[Austroturf]

I personally think this explains it best:

Bill Hancock, executive director of the College Football Playoff, told USA TODAY that "it’s never just one thing" with the committee's rankings. He said Florida, LSU and Penn State played more difficult schedules than WSU.

"For example, all three of Florida’s losses were to teams ranked in the CFP’s top 25 (Kentucky, Georgia and Missouri,)" Hancock said in an e-mail. "Same for LSU (Alabama, Florida and Texas A&M in that wild game Saturday night.)  Two of Penn State’s losses were to teams ranked in the top ten (Ohio State and Michigan.) Florida also defeated two CFP-ranked teams (at Mississippi State and LSU at home.) LSU has a significant victory over Georgia."

WSU's only notable win was a squeaker at home against No. 17 Utah, and they played no FBS schools OOC. I think they have a good case to be ranked ahead of Penn State (who have zero top 25 wins), but I think Florida and LSU have much better arguments to be ranked ahead of WSU.

My only problem with this logic is that it becomes a self-reinforcing circle.  Kentucky (9-3), Georgia (11-1) and Missouri (8-4) are ranked in the Top 25, hence Florida's three losses are quality losses.  And LSU (9-3) deserves its top ten ranking because it lost to top ten Florida (9-3), #1 Alabama (12-0) and #22 Texas A&M (8-4), which is now ranked because it knocked off top ten LSU.  Missouri and Texas A&M (with the same number of losses as Stanford and Oregon) slide into the Top 25 because they have quality losses to other ranked SEC programs.  By stacking the Top 25 with SEC teams, you can make any argument with quality losses within the conference.  At the same time, the SEC is famous for playing non-conference cream-puffs.  That same Florida squad with the quality losses to Kentucky, Georgia and Missouri played the following OOC schedule: Charleston Southern, Idaho, Colorado State and Florida State (5-7).  Only the last of these teams is a Power 5 squad; and Florida caught them on a down year.  The other three games were essentially gimmes.  So since Florida only plays eight conference games, they are barely above 50% in the SEC (5-3), their victories coming against Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Mississippi State and LSU (not an impressive list except for LSU, which has its lofty ranking propped up by a victory over Georgia).  

This has been going on for years; and the all-SEC championship game last year certainly did not weaken this bias toward the SEC.  My sense is that the SEC teams (with the exception of Alabama and Georgia) are all 5-8 spots overrated.  Kentucky at #15 seems way too high: by the same circular logic, they have a "quality" win against Florida, but also had an easy time in OOC games, facing such juggernauts as Central Michigan, Murray State, Middle Tennessee State and Louisville; and the games against CMU and MTS were one possession games until the 4th quarter.  Frankly, it's a gamed system; but as long as Alabama and Georgia continue to populate the top 4, there will be this halo effect on the rest of the conference.  And clearly, this is good for NCAA football revenues, otherwise it would not be tolerated.

Looking at Stanford, we have four quality losses to #3 Notre Dame, #11 Washington, #13 WSU and #17 Utah, but we are way down in the "other teams receiving votes" list.  One could say we have no quality wins, but if Oregon (8-4) were given the same lofty treatment as Missouri and Texas A&M (after all, Oregon did beat #11 Washington), then there could be an argument that we should be in the top 25.  Then Wazzu would have three victories over top 25 teams (Utah, Stanford and Oregon), and the cycle reinforces itself.  Washington's season-opening loss to Auburn certainly did not help matters (the Pac-12's presumptive best team lost to an SEC also-ran).  But that's one game and cannot be used to calibrate an entire conference.

[Austroturf]

I personally think this explains it best:

Bill Hancock, executive director of the College Football Playoff, told USA TODAY that "it’s never just one thing" with the committee's rankings. He said Florida, LSU and Penn State played more difficult schedules than WSU.

"For example, all three of Florida’s losses were to teams ranked in the CFP’s top 25 (Kentucky, Georgia and Missouri,)" Hancock said in an e-mail. "Same for LSU (Alabama, Florida and Texas A&M in that wild game Saturday night.)  Two of Penn State’s losses were to teams ranked in the top ten (Ohio State and Michigan.) Florida also defeated two CFP-ranked teams (at Mississippi State and LSU at home.) LSU has a significant victory over Georgia."

WSU's only notable win was a squeaker at home against No. 17 Utah, and they played no FBS schools OOC. I think they have a good case to be ranked ahead of Penn State (who have zero top 25 wins), but I think Florida and LSU have much better arguments to be ranked ahead of WSU.

My only problem with this logic is that it becomes a self-reinforcing circle.  Kentucky (9-3), Georgia (11-1) and Missouri (8-4) are ranked in the Top 25, hence Florida's three losses are quality losses.  And LSU (9-3) deserves its top ten ranking because it lost to top ten Florida (9-3), #1 Alabama (12-0) and #22 Texas A&M (8-4), which is now ranked because it knocked off top ten LSU.  Missouri and Texas A&M (with the same number of losses as Stanford and Oregon) slide into the Top 25 because they have quality losses to other ranked SEC programs.  By stacking the Top 25 with SEC teams, you can make any argument with quality losses within the conference.  At the same time, the SEC is famous for playing non-conference cream-puffs.  That same Florida squad with the quality losses to Kentucky, Georgia and Missouri played the following OOC schedule: Charleston Southern, Idaho, Colorado State and Florida State (5-7).  Only the last of these teams is a Power 5 squad; and Florida caught them on a down year.  The other three games were essentially gimmes.  So since Florida only plays eight conference games, they are barely above 50% in the SEC (5-3), their victories coming against Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Mississippi State and LSU (not an impressive list except for LSU, which has its lofty ranking propped up by a victory over Georgia).  

This has been going on for years; and the all-SEC championship game last year certainly did not weaken this bias toward the SEC.  My sense is that the SEC teams (with the exception of Alabama and Georgia) are all 5-8 spots overrated.  Kentucky at #15 seems way too high: by the same circular logic, they have a "quality" win against Florida, but also had an easy time in OOC games, facing such juggernauts as Central Michigan, Murray State, Middle Tennessee State and Louisville; and the games against CMU and MTS were one possession games until the 4th quarter.  Frankly, it's a gamed system; but as long as Alabama and Georgia continue to populate the top 4, there will be this halo effect on the rest of the conference.  And clearly, this is good for NCAA football revenues, otherwise it would not be tolerated.

Looking at Stanford, we have four quality losses to #3 Notre Dame, #11 Washington, #13 WSU and #17 Utah, but we are way down in the "other teams receiving votes" list.  One could say we have no quality wins, but if Oregon (8-4) were given the same lofty treatment as Missouri and Texas A&M (after all, Oregon did beat #11 Washington), then there could be an argument that we should be in the top 25.  Then Wazzu would have three victories over top 25 teams (Utah, Stanford and Oregon), and the cycle reinforces itself.  Washington's season-opening loss to Auburn certainly did not help matters (the Pac-12's presumptive best team lost to an SEC also-ran).  But that's one game and cannot be used to calibrate an entire conference.