How committee affects scheduling

— -- Jeff Long reiterated Tuesday night that the College Football Playoff selection committee he chairs isn't charged with sending messages to contending teams.

"Our rankings will send the message," said Long, also Arkansas' athletic director. "... It's likely that they will see the factors that we take into account and will take a message from that."

The most recent rankings seemed to transmit a very clear signal about the value of schedule strength. TCU moved up to No. 4, three spots ahead of a Baylor team it lost to on Oct. 11. The Frogs have played a slightly harder Big 12 schedule to date, although the league's round-robin format ensures no advantages in the end.

Baylor's nonleague schedule included no Power 5 opponents: SMU, Northwestern State and Buffalo. The Bears haven't played a regular-season nonleague game against a Power 5 foe since opening the 2009 campaign at Wake Forest.

"They're sending a very clear message that if you want to consistently be considered for a playoff spot, you have to step up and play real top-level competition as much as you possibly can," Arizona State athletic director Ray Anderson said. "When they articulated the difference between TCU and Baylor, they pointed exactly to the fact that TCU had two top-25 wins and Baylor, I believe, had one.

"It's very clear that strength of schedule is a major factor, and appropriately so."

If Tuesday's rankings indeed sent a message about scheduling, it was more of a reminder than a revelation. Ever since the committee's inception, it emphasized the importance of schedule strength as a factor in deciding the four playoff teams.

"The message we got loud and clear is that playing an intersectional game would be viewed positively by the committee," Michigan State athletic director Mark Hollis said. "That's one of the reasons why in 2012 we chose to step out and add Oregon. We've added some others, both for that purpose but also these are the types of games student-athletes want to play in, the types that fans want to watch.

"We've got to be cautious to make sure we're not adding 12 weeks of mayhem. But it's important we strive for strong intersectional games."

Baylor athletic director Ian McCaw recently defended the school's scheduling approach, telling ESPN.com's Max Olson that the current schedule came together while the Bears still were chasing bowl eligibility. The program's recent rise under Art Briles has made top teams leery of scheduling the Bears, but Baylor also has resisted marquee neutral-site nonleague opportunities as it opened a new stadium this year and wants to use it as much as possible.

Baylor's nonleague schedules in 2015 (SMU, Lamar, Rice) and 2016 (Northwestern State, SMU, Rice) could once again have consequences with the playoff selection committee. Duke, which like Baylor has gone from doormat to league title contender, appears on Baylor's schedule in 2017 and 2018.

"Obviously can't do anything about it at this point," McCaw said. "Our schedule is what our schedule is. ... We'll see how things play out obviously. We went 3-0 nonconference. What is a little bit different is that the Big 12 and Baylor in our case, we played our three nonconference games at the front of the season. Some other conferences had moved some of their conference games up front and hid some of their weaker nonconference opponents later."

The SEC famously schedules FCS or low-level FBS opponents late in the season, which provides a breather for contending teams. Top-ranked Mississippi State hosted Tennessee-Martin last week, completing a nonleague schedule that featured no Power 5 opponents (Southern Miss, UAB, South Alabama).

But the Bulldogs' soft slate has yet to hurt them in the committee's eyes.

"I've heard some people questioning our nonconference schedule," Mississippi State athletic director Scott Stricklin said. "But if you start ranking schedules, I don't know very many teams in the country who would want to trade schedules with us, even factoring in our nonconference schedule. I'd think that line would be pretty short, especially closing with games at Alabama and at Ole Miss these next few weeks.

"But as long as our league has the strength it does, I don't see anything [in the committee's rankings] impacting us."

The SEC's overall depth seemingly has resonated with the committee, but teams in leagues lacking schedule strength "have to be even more focused on who they play out of league, who they play by choice," Hollis said.

The SEC announced in April that it will maintain an eight-game league schedule but require members to schedule one Power 5 opponent outside the league. The Big Ten is requiring its members to stop scheduling FCS opponents (outside of existing game contracts). The Pac-12 traditionally has the most aggressive nonconference scheduling philosophy of any league, coupled with nine league games and a league championship. The ACC has a scheduling agreement with Notre Dame, plus a conference title game.

