DALLAS — It’s a little after dinnertime in the Primrose Room of the Gaylord Texan Resort & Convention Center and we’re talking about bacon. It’s not just any bacon, you see. It’s special bacon.
Bacon that any member of the College Football Playoff selection committee will assuredly tell you tastes better than any other bacon you’ve tasted. No, really. "It’s realllyyyyy good bacon," CFP Executive Director Rich Clark said, grinning.
But enough about bacon and its aura among CFP selection committee members. That wasn't the point of this exercise. Well, not all of it.
I was in Dallas last week as the CFP hosted its annual mock selection exercise in the same suite where the actual committee will determine the first CFP rankings of the 2026 season in two weeks’ time. The idea was to provide insight and transparency into the process. So shelve your conspiracy theories, angsty rankings takes and any other animosity you might have toward past selection committees.
Let’s take a joint ride into the world of CFP selections. How My CFP Selection Process Started The deep brown hotel desk provided by J. Willard Marriott, a stone’s throw from Dallas Fort Worth International Airport, teamed with papers, pens and a binder that came into my possession in the span of two hours.
There was homework to be done. As part of Friday morning’s exercise, I was tasked with ranking my top-30 teams from the end of the 2025 college football season. That’s a chore in itself.
I was provided a branded binder at dinner by the CFP staff, which included "team sheets" for each and every program in college football. Each one-sheeter provided a slew of stats, data and schedule information about the season a respective program had. The idea is to arm selection committee members with a convenient way to differentiate and rank everyone.
Choosing No. 1 was easy. Thanks to undefeated Big Ten champion Indiana for that.
The rest, not so much. The prep work isn’t exactly the same as it is for committee members. Those involved are provided an iPad at the beginning of each season that includes varying information from SportSource Analytics and game cutups designed to be easily digestible in around 45 minutes.
The committee — which is composed of one representative from each Power Four conference, two Group of Six leagues and another six former players, media members and coaches — and its general responsibilities mimic those of the NCAA basketball tournaments. Each person is assigned a different conference — one that they don’t inherently represent — and serves as a point of contact for storylines and other information that might not be conveyed in the provided data. That work includes regular calls with the conference offices, including commissioners, about their programs and those that might be in the mix for a CFP berth.
But this is all just the beginning. How Does The CFP Selection Committee Pick Teams? The rankings' system for the top 25 and, ultimately, placement in the CFP field is a far more tedious process than you’d imagine.
Utilizing the same computers and system the actual committee utilizes, we began Friday’s proceedings by placing each of the top 30 teams we respectively picked into the computer program. Those that were chosen — 41 different programs in this case — are then placed into essentially a holding pool for potential selection. Then comes the actual rankings.
As we did to begin the exercise, we each picked six teams we believed should be considered for the top four spots. Those teams that received the six most votes from committee members are then projected onto the screen at the front of the room and discussion begins. It’s from here where team sheets that include varying stats such as strength of schedule, strength of record, relative scoring offense, relative scoring differential, and more, are projected in front of committee members and debate ensues.
The CFP utilizes a total of 12 different statistical metrics, along with a pair of strength metrics – none of which are predictive. There is no directive in which order those stats are designed to be applied when comparing teams, creating some level of variance on the committee from year to year. This differs from, for example, the NCAA men's basketball committee, which has a slew of stats that it mandates are considered in a specific order of importance.
In this case, the six teams we picked included Indiana, Ohio State, Georgia, Texas Tech, Oregon and Ole Miss. After a spirited discussion, each committee member was then asked to pick four teams ranked from best to worst out of those six programs. The four teams with the most votes from committee members are then placed into the field and we began the entire process again, repeating it until 25 teams are selected.
What Happens If The Rankings Don’t Look Right At The End Of Selections? I’m glad you asked! After weaving our way through four hours of discussion, our group decided to perform a "scrub," or a reevaluation of a pod of teams that might not have previously been compared during the initial rankings process.
In our case, we ranked the back end of the CFP field as: That didn’t jibe with everyone. Meeting the four-committee member threshold to call for a scrub, we pulled each of the four teams onto our screens and discussed. After about 10-15 minutes of spirited discussion, our committee re-voted on those teams we’d initially ranked Nos.
10-13. The scrub resulted in flipping around the rankings a touch: Because the CFP requires the inclusion of the top four-ranked conference champions and one Group of Six squad, that meant that Notre Dame actually received the last spot in the field. Alabama and Texas were the first two teams out.
Confused? Let’s recap. Teams ranked Nos.
1-10 received bids, Notre Dame last among those. ACC champion Duke (8-5) was also included in our field as a Power Four conference winner. Tulane (11-2), which came in at No.
16 in our rankings, landed the No. 11-seed as the Group of Six champion (We had the Green Wave ranked higher than Duke). Perhaps Alabama fans should thank us.
Wouldn’t being left home have been better than getting steamrolled at the Rose Bowl by No. 1 Indiana like we saw in real life? Food for thought.
What storylines should fans follow during this year’s CFP selections? The entire experience took about five hours in total as we winded our way through selections, bracketing and the process by which this all came together. But as we turn toward the actual selections that will begin after Week 8, there are a few other nuggets fans should keep an eye on: New bracketing approach creates a strategy: This year marks the first in which the top seed can choose its own path throughout the CFP.
After selections are finalized, the No. 1 seed will be able to select its preferred quarterfinal and semifinal site, adding a whole other level of strategy for coaches and administrators to consider. Think, for example, if Georgia lands the No.
1 seed this year. It would almost certainly choose the Peach Bowl for its CFP quarterfinal. What if its semifinal matchup could potentially include Miami?
It would almost certainly choose to face the Hurricanes in the Cotton Bowl rather than the Orange Bowl. Expanding the CFP will impact selections: Life is all about timing, right? Naturally, I was in the thick of the CFP selection process when news trickled out that the field is likely to expand to 24 teams as soon as next year.
To be clear, this isn’t final yet. That said, the biggest thing I learned — and what CFP staffers explained to us given past precedent — is that determining teams ranked essentially 15 through 30ish is a coin flip. So how exactly are we going to parse through teams’ No.
22, 23, 24 and 25? No clue. Godspeed everyone.
Other changes coming to the CFP: The 24-team field is the most obvious discussion point here, but it was mentioned by CFP staff that the group might need to release a ranking of more than just the 25 teams it currently does each week should that happen. That much makes sense. If the field were 24 teams, revealing only the top 25 doesn’t feel particularly instructive if there are others close to the line.
So, top 30? Top 35? Top 40?
We’ll see. That figures to be a discussion point. Clark noted there has also been some discussion about shelving the weekly rankings show that the CFP is contractually obligated to produce with ESPN.
The show has been a lightning rod for criticism, and most national media members would tell you it puts the committee and committee chair in a brutal spot when having to evaluate and publicly discuss teams with incomplete data sets. Is it going away? Probably not immediately, or ever.
The show draws ratings. It creates controversy and conversation. Those tend to be important barometers for television networks.
