I
think he ended up with two carries and was out, but again,
looking at the total body of work, we were more
comfortable as a group with Louisville ahead of Notre
Dame.
Q. I was wondering about the ranking between Texas,
Alabama and Oklahoma. What kind of discussions did
you guys have there, and how much did the match-up
between Oklahoma and Texas play into that, given that
Oklahoma won that game but they were ranked behind
Texas?
BOO CORRIGAN: A lot of discussion. You go back to we
want to get this right as we look at it. A wonderful win by
Oklahoma, last-second drive to win this game. When you
factor in a two-loss Kansas team this past weekend,
getting the win over Oklahoma, Kansas with the two losses
to Texas and Oklahoma State, while they continue to
improve and play better, body of work, if you will, looking at
this, Texas over Alabama, winning there in Tuscaloosa,
similar to Texas-Oklahoma but then add in the factor that
Oklahoma lost that game to Kansas as well as a close
game with UCF. But primarily the loss to Kansas.
Q. You guys brought it up with Brock Bowers being
out with Georgia, them being down some players, how
big of that was a factor, especially offensively with
Ohio State with TreVeyon Henderson being in and out
of the lineup and Emeka Egbuka being in and out of
the lineup, how much of that did you take into account
when thinking about Ohio State No. 1, especially when
the offense hasn’t necessarily looked as explosive as
we’ve seen in the past? Did that matter at all for you
guys?
BOO CORRIGAN: Yeah, no, it certainly is a factor. We
look at all conditions around games and make sure that we
have the latest information, whether that’s coming from the
conference, as we talk to the conferences.
But again, we still viewed Ohio State as the top team in the
country based on their wins, based on their defense, and
again, their offense is doing well enough to win games and
be 8-0.
Q. With the transitioning teams, James Madison,
Jacksonville State currently not bowl eligible but could
become bowl eligible by the end of the season, what’s
the logic in not including them in the potential Group
of Five game if they do become bowl eligible at some
point?
BILL HANCOCK: Well, you’re right. The committee is
instructed to rank the teams that are eligible without any
conditions to compete in bowl games. The logic frankly is
to not leave out other teams that are eligible.
The purpose of the rankings is to identify teams that are
definitely able to play in postseason. So that’s the logic.
Q. So if they were bowl eligible by the end of the
regular season, would they then be included in the
rankings?
BILL HANCOCK: It’s a hypothetical question. We just
don’t get into hypothetical questions. Sorry.
Q. I know in the past you guys have talked about
drawing lines, so to speak, or grouping teams as you
rank them. I’m curious from the top if you could go
138712-1-1002 2023-11-01 00:18:00 GMT Page 3 of 4
and discuss where maybe that top group was and kind
of where the line is and how big the gap is between
those groups.
BILL HANCOCK: I can talk about that. It’s not appropriate,
however, for us to talk about differences among teams and
rankings. But I would say that the top four were in a group
together. Washington because of their play in the last
couple of weeks was a notch behind that group.
I hope that’s helpful.
Q. You talked a good bit about Ohio State being No. 1
ahead of Michigan and Georgia because of its resume,
the wins it has so far. I’m wondering if you can kind of
explain maybe why Ohio State is there but Florida
State and Washington with the big wins they have
haven’t done enough to also be ahead of Michigan and
Georgia on resumes at this point?
BOO CORRIGAN: Again, I think as you look at the full
body of work, Florida State being No. 4, the win over LSU,
the win against Duke, kind of a front-loaded schedule, if
you will, they’ve looked really good. Offensively putting up
41 points a game. Their defense is ranked in the top 20.
But again, as we looked at it overall and went through the
process, we came out with Ohio State 1, Georgia 2,
Michigan 3, Florida State 4.
With regards to Washington, huge win over Oregon, who
we have at No. 6, but in looking at that, the game most
recently, two most recent games at home against Arizona
State and on the road at Stanford from a committee
standpoint gave us some pause and put them in at No. 5.
BRETT DANIELS: I’d like to thank everyone for their
participation in tonight’s call. I’d like to remind you that we
will post transcripts of the call shortly on
collegepressbox.com.
FastScripts by ASAP Sports