What I find interesting about the CFP selection is whether they are consistent about their criteria and applying that across the different teams in the mix.
For instance, OSU vs. PSU (if they win B1G):
H2H matchup: PSU , @PSU
Conf Champ: PSU
Better overall record: OSU (1 loss vs. PSU 2 losses)
Better resume, non-conf: OSU, with win @ (probable) conf champ Oklahoma. PSU lost @ Pitt and barely beat Temple
Better resume, in-conf: Push, slightly favoring OSU's much harder schedule, having played @Wisc & Nebraska from west & beat Michigan, while PSU had easier west matchups and got wrecked by Michigan...BUT they did beat OSU
Eye test: Most people probably say OSU, though they have looked very mediocre in games against IU, PSU, Wisconsin and NW.
Which of these criteria is most important, and in what order? Perhaps committee considers PSU win over OSU somewhat of a push considering it was @PSU and a fluke play was the difference? (just speculating)
In 2014, it was all about the "eye test" for OSU. Harder to make that argument when you're comparing two teams that actually played against one another.