Here's some good reading on the mechanics of the selection process. The part that really stands out to me is this:
The members then add their rankings together, and the three teams with the fewest points become the top three seeds. From there, the members hold the three teams not seeded for the next ranking step.
This seems to provide the context for the term "comparable teams" that appears in the documented protocols. It seems reasonable to conclude that comparable teams are the teams in each grouping of six teams created during Step 2. This is important because the bullet points in the Principles section are used to distinguish those comparable teams. Those factors are:
Scenario 1: Georgia and Washington are conference champs
In this scenario, it seems likely that Georgia, Michigan and Washington would be slotted in that order after the first round of selections, leaving Texas, Florida State and four other teams alive for the final spot. To select Florida State in this scenario, the committee would need to ignore the guidance about strength of schedule and availability of key players.
Scenario 2: Alabama and Washington are conference champs
In this scenario, Texas may well be the third team selected in the first round because it has head-to-head over Alabama and the previously listed advantages over Florida State.
Scenario 3: Georgia and Oregon are conference champs
This should unfold like Scenario 2, with Texas having both strength of schedule and comparative outcomes advantages over Oregon.
Scenario 4: Alabama and Oregon are conference champs
In this scenario, Texas might emerge as the second overall seed because it would have advantages over every team except Michigan.
2. Listing step
Each member lists what they feel are the six best college football teams, but not in any ranked order. The six teams that receive the most votes become the pool for the first step in the rankings.3. Ranking step
This is when each selection committee member formally ranks the top-six teams from the listing step. The top-ranked team in each member's poll receives one point. The second-best team receives two points, the third-best three points, and etc.The members then add their rankings together, and the three teams with the fewest points become the top three seeds. From there, the members hold the three teams not seeded for the next ranking step.
4. Picking the next six
Each member of the selection committee then lists the six best teams left, in no certain order. Whichever three teams get the most votes are then added to the three teams held over for the next ranking step.This seems to provide the context for the term "comparable teams" that appears in the documented protocols. It seems reasonable to conclude that comparable teams are the teams in each grouping of six teams created during Step 2. This is important because the bullet points in the Principles section are used to distinguish those comparable teams. Those factors are:
- Conference championships won,
- Strength of schedule,
- Head‐to‐head competition,
- Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory), and,
- Other relevant factors such as unavailability of key players and coaches that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.
Scenario 1: Georgia and Washington are conference champs
In this scenario, it seems likely that Georgia, Michigan and Washington would be slotted in that order after the first round of selections, leaving Texas, Florida State and four other teams alive for the final spot. To select Florida State in this scenario, the committee would need to ignore the guidance about strength of schedule and availability of key players.
Scenario 2: Alabama and Washington are conference champs
In this scenario, Texas may well be the third team selected in the first round because it has head-to-head over Alabama and the previously listed advantages over Florida State.
Scenario 3: Georgia and Oregon are conference champs
This should unfold like Scenario 2, with Texas having both strength of schedule and comparative outcomes advantages over Oregon.
Scenario 4: Alabama and Oregon are conference champs
In this scenario, Texas might emerge as the second overall seed because it would have advantages over every team except Michigan.
