CFP Selection, Explained
Selection Room is an independent analysis workspace for the College Football Playoff field. Inspect every team's case, audit the selection path, test model assumptions, and validate how the system behaves historically.
Selection Room
Live analysis workspace
Projected field
Indiana
Big Ten
Ohio State
Big Ten
Georgia
SEC
Texas Tech
Big 12
Oregon
Big Ten
Alabama
SEC
Oklahoma
SEC
Notre Dame
FBS Independents
Selection case
Oklahoma
#7 · SEC
- Ranked #7 by the composite model.
- Selected as one of the seven at-large teams.
- Resume profile trails team-strength indicators (resume rank #9, predictive rank #39).
Bracket path
Selection stability
1,000 weight perturbations · resume 40% base
BYU
Out
Miami
Out
USC
Out
Bubble cutline
Last in
Notre Dame
FBS Independents
Oklahoma
SEC
First out
BYU
Big 12
Miami
ACC
Not just a bracket builder
Selection Room explains the selection itself
Seeds, bids, bracket path, and bubble context come from the same rule engine — not a separate toy bracket generator.
Explain every team
Every team has a case
Open a full selection résumé with composite breakdown, selection reasons, concerns, schedule context, and bubble stability — the same surface you use inside the product.
Browse rankingsOklahoma
#79-2(FBS record · weeks 1–15)
Projected selection
- Ranked #7 by the composite model.
- Selected as one of the seven at-large teams.
- Ranked #7, above the final at-large cutoff (#10 Texas A&M).
- Playoff seed #7 under this ruleset.
Concerns
- Resume profile trails team-strength indicators (resume rank #9, predictive rank #39).
Schedule
Test assumptions
Assumptions are testable
Scenario Lab and selection stability stress the model under weight perturbations. See which teams move, which hold, and why the cut line shifts.
Open Scenario LabCut line: Texas A&M in · BYU first out
Ole Miss
Median rank #9
Texas A&M
Median rank #10
BYU
Median rank #11
Miami
Median rank #13
Validate historically
Results are validated
Calibration and committee emulation compare the model to finished seasons. Quality gates catch ideas that improve one metric but fail protected holdouts.
View validation dashboardIn 2014, the model produced the correct field size under Top 4 rules (4/4 field overlap).
In 2015, the model produced the correct field size under Top 4 rules (3/4 field overlap); model added Stanford; model dropped Oklahoma.
In 2016, the model produced the correct field size under Top 4 rules (3/4 field overlap); model added Michigan; model dropped Clemson.
In 2017, the model produced the correct field size under Top 4 rules (2/4 field overlap); model added Auburn, UCF; model dropped Alabama, Oklahoma.
In 2018, the model produced the correct field size under Top 4 rules (3/4 field overlap); model added Georgia; model dropped Oklahoma.
In 2019, the model produced the correct field size under Top 4 rules (3/4 field overlap); model added Penn State; model dropped Oklahoma.
In 2020, the model produced the correct field size under Top 4 rules (1/4 field overlap); model added BYU, Cincinnati, Coastal Carolina; model dropped Clemson, Notre Dame, Ohio State.
In 2021, the model produced the correct field size under Top 4 rules (4/4 field overlap).
In 2022, the model produced the correct field size under Top 4 rules (4/4 field overlap).
In 2023, the model produced the correct field size under Top 4 rules (4/4 field overlap).
In 2024, the model produced the correct field size under 5+7 champion-byes rules (11/12 field overlap); model added Alabama; model dropped Tennessee.
Open the room
Start with the latest projected field, then inspect the bubble, compare scenarios, and read the methodology.