College Football Playoff resume rankings: Why Kentucky should be ahead of Utah, Indiana

If we slapped the Alabama or Georgia logo on Kentucky's helmets, where would the Wildcats have landed within the College Football Playoff's first batch of rankings? What if we swapped out UK's loss to a strong Bama team with a win over an FCS opponent so the Wildcats could match Utah's zero in the loss column?

What if Kentucky were the reigning national champions like Indiana?

As it stands, UK landed at No. 6 behind the Bulldogs, Crimson Tide, Utes, and Hoosiers (and No. 1 Miami). This disrespect for UK came despite the fact that the Wildcats own the best resume score in a true meritocratic breakdown of what college football teams have accomplished entering Week 10.

Because of the CFP selection committee's seeming obsession with arbitrary cutoffs, the totality of UK's achievements is not being properly considered. That was obvious during Tuesday night's first playoff rankings reveal.

Since Kentucky has only two wins against teams ranked in the CFP Top 25 (LSU and South Carolina), its road victories over Texas A&M and Oklahoma are being undervalued. Both rank inside the top 30 of the CFB Metrics Consensus, which blends 10 reputable power rankings into a single 1-138 breakdown.

Want to stick exclusively with high-end fare? Fine. By the standard of ESPN's FPI metric, Kentucky owns a higher-ranked victory (over FPI No. 5 LSU) than both Georgia and Alabama. In addition to the LSU win, the Wildcats own three road wins over top-30 power-rated opposition.

Georgia, which landed four spots ahead of Kentucky at No. 2, possesses one fewer victory against top-30 opposition, and its lone loss (at home to Auburn) is significantly worse than Kentucky's lone loss (at home vs. Alabama).

Using our resume ranking system also reveals how nonsensical it was for Utah to land at No. 3 in the first CFP rankings. The 8-0 Utes have played one team ranked inside the top 50 of the CFB Metrics Consensus, picking up a home win over No. 22 Houston.

How the Utes landed ahead of a UK team that has four wins against top-50 opposition is an inexplicable head-scratcher that can only be chalked up to an over-reliance on predictive metrics. The same can be said with Indiana, which doesn't have nearly the same resume strength as Kentucky. But the Wildcats are just 26th in ESPN's FPI.

Power ratings and predictive metrics have their place in the CFP rankings discussion. But that place should mainly be relegated to determining the quality of a team's opposition and perhaps for breaking ties between teams with nearly identical resumes. Kentucky's resume isn't nearly identical to most of the teams ahead of it in this week's CFP Rankings. It is much better. The demonstrated ability to repeatedly defeat quality opponents -- especially on the road -- should trump everything else. Kentucky has checked that box more thoroughly than the teams ranked ahead of it.

Ultimately, if things pan out as predictive metrics suggest, everything will take care of itself, with the CFP Selection Committee getting the outcomes it seems to desire. If Kentucky loses to Tennessee this week like the Vegas odds predict (the Wildcats are 6.5-point underdogs), then the committee will have on-field justification for putting UK behind teams like Alabama, Georgia, Utah and Indiana.

As it stands now, they don't. Even if you want to put Alabama ahead of Kentucky because of a head-to-head result and then feel compelled to put Georgia ahead of Alabama for the same reason, it still doesn't explain why Kentucky is behind Indiana and Utah. It's like the committee wants to predict what will happen rather than react to what has actually happened. If that's the path we're taking, why even play the games?

The quality of your wins and the caliber of teams that have defeated you should mean more than efficiency margins and vaunted logos. Even sheer number of losses can be highly misleading in an era where teams under the Power Four umbrella play vastly imbalanced schedules (Utah's slate is inarguably much weaker than Kentucky's).

Unfortunately, the CFP Selection Committee only buys into that sort of logic when it's convenient, not when it conflicts with their expectations for what should happen but hasn't yet.

Thankfully, we're here to set the record straight with a true resume metric.

