While I think the current playoff system is a much better system than the BCS, I believe it is still flawed because it contains a subjective/human element to it.  As much as the committee might try, I don’t believe it can be completely impartial and remove all personal bias from the process.  The factors used by the committee to make the rankings are:  win-loss records, strength of schedule, conference championships, head-to-head results, results against common opponents, and “other relevant factors” (such as injuries, etc.).  Save the last one, these are all great criteria to consider, but we aren’t really told how the committee values these in the rankings.  Is it a point system, or does the committee pull a George W. “the Decider” Bush and go with the gut?  

Based on the final rankings in past years, I suspect the committee went with the “gut” more than any measurable metric.  As an example, In 2014 Alabama was the clear number 1, followed by Oregon, Florida State, and Ohio State.  My biggest problem with the rankings was that Florida State, the only undefeated team in the bunch, was slotted at 3.  They should have been the clear number 1 in my view based on the simple fact that they were the only team to win all of their games.  I think the playoff committee was heavily influenced by the multitude of sports media outlets that lambasted the many “ugly” wins by Florida State and the legal troubles of its quarterback.  While I don’t think Florida State was the best team in the country that year, as far as the rankings go for the playoff, they should have been slotted number 1—no question about it.  Certainly the NFL is not perfect, but the way it decides playoff seeding is spot-on—you can view it at the following link http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures.  All of the criteria are completely objective.  Why can’t college football do the same thing?  Why do we need a 13 person committee to make these decisions?  Well, I think it is possible for college football to have an objective rankings system.  Here is my proposal:

1)    Each team receives 10 points for a win against a Power 5 Conference opponent, 7 points for a win against a Non-Power 5 Division I opponent, and 5 points for a win against a FCS opponent.  These are then added together and divided by the total number of opponents played (this is largely done to have a weighted average to account for those schools/teams that don’t play in a conference championship game).
2)    Each team’s strength of schedule is calculated as follows:
a.    (Take the team’s Power 5 Conference opponents’ combined winning %) * (The number of Power 5 Conference opponents the team has played) * 8
b.    (Take the team’s Non-Power 5 Division I opponents’ combined winning %) * (The number of Non-Power 5 Division I opponents the team has played) * 5.6
c.    (Take the team’s FCS opponents’ combined winning %) * (The number of FCS opponents the team has played) * 4
d.    Add these up and divide by the total number of opponents played (again, this is done to account for those schools that don’t play in a conference championship game).
3)    Teams get 1 point for being undefeated.
4)    Teams get 1 point for winning a conference championship.
5)    Teams get .1 point for every win against a team ranked 11-25 (based on CFP rankings; rankings are a moving target and adjust up/down throughout the season)
6)    Teams get .25 point for every win against a team ranked in the top 10 (based on CFP rankings; rankings are a moving target and adjust up/down throughout the season)
7)    At the end of the regular season, a head-to-head coupler will come in to play and will work as follows.  For teams with identical records at the end of the regular season and identical achievements (i.e. both have conference championships) where one team has beaten the other, the team with the loss will automatically be dropped to one spot lower than the winning team if it is otherwise ranked ahead of the winning team.  If the teams don’t have identical records or if one team has a conference championship and the other team does not, then this rule would not apply.

The advantages of the above system are that each team is graded on the exact same scale, it’s easy to follow and understand, and it removes human bias and error from the process.  This system also rewards teams for playing a tougher schedule by awarding more points for power 5 team wins and Power 5 teams on the schedule, which I think is an important distinction.  The strength of schedule number for each team would change from week-to-week and is not a static number based on a human poll.  It’s simply based on how well your team’s opponents perform throughout the year.  Teams that are undefeated at a point in time carry the 1 point undefeated bonus.  If and when they lose, that bonus goes with it.  Conference champions also receive a 1 point bonus.  

For the current playoff rankings, here is how I would have ranked them in my system (I had a really nice Excel Table with the calculations, but couldn't for the life of me get it to look good when copied over):

1.Wisconsin

2. Clemson

3. Oklahoma

4. Georgia

5. Alabama

6. Miami

7. Auburn

8. USC

9. Ohio State

Here’s how the rankings would look if Clemson, Auburn, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and USC win their respective conference championships:

1. Clemson

2. Oklahoma

3. Auburn

4. Ohio State

5. USC

6. Wisconsin

7. Alabama

8. Georgia

9. Miami

Under my proposed system, a premium is put on scheduling quality opponents, getting quality wins, and winning your respective conference, which is how I think it should be.  The playoff committee in my mind still has a bias for the SEC and against the Pac 10 in particular.  When you peal things back a bit, you see that Alabama has one of the weakest schedules out there with 2 non-power 5 division 1 teams and 1 FCS team.  Meanwhile, the Pac 10 and Big 10 have sworn off of scheduling FCS opponents and schedule 9 conference games (the SEC only schedules 8 conference games).  I think the committee still has a hard-on for the SEC and is intent on putting both the SEC championship winner and Alabama in the playoff, which I think would be a travesty and disservice to much more deserving teams.  Unfortunately, I think the only way the Big 10 gets a team in this year is if Wisconsin wins, or, maybe OSU if we blow them out similar to 2014.