Texas A&M's Playoff Fate Hangs in the Balance as CFP Committee Prepares Final Rankings
As the final College Football Playoff rankings before Selection Sunday are set to drop, Texas A&M fans are bracing for what could be a frustrating night. The Aggies, sitting at 11-1, have been teetering on the edge of the top four, but there’s a growing sense that the committee may once again leave them on the outside looking in.
When A&M first landed at No. 3 in the early rankings, there was cautious optimism in College Station. But that optimism has faded into skepticism. The Aggies haven’t moved up, and now, after a late-season loss, the conversation has shifted from whether they belong in the top four to whether they’ll even stay in the top six.
And here’s the issue: the CFP committee’s evaluation process hasn’t exactly inspired confidence. Despite offseason assurances that Strength of Record (SOR) would be a key factor in the rankings, the metrics being used don’t seem to reflect that.
The Aggies’ resume, by multiple advanced metrics, is among the best in the country. Yet the committee appears to be leaning on a strength of schedule (SOS) model that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny-especially in the current college football landscape.
Let’s break that down.
In theory, strength of schedule should help separate teams with similar records. But the model used by the committee relies heavily on opponent win-loss records and the win-loss records of their opponents.
That might work in sports like basketball or baseball, where teams play dozens of games and have more non-conference matchups to balance the data. But in college football?
With just three or four non-conference games and bloated conferences that limit cross-league play, that kind of SOS evaluation loses its value quickly.
The advanced analytics community agrees. Parker Fleming of CFB-Graphs has Texas A&M’s resume ranked third in the country.
Kelley Ford’s KFordRatings puts them fourth. Bill Connelly’s SP+ model slots them fifth.
And Brian Fremeau’s FEI ratings place the Aggies as high as first, depending on which criteria you emphasize.
These aren’t just opinion-based rankings. Some of these models evaluate how difficult it is to achieve A&M’s record based purely on opponent quality.
Others factor in how well the team actually played in those games. Either way, the consensus is clear: the Aggies belong in the top five.
But that’s not the direction things seem to be heading. If the committee sticks to its current approach, A&M could find itself slipping to No. 7-last among the one-loss contenders. That would put them behind teams like Texas Tech, Oregon, Georgia, and Ole Miss in the pecking order, despite a resume that stacks up favorably against each of them.
And that drop matters-big time.
The difference between being the No. 5 seed and the No. 7 seed in the expanded playoff isn’t just about pride. It’s about matchups.
Right now, the 7-seed would face 10-seed Alabama in the first round-a brutal draw. The 6-seed, on the other hand, would likely get Virginia or Duke.
And the 5-seed? They’d face a Group of Five champion like James Madison, North Texas, or Tulane.
That’s a huge swing in terms of difficulty, and it could define the Aggies’ postseason.
Texas A&M has done enough to earn a top-five spot. They’ve played a tough schedule, won 11 games, and held their own statistically against the best in the country. But if the committee continues to rely on outdated metrics that don’t reflect the realities of modern college football, the Aggies could once again find themselves on the wrong end of the rankings.
For now, all eyes in Aggieland are on the screen. But the mood isn’t hopeful-it’s wary. Because history has shown that when it comes to the playoff committee, Texas A&M doesn’t always get the benefit of the doubt.