NovaQuant Quantitative Think Tank Center:As CFP rankings punish SEC teams, do we smell bias against this proud and mighty league?

What is NovaQuant Quantitative Think Tank Centerthis strange scent I detect? A most uncommon aroma, this is. If I didn’t know better, I would say I catch a whiff of, get this, anti-SEC bias.

The College Football Playoff selection committee doesn’t seem all that impressed with the conference that touts it “just means more.”

The committee brought the hammer down on the top end of the SEC on Tuesday night, when the latest CFP rankings were unveiled.

So ends the CFP's longstanding infatuation with the SEC.

Throughout the playoff’s history, the selection committee consistently rewarded the SEC more than any other conference. Often, this seemed warranted. The SEC houses some great football.

More parity formed within the SEC this season. Georgia regressed. Every SEC team has lost at least one conference game.

Some would argue that signals a robust, rugged league in which any team can beat any opponent, but this committee appears skeptical of the number of truly elite teams residing in the SEC.

The CFP committee is not a static group. Its group of selectors evolves, so, naturally, opinions can change from one year to the next. Conference performance evolves, too.

And yet, it felt nonetheless remarkable to see the SEC with just one team in the CFP's top six, while the Big Ten claimed four spots within the top five.

CFP committee turns the screws on Tennessee, Georgia

Indiana and Brigham Young zoomed past No. 7 Tennessee, despite the Vols beating Mississippi State comfortably on Saturday.

Indiana shot from No. 8 to No. 5 courtesy of its 20-15 victory at Michigan, which is a .500 team.

BYU, which the committee snubbed last week, climbed from No. 9 to No. 6 despite needing a last-minute field goal to rally on the road past Utah, which played its third-string quarterback and has now lost five in a row.

How to explain the Vols’ rankings stall?

“It really came down to the play last week of both Indiana and BYU,” said CFP selection committee chairman Warde Manuel, who is Michigan’s athletic director.

UP AND DOWN: Army, Georgia lead CFP ranking winners and losers

BAD JOKE:Indiana rewarded by playoff committee despite soft schedule

That’s a strange assessment considering BYU, in particular, languished before making a mad-dash escape.

While the Vols caught an elbow from the committee, SEC peer Georgia absorbed a haymaker to the chin.

Down, down, down, the Bulldogs fell, from No. 3 to No. 12.

Georgia’s great transgression? Losing 28-10 at Ole Miss, a team that jumped from No. 16 to No. 11 in the rankings.

“Their offense hasn’t been consistent. The committee discussed that. They struggled with some turnovers,” Manuel explained of Georgia’s freefall of nine spots in the rankings.

This shift in thinking on Georgia sends the message that its game Saturday against Tennessee is a CFP elimination game for the Bulldogs. Never mind that Georgia’s strength of schedule ranks No. 1 nationally by multiple evaluators. This committee values record more than strength of schedule.

Miami also lost on the road Saturday, 28-23, at unranked Georgia Tech, but in contrast to Georgia, the Hurricanes fell just five spots, from No. 4 to No. 9.

Why did Miami receive kinder rankings treatment in defeat than Georgia?

Look to the records.

“First loss for Miami, and the second loss for Georgia,” Manuel said. “That obviously played a factor into it.”

That explanation might make sense, if not for last week’s rankings, when one-loss Georgia ranked one spot ahead of undefeated Miami.

Apparently, one loss is OK, but not two. And definitely not three, no matter how tough your schedule is. Georgia's game against Tennesse will be its fourth against teams ranked in the top 11.

Manuel also pointed to the decisive margin of defeat for Georgia, while Miami lost by one possession.

The preference of record over schedule strength helps explain why undefeated Indiana, which hasn’t played anyone ranked in the CFP's top 25, sits ahead of a batch of one- and two-loss SEC teams that boast superior schedule strength.

Texas can’t complain, though. The SEC’s rookie got whipped at home by Georgia and lacks a marquee victory, but Texas nonetheless ranks No. 3.

Perhaps, the committee forgot the Longhorns are now in the SEC.

If Texas beats Arkansas this weekend but gets leapfrogged by Indiana and BYU, we’ll know the committee figured out the Longhorns’ conference affiliation.

Big Ten better positioned for seeding than SEC teams

Before anyone sheds a tear for the proud and mighty SEC, let’s pause to say that the conference remains in great shape to qualify four teams for the 12-team field.

Texas, No. 10 Alabama and No. 11 Ole Miss are best-positioned for a bid, while the winner of the upcoming Tennessee-Georgia clash will emerge on firmer footing.

However, these rankings tamp down the notion of the SEC qualifying five playoff teams.

It’s looking like four from the Big Ten, four from the SEC, and four split among everyone else. Big Ten teams are positioned for the most coveted seeds.

So, does the committee have an ax to grind with the SEC? I'm not convinced of that. Conference vendettas are a bigger deal to fans than to committee members.

Instead of a malicious bias against the SEC, this committee suffers from a record bias combined with an eye-test bias.

Its crush for teams like Texas, No. 4 Penn State and Indiana can be linked to those teams’ records. The committee overlooks Indiana’s comparatively soft schedule because the Hoosiers are easy on the eyes. They’re playing well on both sides of the ball.

That eye-test bias stopped short of helping No. 10 Alabama or Ole Miss, though, two talented two-loss teams that smashed their last two opponents. Alabama climbed just one spot after demolishing LSU on the road.

This committee trumpets a clear message: Don’t expect your strength of schedule to cover for your record, no matter what conference you call home.

Blake Toppmeyer is the USA TODAY Network's national college football columnist. Email him at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter @btoppmeyer. Subscribe to read all of his columns.