http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...f-rankings
Heather Dinrich:
If we learned anything from the first CFP ranking on Tuesday, it was this: You can't pin the selection committee down on any one, single criteria. Strength of schedule? Check. Eye test? Check. Results against common opponents? Check. Yet it was impossible to tell what mattered the most (maybe eye test?) and if it was applied consistently across the ranking in the short amount of time Long had to explain it.
For Alabama, three wins over teams with records better than .500 was the big selling point -- but undefeated Iowa also had three wins against teams with records better than .500.
Answer: eye test.
"Their offense is something we look at closely," Long said of the Hawkeyes. "I think there's a question in the room of how strong their offense is. I think their defense has been consistent, but it's difficult to judge based on the quality of teams they've played at this point in some respects."
Undefeated TCU and Baylor clearly have no problem scoring points, but the defenses they have faced could also be called into question. The first ranking was a reminder of just how ambiguous and subjective this fledgling system is -- something that is going to take some getting used to.
Many argue that these rankings don't matter, and that there should be only one top 25 revealed at the end of the season, but this format allows fans, coaches and media to gain insight into how the committee thinks and understand the reasons behind their decisions and what matters to them. It's only valuable, though, when it's easy to understand.
SO: to summarize-there's no logic or rhyme or reason to it. They are no more credible than AP Pollsters.