Based on college basketball's Wins Above Bubble, our resume scores assign a value for each win/loss based on the likelihood that the average top-25 team would win or lose the game. That value is determined by where your opponents rank in the CFB Metrics Consensus and where the game was played. Add up the cumulative total, and you get a resume score that tells how many more (or fewer) wins you have vs. your schedule than what the average No. 25-ranked team would have. This shouldn't be the only criteria the committee uses. But a metric of this sort should be a guiding light. 

Wins. Losses. Locations. That's it. Against that backdrop, here are college football's resume rankings entering Week 10.

W vs. Youngstown State (+0.01)

L vs. No. 6 Alabama (-0.21)

W @ No. 28 Texas A&M (+0.49)

W vs. No. 105 South Alabama (+0.05)

W @ No. 21 South Carolina (+0.61)

W vs. No. 3 LSU (+0.86)

W @ No. 30 Oklahoma (+0.47)

W vs. No. 72 Vanderbilt (+0.13)

Resume score: 2.41

W @ No. 103 Stanford (+0.10)

W vs. Florida A&M (+0.01)

W @ No. 13 Wake Forest (+0.73)

W vs. No. 119 Central Michigan (+0.03)

W @ No. 45 Clemson (+0.34)

W vs. No. 46 Florida State (+0.24)

W vs. No. 41 Pittsburgh (+0.28)

W @ No. 43 North Carolina (+0.36)

Resume score: 2.09

W vs. No. 93 East Carolina (+0.08)

W @ No. 20 Kentucky (+0.62)

W vs. No. 46 Florida State (+0.24)

W vs. No. 21 South Carolina (+0.50)

W @ No. 39 Mississippi State (+0.39)

L vs. No. 2 Georgia (-0.11)

L @ No. 11 Tennessee (-0.23)

W vs. No. 28 Texas A&M (+0.39)

Resume score: 1.88

W vs. (N) No. 26 Louisville (+0.47)

W vs. No. 132 Charlotte (+0.01)

W vs. No. 3 LSU (+0.86)

L @ No. 23 Florida (-0.42)

W @ No. 72 Vanderbilt (+0.20)

W vs. No. 16 Missouri (+0.59)

L @ No. 7 Texas (-0.15)

W vs. No. 36 Auburn (+0.32)

Resume score: 1.88

W vs. No. 66 Texas State (+0.15)

W vs. No. 4 Ohio State (+0.84)

W vs. No. 65 UTSA (+0.15)

W @ No. 11 Tennessee (+0.77)

L vs. (N) No. 30 Oklahoma (-0.57)

L vs. No. 23 Florida (-0.53)

W vs. No. 8 Mississippi (+0.75)

W vs. No. 39 Mississippi State (+0.29)

Resume score: 1.85

W @ No. 95 California (+0.12)

W vs. No. 97 San Diego State (+0.07)

W vs. No. 59 Purdue (+0.17)

W @ No. 78 Maryland (+0.18)

W @ No. 12 Oregon (+0.75)

W vs. No. 34 Wisconsin (+0.33)

W vs. No. 69 Michigan State (+0.14)

W vs. No. 99 Nevada (+0.06)

Resume score: 1.82

W vs. No. 64 North Texas (+0.15)

W vs. Howard (+0.01)

W vs. No. 120 Western Kentucky (+0.03)

W vs. No. 27 Northwestern (+0.40)

W @ No. 88 Rutgers (+0.15)

W @ No. 25 Nebraska (+0.54)

L vs. No. 4 Ohio State (-0.16)

W @ No. 35 Michigan (+0.42)

W vs. No. 51 Minnesota (+0.21)

Resume score: 1.75

W vs. Idaho (+0.01)

W vs. No. 71 Arkansas (+0.14)

W vs. No. 91 Utah State (+0.08)

W @ No. 55 Iowa State (+0.28)

W vs. No. 56 Kansas (+0.19)

W @ No. 76 Colorado (+0.19)

W vs. No. 22 Houston (+0.48)

W @ No. 53 Cincinnati (+0.29)

