The problem with the last Massey composite rankings is that after the CFP comes out, a lot of various ranking systems kind of start mirroring that (moreso if they have a human element, like AP, Coaches, heck CFP is also one). Less so the ones that are based on analytics, but enough that it ends up being confirmation bias. Interesting that UW has ~20 ranking systems with them in the double digits (FSU is slightly fewer than this, but more that have them in the 4-8 range). Guessing those have scoring margin as part of their approach. Also interesting is that UM is high #1, low #4; UW: 1,19; UT: 2, 12; Ohio St: 1, 8; Alabama: 1, 12; UGA: 1, 10; FSU: 2, 15. Just lots of variation. Note that CFP Resume (more the ‘deserve’ than ‘best’ team) has the same top 5 with Ohio St. and UGA swapping 6/7.
The Massey ratings, however (link) have UM, Bama, Ohio St, Texas, UW, UGA, FSU, Penn St., Ore, OU, etc. Not much different, but FSU was I think 12 before ACC CCG, so moved up 5 by beating L’ville. In all of this, Ohio St. actually probably had the biggest reason to complain, but they knew they lost to UM and couldn’t compete for CCG, so it is what it is. In the Bowl placement, Oregon got the shaft, having to play Liberty (imo, should have been SMU, but the committee said 13-0 is 13-0, ahem). USC got a better opponent in L’ville in the Holiday Bowl.
BTW, composite ratings have Utah at 24 which seems about right being 8-4 and the 4 losses to teams that are 2, 8, 16, 18. Great job for so many key positions played by backups or 3/4s.
Other interesting note: every D1 team felt the rush of victory at some point. No 0-12 teams. Kent (1-11) was the only 1 loss team. I’m sure the wins at the bottom were likely FCS or other FBS bottom dwellers.