Is the committee necessarily consistent?

Meaning, do they use the same level of scrutiny the last game of the season as they do the first day they release rankings?

It seems they are pretty much following popular opinion and aren't considering quality of wins or anything like that until they have to.


It's almost like they are trying to give everyone their moment in the sun rather than evaluating things correctly week to week.


Agree? Disagree? Who cares? Just win baby? Did I miss anything?

Don't worry about it. If we don't win out, we don't deserve to make the playoffs anyway.

Everyone says "just win baby" and complains when people try to talk football and outcomes.

To answer the question, I think it's hard to find rhyme/reason to the CFP committee's decisions. I like how Kirby Smart called them out for their lack of consistency.

To me, the only consistent thing is that the "big names" (OSU, tu, Bama, etc) get the benefit of the doubt over smaller schools or up-and-comers.

But I guess that's the way the world works…

There is a rhyme / reason to it
The rules are really pretty simple
Start with last years season ending rankings
Adjust by moving high profile programs up a couple of spots ( tu ND etc ) and move lesser programs down a couple figuring it was a fluke year for the lower profile program

As teams lose start moving them down the ranking
high profile teams that lose move down less especially if it's a good loss tu V UGa tOSU v The Ducks

Finally in November as rivalry week approaches and teams start playing conference games every week

The rankings tend to sort themselves for example the Ags win they will earn a spot in the CCG or we will lose and not have much of a beef we would be 9-3 with a couple nice wins but too many losses to be considered

As always high profile programs like tu & ND will get every consideration to make the field
If they both end up 10-2 ( Fight On Trojans) the committee will be in a jam because the teams did not prove they belonged but won just barely to enough to stay in the conversation