The biggest questions about the College Football Playoff's early rankings

When the sports' powers that be first unveiled the expanded College Football Playoff, one of their biggest selling points was the impact it would have on the month of November. And as we sit here in the first week of the final month of the regular season, there are more than two dozen teams that have a path to the 12-team CFP.

Some teams are still in it because they're alive in their conference races and have a chance (albeit slim) of getting to a league championship game, with an automatic CFP bid on the line for the winner. Others are teams with one or two losses that still feel they deserve consideration across the board. Still others are the top contenders in Group 5, fighting for positioning among their competitors in their conferences and peer conferences. The best-placed G5 champion is also guaranteed a place in the 12-team group. There are many teams that you can play for a lot.

So yes, this system is already working. We did not remove teams from the national championship list after a loss in September, as we have done in previous years. But we still don't know much about how this will all play out as we've never done the selection, seeding and division of a 12-team field before. On Tuesday evening we finally start studying.

The CFP rankings, released Tuesday evening, are the first of five season-long top 25 rankings that will be released each week through the first week of December. They provide a glimpse into the mindset of this year's selection committee, providing insight into the values ​​they value and how they view these teams at the top. As a reminder, this is an incomplete review. But it's a start, and it can be a signal.

These rankings will be more useful than ever as we all experience a 12-team CFP for the first time. Although the committee has always compiled a full ranking of 25 teams, we (the public) have not always analyzed the various teams with two or three losses to this extent. But I'm interested in more than just the pecking order of bubble teams.

Here are the most pressing questions surrounding the release of the first rankings:

1. How does the committee view Notre Dame's loss to Northern Illinois?

That is the great unknown. I spilled a lot of ink I've already given my personal opinion on the situation, but for those who missed it, I believe that the Fighting Irish have proven in six straight games that they are a better and different team than they were the day they lost to NIU. They now have a productive passing game with the quarterback Riley Leonardwho was still adjusting to a new school and a new offensive system after two offseason surgeries that caused him to miss all of spring ball. They also got a good win over Texas A&M (a team that should be in the top 15 in the initial rankings) and a dominant win over Navy. But there are plenty of experts who believe that a loss to a not-very-good MAC team should essentially prevent the Irish from even making the field. If Notre Dame wins, this team will be on the field. There are seven (!) places in total. There are many flawed teams and/or resumes with blemishes. So I'm not worried about the final rankings in December.

But I'm curious to see if the committee agrees with me that Notre Dame has already done enough to offset its serious loss. Or, failing that, how far away are the Irish from the CFP picture right now?

2. How does the committee evaluate schedules that vary in strength even between teams in the same conferences?

The Big Ten has 18 teams, the ACC has 17 teams and the SEC and Big 12 each have 16 teams. None of these leagues have any more divisions and (obviously) none of them have a true round-robin conference schedule. This means that there are unbalanced schedules even between teams in the same league. Indiana hasn't faced nearly as challenging a schedule as Ohio State. Does the selection committee have the tools to compare more than just the overall relative strength of the schedule? Committee members view the SOS in “tapes.” So if Team A's SOS is 13 and Team B's is 18, they are close enough to not be considered a differentiator – but so are the timing differences between two participants in the same conference? Can you blame Indiana for a schedule dictated by the Big Ten Conference that tried to balance its teams' schedules based on historical success? How does Texas' schedule compare to Tennessee's? Alabama? There are some data points and common opponents, but it will still be difficult. And how do these resumes compare to, say, Iowa State's?

3. Will big wins carry more weight than big losses?

This is another way to frame the Notre Dame question. Does the big road win at Texas A&M mean more than a tough loss for NIU? Does Alabama's win over Georgia make up for the loss to Vanderbilt? I'm curious to see what message the committee sends with its ranking – and the chairman's statement Warden Manuel – and whether that’s anything different than the message we’ve been getting over the last decade about good wins and bad losses. Typically the committee has honored these good wins more than punished bad losses… But I wonder if that changes in a 12-team bracket, where there will undoubtedly be more losing teams than in the four-team field . We're so used to debating the merits of undefeated and one-loss teams for those coveted spots… but there's a lot more scope now with more overall spots.

I'm sharing my Week 11 prediction for the 12-team CFP.

I don't expect it to agree with the committee's at this point in the game. But we'll see if I'm on the right track.

A quick housekeeping note: Every Tuesday evening after the CFP rankings are released, Joshua Perry and I will record a reaction podcast that will be posted on our Storm the field feed (in addition to our regular weekly show). Please be sure to subscribe, rate and review us!