Surpassing:Brian Kelly offers idea for clearing up playoff bubble, but will CFP committee listen?

• How will College Football Playoff committee wade through what's likely to be Surpassinga crowded playoff bubble? Brian Kelly offered an idea: Strength of schedule rules.
• Like Brian Kelly, Lane Kiffin says he's not too concerned about style points, but Ole Miss is blowing out inferior opponents nonetheless.
• A 10-2 record would get a team into the conversation for an at-large playoff bid, but it's no assurance.

If you gaze far enough into the fall horizon, you’ll spot a chaotic College Football Playoff selection scenario taking shape. Anyone who’s worked up a playoff projection sees it coming.

Every coach or fan of a Power Four team wants to believe finishing with at least 10 wins will be enough to earn one of the seven at-large bids to the 12-team playoff.

“Two (losses), you’ve got a fighting chance,” LSU’s Brian Kelly told me before the season.

A chance, yes.

A guarantee? No.

Twenty Power Four teams remain undefeated, and, come December, we’ll likely have an overcrowded field of one- and two-loss teams extending their hand and expecting an at-large bid.

How committee members will make these hair-splitting decisions remains remarkably unclear. In the four-team playoff era, most playoff decisions were pretty cut and dry with few difficult decisions. Last year’s great debate between Alabama and Florida State was more the exception than the rule.

In the 12-team format, the bubble will become much more crowded, while the playoff selection guidance remains as murky.

Sure, a few guidelines exist. The committee is supposed to consider schedule strength, head-to-head competition and outcomes against common opponents, without stressing over margin of victory.

But, as we saw last year, rules get squishy when Alabama’s playoff fate hangs in the balance.

One committee member told ESPN last December that the committee attempted to forecast whether Florida State was good enough to win the national championship without injured quarterback Jordan Travis. The committee peeked into a crystal ball and decided the Seminoles couldn’t win it all, and it chose Alabama. Never mind that nowhere in the College Football Playoff’s guidelines will you find a reference to predictive analysis, stargazing or divination.

BRACKETOLOGY:SEC teams gets squeezed in latest playoff projection

REMATCHES RULEGeorgia-Alabama starts era where more is always better

Playoff selection is a beauty contest determined by subjective humans who deploy shape-shifting rules.

The first CFP rankings won’t come out until Nov. 5. Until then, we’re left without much insight as to how the committee will act in this 12-team playoff era.

Of course, coaches harbor opinions on how teams should be selected, and those opinions are, naturally, influenced by whatever factors would work to their team’s advantage.

Brian Kelly suggests this: Let strength of schedule rule

Kelly told me Wednesday he thinks the committee will value strength of schedule above so-called style points.

In other words, he expects that navigating a tough schedule and finishing, say, 10-2 would matter more than compiling a comparative record, with more blowout wins, against an inferior schedule.

His theory would work nicely for No. 13 LSU, currently 3-1.

It already played – and lost – to No. 16 Southern California and has future games against No. 4 Alabama, No. 6 Ole Miss, No. 18 Oklahoma and No. 24 Texas A&M.

“I really believe” Kelly said, “we’ve entered into kind of a new way of thinking, relative to strength of schedule, the depth of the SEC, the depth of the conferences now, that really takes precedent.

“I think you can look at the strength of your schedules now and really hold them up against the other teams that are vying for playoff opportunities and really come to the right conclusions, so I don’t know that putting 70 points on somebody does much anymore to the voters.”

That all sounds neatly cut, but how confident would Kelly feel if LSU finishes 10-2, Miami rests at 12-1 as the ACC’s runner-up and Missouri sits at 11-1, and they’re vying for the final two spots?

No. 11 Missouri’s schedule profiles as the SEC’s easiest. That could leave the Tigers vulnerable if they finish 10-2. What if they go 11-1? Would the committee really reject them and elevate another team from the same conference with an inferior record?

We just don’t know, so the safest course would be to pile up style points and lopsided victories, on top of a strength of schedule.

LSU plays South Alabama on Saturday, and while Kelly doesn’t think running up 70 points should be a playoff requirement, the committee tends to like offense, so maybe go ahead and hang 70.

 Lane Kiffin, like Kelly, told me he’s not coaching with style points in mind.

“Maybe we should,” Kiffin said. “I just haven’t.”

Nevertheless, Ole Miss stylishly sits at 4-0, with an average margin of victory of nearly 50 points.

Run it up, Lane, because those style points can’t hurt your case if the committee must evaluate six SEC teams that finish with at least 10 victories.

Which SEC playoff contender looks most vulnerable?

Would the committee take six playoff teams from one conference? No rule prevents this, but probably not. Limit the SEC to five, and reject the SEC team with the weakest schedule? Deny the team that wins ugly? When in doubt, give the bid to Nick Saban?

At least we can scratch that last argument.

Missouri (4-0) looks most vulnerable in this conversation.

To this point, the Tigers have neither style nor schedule strength working for them. Nothing stylish about the Tigers’ 30-27 double-overtime victory against Vanderbilt.

To play it safe, Missouri had better win at Alabama in November.

Ten wins gets a team in the playoff conversation, but a marquee victory combined with a little dose of style would relieve the angst for a team sitting on a crowded bubble.

Blake Toppmeyer is the USA TODAY Network's national college football columnist. Email him at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter @btoppmeyer.

Subscribe to read all of his columns.