Last year, T'erd slaughtered just about everybody but had no "P"5 teams on their schedule and didn't show up on the CFP rankings until the next to last week of the regular season, when they were 11-0.

This year, Toledo (7-0) has played solid ball, winning some big, winning others not so big, but they beat two "P"5 teams (one of which is 4-4 and the other is 3-5) and they're 24th in the first CFP rankings of the season. Playing -- and beating -- even so-so "P"5 teams makes a difference.

Their logic is totally hypocritical. What matters to rank one team doesn't matter when ranking another. It's absurd.

Ohio State basically got in the Top 4 because they won the national championship the year before. Florida State was the same last year.

So if you're going to make the previous season's results matter, then you have to make the previous week's results matter too, which is exactly what the rankings DIDN'T do last year with TCU when they dropped the Frogs from out of the Top 4 after winning a game 55-3.

They also said they ranked Alabama in the Top 4 because of their record vs teams above .500. Well, Stanford has more wins than Alabama over .500 teams, so why aren't they up there? Same goes for Utah.

Exactly. I've argued with friends on Facebook that the new "playoff" is really just the BCS dressed up with a couple extra games. Until they come up with criteria that are pre-set that allow the competitors to be decided not by polls and computers, but by play on the field, it'll still just be a big game of politics.

This argument is similar to the one I make every March. The NCAA basketball tournament commitee uses strength of schedule if it benefits the power conferences, but not if it benefits the mid majors; It uses overall record if it benefits the power conference, but not if it benefits the mid majors; etc. . .

And then lets play a 17 game schedule that will be longer than the NFL, all the while complain about the players not being properly compensated and worry about safety.

How about this? Allow teams to play a 12 game schedule, but have only 11 guaranteed. Next, move one of the OOC games to the end of the schedule. For teams that qualify for their conference championship game, they lose that final OOC game, but play the conference championship instead. Since an even number of teams qualified for conference championships, you can re-pair up the teams that lost games so that everyone gets to play 12. Now you have a maximum of 12 games before the playoffs, so a three-game playoff only gives two teams 15 games, two other teams 14 games, and no one else plays over 13.

The whole charade of releasing rankings each week is about one thing and one thing only.....$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

ESPN and CFB powers got together and decided they could boost ratings and generate discussion around the playoff by doing these pointless weekly ratings.

They mean NOTHING until the final one. Literally...they mean NOTHING!!!!

As someone earlier said, how does TCU win by 52 and drop two spots out of the rankings the last week.

It's a joke.

It should be like the NCAA basketball tourney. Have a selection show and keep it quiet up until selection sunday.

Leave the guess work, bracketology and prognostications to the "expert analysts"

The rankings we saw Tuesday night and for the next handful of Tuesday nights is only to drive up TV ratings and generate exposure/discussion around it. The actual rankings themselves mean absolutely nothing!

For the umpteenth time, any team that can go undefeated ought to be ranked highly and in a very good bowl game.

Undefeated is very, very, very difficult to do. Proof? How many teams do it.