Another article from one of the participants:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/inside-look...35291.html
In the process of making the sausage, we changed our minds a bit. Some of our original beliefs were altered and swayed, the more we examined numbers and listened to arguments. Some teams rose in the rankings, some fell. (The biggest differences from the final BCS rankings of 2008: We did not rank BYU, which was No. 16 in the BCS; we ranked Oregon State No. 18, while the Beavers were unranked by the BCS; we ranked Virginia Tech six spots higher than the BCS, at No. 13.)
One thing we were solid on: the top four. We voted on that three separate times, and each time the result was the same, in the same order: Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, USC.
When the real committee did its mock exercise using the same season, Long said it produced a different Final Four, and in a different order. We asked him what the differences were between theirs and ours. He thought about answering, then got a pre-emptive shake of the head from College Football Playoff CFO Reid Sigmon and declined to divulge.
Yes, even mock committee results from bygone seasons are confidential. So transparency clearly is a relative term.
....
Our first three were Florida, Oklahoma and Texas, with plenty of debate about the Sooners and Longhorns. If you recall, the Big 12 South was both the best and most controversial division in college football that year, with Texas beating Oklahoma head-to-head but later losing to Texas Tech and losing the Big 12 divisional tiebreaker. I voted Texas ahead of Oklahoma. I was in the minority.
Ranking the next three was perhaps the most-debated part of the process, given the importance of that fourth spot. Cases were stated for each of the three: USC, Penn State and Alabama. I made the case for the Crimson Tide to be No. 4 and was the only person to rank 'Bama that high. USC ended up being ahead of Penn State by a wide margin for fourth.