Out with the old, in with the new.

The College Football Playoff has replaced the BCS as the FBS’s path to a national championship, and the process of selecting the title contenders has transitioned from an unforgiving formula to a selectively chosen playoff field.

The CFP selection committee released its fourth top 25 rankings Tuesday night on ESPN, and there are plenty of differences between that set of rankings and a recent BCS simulation (done courtesy of BCSKnowHow.com).

Take a look at how the top 16 teams from the newest CFP Poll stacks up against the top 16 teams from the BCS simulation and the most recent Associated Press Poll:

Ranking CFP Rankings AP Rankings BCS Simulation
1 Alabama Florida State Alabama
2 Oregon Alabama Florida State
3 Florida State Oregon Oregon
4 Mississippi State Mississippi State Mississippi State
5 TCU TCU Baylor
6 Ohio State Baylor TCU
7 Baylor Ohio State Ohio State
8 Ole Miss Ole Miss Ole Miss
9 UCLA Georgia Georgia
10 Georgia Michigan State Michigan State
11 Michigan State UCLA UCLA
12 Kansas State Kansas State Kansas State
13 Arizona State Arizona State Arizona State
14 Auburn Wisconsin Auburn
15 Arizona Arizona Wisconsin
16 Wisconsin Auburn Arizona

The first takeaway from this comparison is how similar all three sets of rankings turned out just two weeks away from conference championship weekend.

All three rankings contain the same 16 teams, including the same four teams at the top, the same three teams in slots 5-7, the same five teams in slots 8-12 and the same four teams in slots 13-16. As it turns out, if the BCS were charged with selecting four playoff teams instead of two, it would have chosen the same playoff field as this week’s CFP poll.

Perhaps the most interesting takeaway from this comparison is that the BCS simulation, like the selection committee, also slotted a one-loss Alabama team at No. 1 in front of unbeaten defending national champion Florida State. In the past, undefeated teams from the power conferences were generally given an edge in the BCS standings, but placing Alabama ahead of FSU indicated Alabama’s win over Mississippi State in Week 12 carried a lot of weight in the BCS formula.

The selection committee actually dropped FSU to No. 3, sitting it behind another one-loss team in Oregon, which was off last weekend. This is where the new four-team playoff gains an edge on the BCS. If we still lived in a world with just two playoff teams, not four, there would arguments waged for weeks as to who deserved the No. 2 spot behind Alabama. On the one hand, you have a more accomplished one-loss team in Oregon; on the other, you have an undefeated but at times unimpressive Florida State.

The selection committee has preached body of work since its first rankings were released four weeks ago, and were that the ultimate decider in this debate the nod would go to Oregon, as the committee expressed in Tuesday’s rankings.

But if you think leaving the undefeated defending champs out of the title game would have been a generally accepted decision, you clearly hibernated through the entire BCS era. Those kinds of arguments and controversies were what the BCS was predicated on, and having a four-team playoff that allows both the Ducks and the Noles to prove their worth has already validated the playoff system to some extent.

Those upset Mississippi State was not dropped out of the top 4 following last week’s loss would have been just as upset with the BCS formula, which also ranked MSU No. 4 this week. Granted, No. 4 in the BCS meant about as much as being Nos. 5-10, but it does show there is more evidence beyond the committee’s perception to validate the Bulldogs spot in the top 4.

The one glaring difference between the CFP and the BCS is at No. 5, just outside the current playoff field. The selection committee slotted TCU just outside the top 4, but the BCS gave the nod to fellow Big 12 member Baylor.

The selection committee’s handling of the TCU-Baylor conundrum has been one of the most talked about storylines since the first CFP poll was released four weeks ago. TCU is much more accomplished, and its only loss is a quality loss. However, that quality loss came to Baylor, who is a much less accomplished one-loss team despite beating the Horned Frogs head to head.

Reverting back to the CFP’s fondness for body of work, it makes sense why TCU remains in front of Baylor until Baylor can show what its made of in upcoming games against Oklahoma State and Kansas State. Baylor still has every opportunity to jump TCU before the playoff field is officially announced, but for now the committee is more impressed with TCU even though Baylor took down TCU earlier this year.

The BCS however, does not have a human element capable of evaluating body of work in as nuanced a manner as the selection committee. Thus, the BCS formula gives Baylor a nod over TCU, likely because both have one loss and Baylor won the head to head.

Ultimately, neither team cracked the top 4 in either the CFP or BCS rankings, but the differences in how the CFP and BCS handled those two teams are indicative of the differences in the approaches taken in the two rankings.

A lot can change between now and when the inaugural four-team playoff field is announced on Dec. 7. The CFP will release two more sets of rankings between now and then — on Tuesdays Nov. 25 and Dec. 2 — and with a number of ranked matchups and four major conference championship games left on the schedule  all we’ve really learned now is how the selection committee is going to approach its Dec. 7 rankings.

Again, the CFP loves body of work, while the BCS is more concerned with rankings, recency of wins and losses, and what the AP and Coaches’ Polls are saying. The thought processes are clearly different, but the greatest gain from the new playoff system remains the four-team field as opposed to the BCS’ two-team system.

Outside of Tuscaloosa, a number of college football fans coast to coast (in Oregon, Florida, Mississippi, Texas and Ohio) are grateful the BCS didn’t stick around for one more year.