Resume score: 1.66

W vs. Tennessee State (+0.01)

W vs. No. 120 Western Kentucky (+0.03)

W @ No. 71 Arkansas (+0.21)

W vs. No. 30 Oklahoma (+0.37)

W vs. No. 72 Vanderbilt (+0.13)

W @ No. 6 Alabama (+0.87)

L vs. No. 36 Auburn (-0.68)

W vs. (N) No. 23 Florida (+0.53)

Resume score: 1.47

W vs. Utah Tech (+0.01)

W vs. No. 24 Arizona (+0.45)

W @ No. 110 Colorado State (+0.08)

W @ No. 42 TCU (+0.37)

W vs. No. 55 Iowa State (+0.19)

W vs. No. 1 Notre Dame (+0.92)

L @ No. 57 UCF (-0.73)

W vs. No. 62 Arizona State (+0.16)

Resume score: 1.45

W vs. No. 130 Ball State (+0.02)

L @ No. 7 Texas (-0.15)

W vs. No. 133 Kent State (+0.01)

W vs. No. 44 Illinois (+0.25)

W @ No. 18 Iowa (+0.65)

W vs. No. 78 Maryland (+0.12)

W @ No. 9 Indiana (+0.81)

L @ No. 19 USC (-0.36)

Resume score: 1.35

W vs. No. 98 Florida Atlantic (+0.07)

W vs. Campbell (+0.01)

W @ No. 36 Auburn (+0.41)

W vs. No. 8 Mississippi (+0.75)

L @ No. 16 Missouri (-0.32)

L vs. No. 21 South Carolina (-0.50)

W @ No. 7 Texas (+0.85)

L vs. (N) No. 2 Georgia (-0.08)

Resume score: 1.19

W vs. No. 135 Akron (+0.01)

W @ No. 59 Purdue (+0.26)

L vs. No. 5 Miami (-0.19)

W @ No. 26 Louisville (+0.52)

W vs. No. 103 Stanford (+0.06)

W @ No. 68 NC State (+0.22)

W @ No. 95 California (+0.12)

W vs. No. 61 Virginia (+0.17)

Resume score: 1.17

W vs. No. 111 San Jose State (+0.04)

W vs. No. 67 Fresno State (+0.14)

W vs. No. 79 Louisiana (+0.11)

W @ No. 88 Rutgers (+0.15)

L vs. No. 12 Oregon (-0.33)

W vs. No. 40 Washington (+0.28)

W @ No. 29 Penn State (+0.48)

L @ No. 34 Wisconsin (-0.57)

W vs. No. 4 Ohio State (+0.84)

Resume score: 1.14

W vs. (N) No. 34 Wisconsin (+0.39)

W vs. No. 121 Rice (+0.03)

W vs. No. 69 Michigan State (+0.14)

W @ No. 59 Purdue (+0.26)

W @ No. 43 North Carolina (+0.36)

W vs. No. 103 Stanford (+0.06)

L @ No. 17 BYU (-0.33)

W vs. (N) No. 89 Navy (+0.11)

Resume score: 1.02

CFP resume rankings: Why Kentucky should be ahead of Utah, Indiana David Cobb 6 min read

Six Pack: Picks for Miami-Notre Dame, Alabama-LSU, more

Tom Fornelli 9 min read

Beyond the sticker-shock: Why buyouts are just part of firing a coach Richard Johnson 8 min read

Miami vs. Notre Dame tale of the tape: Who has edge at each position?

LSU working to add former Baylor coach Dave Aranda to staff Shehan Jeyarajah 1 min read

How Malachi Toney's injury impacts the 2026 Heisman Trophy race Austin Nivison 3 min read

Curt Cignetti throws shade at SEC, College Football Playoff rankings Robby Kalland 2 min read

Miami star WR Malachi Toney to undergo surgery on injured ankle Robby Kalland 2 min read

Former Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville elected Alabama governor Austin Nivison 1 min read

CFP Rankings shake up national title odds: SEC gains ground Robby Kalland 2 min read