The College Football Playoff selection committee has introduced a new "strength of conference" metric to help separate teams with similar records within the same league and across different conferences. Whilst the concept sounds reasonable, the article argues that the committee's lack of transparency about how it will evaluate this metric—and its existing evaluation criteria—remains frustratingly opaque and will likely generate further debate and disagreement among fans and stakeholders.

The selection committee has historically claimed to incorporate strength of schedule and resume into their deliberations, yet has provided little clarity on whether they use win-loss records, AP Top 25 appearances, or advanced analytics to determine these measures. The new metric raises the same questions: what data will inform their assessments of which conference opponents are "strongest"? Different evaluation methods—such as counting ranked wins, using computer-driven analytics, or relying on subjective evaluation—can yield vastly different results, as illustrated by examples like Texas A&M being counted as a ranked win despite clearly not being a top-25 team.