Before they met in November to determine their first ranking, the 13 members of the College Football Playoff selection committee were well aware this season would present challenges unlike any other -- a year filled with disruptions, unbalanced schedules and even their own required COVID-19 antigen tests and masks.
Two things never changed: the protocols they used and their task to "select the best teams."
Through Ohio State's truncated six-game season, Cincinnati's undefeated run, Texas A&M's SEC schedule and Notre Dame's ugly loss to Clemson on the day it mattered the most, that protocol kept the selection process from becoming as chaotic as the season it was meant to judge. Conference championships still carried enormous weight (Ohio State). Strength of schedule remained critical (sorry, Group of 5). And there was flexibility for a non-champion to be deemed one of the best teams in the country (Notre Dame).
Fans and coaches can and should question the final ranking -- it's the product of a subjective, exclusive system that opens the door to criticism and has so far locked out Cinderella stories -- but the committee drew its conclusions during this unprecedented season based on the same factors it has been instructed to consider from the onset.
"The committee places high value on championships won," CFP committee chair Gary Barta said. "The commissioners and the founders of the CFP seven years ago made that one of the criteria. It is only one of the criteria. We also look at head-to-head, we look at common opponents and we look at games played. The eye test, I mentioned at the beginning of the year, we talked about how that was going to be so important."
Game film mattered more than ever -- not just for the Buckeyes and their small sample size, but for Cincinnati and three-loss Florida too. The committee members were seated together -- at least six feet apart -- on Saturday night in Grapevine, Texas, where they watched the conference championship games unfold.
On one screen was Florida, which was giving No. 1 Alabama all it could handle in the SEC championship game. Simultaneously on another screen was Cincinnati, which needed a game-winning field goal against Tulsa to win the American Athletic Conference championship.
"So both great seasons, both terrific teams, but the committee in watching the games and evaluating -- just asking the question, which team is better, Florida or Cincinnati, the committee believes that Florida was the better team," Barta said.
Sometimes it's that simple.
Because of the timing of the championship games on Saturday, the committee was able to return to its meeting room between games to discuss in more detail what it had just seen. After Ohio State beat Northwestern, the committee members left the room with the giant projector screen and six other TVs to where they would later cast their votes after all of the games ended.
"Northwestern coming in with one of the best defenses in the country, that first half, talking about Ohio State was not playing as well, and that's to Northwestern's credit," Barta said. "They were playing well. They had a great game plan. And then in the second half, Ohio State really took control of the line of scrimmage and started running the ball. For Trey Sermon to have 331 yards, that was an amazing performance."
The committee talked at length -- not just on Saturday night but all season -- about Ohio State having played only six games, arguably the most controversial data point of the season. The committee moved the Buckeyes to No. 3, though, because two of those wins were against top-15 opponents, and they continuously found ways to win -- even without 22 players on Saturday, including star wide receiver Chris Olave.
The conversation was even more detailed after Clemson's win against Notre Dame, because now when the committee members broke to discuss the ACC championship game, they knew Ohio State had won as well.
The committee considered how what it had just seen from the Tigers impacted its view of Notre Dame's double-overtime win against Clemson in November, when the Tigers weren't full strength. Clearly, it was a different story with Trevor Lawrence in the lineup -- but that didn't negate the Notre Dame victory.
"It can create discussion, but the committee still evaluated and gave credit to the game that occurred with the people that played," Barta said. "Notre Dame played a very strong football game in that first matchup, so we noted who was missing, but we also noted how the game was played, what Notre Dame was able to do, what Clemson did."
In the end, Notre Dame's victory against Clemson and its road win against North Carolina gave the Fighting Irish the edge against No. 5 Texas A&M.
Following Alabama's win against Florida, the committee met until around 12:30 a.m. to begin its deliberations and voting process. Conversations were described as intense but not contentious, with no egos involved. The committee returned to the meeting room around 8:30 a.m. Sunday to review its ranking and make sure it felt comfortable with it.
"I am so glad we had the experts in the room this year as opposed to an inhuman computer ranking system, because the experts were able to combine the data and game results with what they had observed by watching video," CFP executive director Bill Hancock said. "They've been watching video all season. It was a challenging year because of the difference in number of games."
Metrics were taken with a grain of salt this season because sample sizes varied. Marquee nonconference games, which typically help contenders overcome losses in league play and help the committee decipher between otherwise comparable teams, weren't a factor. Playing 10 SEC games was. The former coaches in the room, such as R.C. Slocum and Ken Hatfield, helped guide some conversations with context and perspective. Former USC All-American Ronnie Lott brought experience. And former Penn State All-American John Urschel, who is working on his Ph.D. in math, brought his brain (virtually).
"We have multiple former NFL players, multiple coaches, head coaches," Barta said. "We had ADs. We have a journalist. So we have expertise in football. But with 13 very strong opinions, I can tell you that people see what they see and they're not afraid, and that's why they're on the committee -- to express their opinions. That makes this process, in my opinion, just a terrific process. You take all the information, the data, the statistics, but then you put that up against watching the games and evaluating the games, and I think that's what makes the formula work well."
The protocol served as a reminder every week that the committee's job was to evaluate teams -- not reward them.