The Big 12 could be the league to watch for several reasons. A nine-game schedule means teams are guaranteed five road games every other year, which often prevents them from scheduling another non-home game outside the league. Some Big 12 programs, like Kansas State, historically have resisted marquee nonleague games, preferring to build up a team for the conference grind.

Kansas State hosted defending SEC champion Auburn in September, but the Wildcats don't have a Power 5 nonleague opponent in 2015 (South Dakota, Texas-San Antonio, Louisiana Tech). The school could add a game against a Power 5 team in 2016.

"I'm glad that the quality of a schedule has been clearly a factor in the rankings," Kansas State athletic director John Currie said. "Everybody has to make their own assessments. Clearly for those of us who aspire to achieve championship levels of performance -- I put Kansas State on that list now and in the future -- we're going to think about that."

Asked if Kansas State's 2015 nonleague schedule could hinder a playoff push, Currie said, "It is what it is. We'll have a very difficult schedule next year regardless of who the nonconference teams are because we've got such a competitive conference."

Athletic directors are closely monitoring the preferred criteria of the selection committee, but how will they react to them? And how quickly? Could Power 5 teams start buying out of contracts with low-level opponents?

"It certainly will have to be an option for schools," one Big Ten athletic director said. "No question schools are going to have to adjust in the future. Every other sport that has a championship in the NCAA is critiqued by strength of schedule.

"Football has been the last one to the table."

But football scheduling is uniquely tricky because it's done so far in advance. Programs can schedule games because of their current position and end up in a totally different one when the games happen.

"I don't think people should run out and cancel game contracts," Anderson said. "But going forward, folks are going to reevaluate and determine if they want to be seriously considered year in and year out for [the] playoff, they must schedule more vigorously. Folks may get ahead of it quicker than they used to."

Especially if their program is on the rise.

"You try to set yourself up so that if you needed to, you could change -- move a game, get out of a game, pay out for a game in those years," said NC State athletic director Debbie Yow, "but if you get to the point where you need to do that, it's probably a good problem to have. Even that's OK because at the point in time where you would actually seriously think about that, you're sailing with your program."

Hollis isn't so sure, noting that many current contracts were completed with the old scheduling philosophy in mind.

"If you win six, you get in [a bowl], win 10 you get into a good bowl, and win 12 you get into a great bowl," he explained. "We are transitioning toward tougher schedules, but it's done over a period of time."

Currie thinks that a "land rush" in scheduling during the past six months actually has created less flexibility for the next 5-6 seasons. Oregon is scrambling for a Power 5 opponent in 2018 and 2019 after Texas A&M last month backed out of a scheduled series.

"We will have to work really hard to make that fit," Oregon athletic director Rob Mullens said. "We always tried to schedule another [Power 5] opponent. We're out to 2021 with our [Power 5] opponents except [2018 and 2019].

"Fortunately, this was our philosophy before the playoff, so we didn't have to make a big departure."

Despite the A&M snag, Oregon hasn't had to overhaul its philosophy to meet the committee's wishes. Neither has TCU, which completes its series with Minnesota next year and has upcoming agreements with Arkansas (2016-17), Ohio State (2018-19) and Cal (2020-21).

"You've got to remember we're coming at this a little bit differently than a lot of other programs because when we were a non-BCS program, your nonconference schedule was critical," TCU athletic director Chris Del Conte said.

"We come from that realm because we were always trying to get into a BCS bowl game. Back in the day, they always said, 'Who did they play out of conference? What was the marquee game?' We played Clemson one year, Virginia one year, Oklahoma one year. We played Texas, Texas Tech.

"We've been doing this philosophy at TCU since probably 2002, so it's nothing new for us."

An industry source notes that it's a "copycat business" and schools will craft schedules based on what the committee ultimately values in its selections. Everybody is watching, but immediate philosophical overhauls are unlikely.

There still will be games against FCS opponents -- "I was curious to see if there was a definitive penalty for playing an FCS team, and it doesn't appear there is at this point," Currie said -- and lower-tier Group of 5 teams. But nonleague schedules completely lacking Power 5 opponents eventually could be phased out.

"What hammers it home is your overall body of work," Del Conte said. "Everyone has to look at their own situation differently. You've just got to make sure your entire body of work is judged accordingly."

ESPN.com's Heather Dinich, Chris Low and Max Olson contributed to this story.