The first College Football Playoff rankings of the 2026 season are out, and I already have plenty of problems with them. Two placements near the top contradict the logic the committee used to build the rest of the rankings.

The Indiana Hoosiers at No. 4 and the Utah Utes at No. 3 are the clearest examples. Neither team is bad, and neither is wildly overrated. The problem is how the committee justified putting them where they are while treating Ohio State, Wake Forest, UCLA, and Notre Dame differently.

Indiana’s ranking doesn’t add up

I want to be clear about one thing first: I have no issue with Indiana as a football team. The Hoosiers are a great team, and I don’t think No. 4 overrates them at all.

My issue is the reasoning behind the placement. Indiana sits ahead of an Ohio State team that beat the Hoosiers not long ago. The Buckeyes are all the way down at No. 12, so the head-to-head result clearly didn’t carry much weight with the committee.

Meanwhile, UCLA plays in the same conference with a comparable schedule and is undefeated. If Indiana’s one loss isn’t a significant mark against them, it’s hard to see where UCLA’s clean record fits into the committee’s thinking.

The bigger problem is Wake Forest. The Demon Deacons are outside the top 10, and their only loss came against the best team in the country in Miami. Every other opponent on their schedule, they’ve blown out by an average of 26.1 points.

Indiana lost to a team ranked No. 12. Wake Forest lost to the No. 1 team and dominated everyone else. Somehow, the Hoosiers are in the top four, and Wake Forest can’t crack the top 10. That’s an impossible gap to justify using the committee’s own standards.

Utah at No. 3 undercuts the strength of schedule argument

The second problem is Utah at No. 3, and once again, it’s not because the Utes aren’t a good team.

The committee placed a heavy emphasis on strength of schedule when explaining why Notre Dame sits all the way down at No. 11. That argument falls apart the moment you look at Utah’s resume.

The Fighting Irish have played arguably a tougher schedule than the Utes. The only thing separating the two teams is that Utah is undefeated and Notre Dame has one loss. That loss came against a highly ranked opponent in BYU, which should hardly be held against them.

Utah, on the other hand, has one good win propping up its entire resume. For the most part, the Utes have played mediocre Big 12 teams. They also needed to barely eke out a close win against Colorado.

If strength of schedule is the reason Notre Dame is stuck at No. 11, then Utah’s schedule should be held to the same standard. Instead, the committee rewarded an undefeated record built against weaker competition and punished a one-loss team that took on a tougher slate. It raises the question of whether the committee is applying any consistent criteria at all.

A bad start for the committee

Every year, the College Football Playoff rankings will spark debate, and that’s part of the fun. However, the debate should be about close calls, not about the committee contradicting its own explanations.

Rewarding Indiana despite a loss while burying Wake Forest for a better loss is inconsistent. Penalizing Notre Dame for its schedule while elevating Utah’s softer resume is inconsistent. These aren’t minor quibbles about the No. 24 spot. They involve teams in and around the top of the rankings.

This is already a bad start for this year’s College Football Playoff committee. Hopefully, the committee settles on a consistent standard before the rankings that actually decide the field are released.