We know a little but not much about the due process that will determine which teams play in the College Football Playoff.
Which isn't to say the selection committee has not been forthright. They have been. It is only to say that because the system is so new, and because there are pieces of the process that seem more subjective than the BCS, we will need to wait and see before we fully understand how it works.
Specifically, we will have to see how the committee balances on-field merit with on-paper resume. Committee head Jeff Long made waves in May when he told the media, "We don’t think in terms of most deserving on the resume. We’re focused on the best four teams and the best ranking in the [playoff] top 25. Again, our focus is the best, not deserving.”
This seems to open the door for potential biases.
The SEC is, in many peoples' opinion, the best conference in America, and this statute of "best, not most-deserving" could make it possible for a two- or three-loss team from that league to make it over a two- or one-loss team from another.
Which is why, for the purposes of this list, the SEC teams included were not all ranked at the front. They probably have the hardest schedules in America—i.e. the ones with the most SEC opponents—but because they might be granted slack for an extra loss here and there, they do not necessarily have a harder track to the CFP.
Furthermore, the only teams included on this list were ones with a realistic chance—as deemed by the writer—of making the CFP.
Teams with difficult opponents that never would have made it anyway were ignored. Tennessee, for example, probably has the toughest schedule in America, but it was not considered a modern "blue-blood" after posting four consecutive losing seasons.
This list is a group of teams that have found success the past few years, that are good enough—on paper—to make the College Football Playoff in 2014 but might have trouble because of whom they face and where they face them.
Sound off below if you disagree.