College football reaches the penultimate week of the regular season this week. As teams inch closer to the College Football Playoff, the scrutiny heightens, and much of the conversation is based on emotion, conference affiliation and school logos. But what do the facts and figures say about these teams? Here’s a look at how teams match up based on their resume.

Each team listed in the four scenarios is ranked in the latest CFP Top 25. The teams were judged alongside similar teams based on the following metrics:

• Strength of schedule average, comprised of the Football Power Index (FPI), Fremeau Efficiency Index (FEI) and Sagarin
• Margin of victory
• FBS opponents’ win-loss record and percentage
• Wins against teams in the current Top 25
• Record against teams with both winning records and non-winning records

Let’s look at the teams.

Scenario 1

Four teams with two losses apiece all clogged somewhere between hosting a CFP first-round game and earning a bowl bid. All of them face an instate rival to conclude the season. Typical of expanding conferences, only one team played the other three while one team played only one game within the quartet.

The committee likely will determine the order using data as a guideline while relying heavily on the eye test. At some point this season, each one has looked like a future national champion or a mid-level bowl contestant, often within weeks. But what do the metrics say?

Team 1 breakdown: Of the quartet, Team 1 ranks third in average strength of schedule and last regarding FBS opponents’ cumulative record. In fact, in last week’s top 20, only one other program faced a group of teams with a worse winning percentage. It has played only two teams with current winning records and split the outcomes with its other loss coming to a 5-5 squad. But it owns a big-time win over Team 4.

Team 2 breakdown: Team 2 sits last of the group when it comes to average strength of schedule, but its opponents have won 53.3 percent of their games. It has won three games against teams with winning records, but one of its losses came to a team that sits 1-6 in conference play. It does have the greatest point differential of the group at 22.4 points per game, and it beat Team 3 decisively.

Team 3 breakdown: One of the best overall resumes belongs to Team 3, which boasts the top strength of schedule among ranked teams. It has the second-best opponent winning percentage among upper-level CFP contenders. It has played four Top 25 teams and won twice. It has played all three teams in this foursome with one win (Team 1 by 14 points) and two losses (Team 2 by 18 points and Team 4 by seven points).

Team 4 breakdown: No team has faced a more difficult slate of opponents, and Team 4’s FBS opponents have won 65.6 percent of their games. In addition, Team 4 has beaten four foes ranked in last week’s Top 25. It has a one-touchdown loss to Team 1 and its other defeat came to a current 6-4 squad. Among teams in at-large contention, it also has the second-best overall strength of schedule.

Teams in order: Tennessee, Ole Miss, Georgia, Alabama

Scenario 2

This one involves three one-loss teams from three different leagues all with legitimate shots at first-round byes as champions. It’s unlikely any of the three will qualify as at-large squads with a second loss.

Of the trio, Team 2 has the top strength of schedule, which perhaps coincides with owning the lowest point differential. But Team 3’s opponents have a 55.9 winning percentage, which is the best of the group, followed by Team 1. Both Teams 1 and 3 have beaten four teams with winning records, and their losses came to opponents ranked in last week’s CFP top 10. Team 3’s only defeat came to No. 1 Oregon on a last-second field goal. Team 2 has beaten three opponents with winning records, including Team 1, but its loss came to a 4-6 squad.

Teams in order: SMU, BYU, Boise State

Scenario 3

These three teams are in good position for at-large bids, yet they have vastly different resumes. Team 1 has by far the best average strength of schedule ranking of the three, while Team 2 has the worst of any possible at-large qualifier in that category. None of the teams’ opponents have a combined winning percentage exceeding 50 percent. Yet they all have solid resumes.

Team 3 is 5-1 against foes with winning records, and its point differential is 26.6 per game. Team 2 has played just one opponent with a current winning record but is undefeated and has a 25.2 per-game point differential. Team 1 is no slouch, either, with a 19.4-point differential and only one loss to No. 2 Ohio State. Team 3 has what many consider the worst loss on the board to Northern Illinois, but the Huskies are 6-4 overall.

Teams in order: Penn State, Indiana, Notre Dame

Scenario 4

This is a heavy-hitter grouping with two teams ranked in the top five and every team with just one loss. Team 2 posts the best average strength of schedule, but Team 1’s opponents have a slightly better winning percentage. Team 3 is behind both teams in those two categories.

Team 1 has a strong point differential at 27.5, but Team 2 is close behind at 25.1. Team 3 isn’t too far off the mark at 19.1. All three have lost to a team with a winning record, although the opponents make up the biggest difference among them. Team 1 dropped a one-point decision at No. 1 Oregon, while Team 2 fell at home by 15 points to Georgia. Team 3 lost to 6-4 Georgia Tech. Teams 2 and 3 haven’t beaten an opponent that is currently ranked, although Team 2 had three wins against teams who were ranked at the time.

Teams in order: Ohio State, Texas, Miami

(Photo: Kevin C. Cox / Getty Images)