Most of the focus after the release of College Football Playoff rankings Tuesday night was on whether No. 5 Michigan could rise into the top four if No. 3 Clemson or No. 4 Washington lose their conference championship games.

But ESPN Radio host Ryen Russillo asked Wednesday whether there’s a scenario in which Washington wins the Pac-12 championship game and still falls behind U-M.

“I don’t know,” CFP selection committee chairman Kirby Hocutt said on the “Russillo and Kanell” show. “The selection committee looks forward to watching that 13th game to watch Washington play and all the teams that are playing this week. From the selection committee’s viewpoint, we can’t have enough games or enough data in front of us to continue to review.

“History has shown that conference championship games sometimes can build a resume and help a team or, other times, can hurt. I know we’re looking forward to the opportunity to see them play again this weekend.”

Hocutt steadfastly has refused to deal in hypothetical situations, but he could have said that teams won’t drop if they win. He didn’t go there.

Given the committee’s rankings and continued praise of Michigan’s resume — having beaten teams No. 6 (Wisconsin), 7 (Penn State) and 8 (Colorado) — it’s easy to imagine U-M moving up with a loss by Clemson or Washington. But the question about still moving up if Washington wins is far more intriguing.

Here’s what Hocutt said about Washington during Tuesday’s conference call: “The committee continues to be impressed by what we have seen on the field from one-loss Washington. Their schedule is not as strong as others, but they have played and beaten good teams, including a win on the road last week.” Its schedule strength “continues to be a concern for the selection committee,” Hocutt said. Washington ranks 67th in the metric.

Hocutt also noted Washington’s “convincing” wins. But what if its win over Colorado is not “convincing”?

The wildest card is how other metrics will be applied when deciding between teams.

“It’s when those teams are very comparable, when there’s such a small margin of separation in between those two teams,” Hocutt said on Wednesday’s radio show, “at that point in time, you go to conference championships, strength of schedule, head-to-head competition or comparable outcomes against common opponents. All that being said, the protocol doesn’t stipulate that one of those four metrics takes priority over the other. And they don’t say, ‘This one should be weighted at this percent in your determination.’ It’s left up to the subjective judgment of 12 individuals sitting around that table.”

Under this scenario, Washington would have the conference title, Michigan would have the strength of schedule, and there’s no head-to-head matchup.

Washington facing Colorado on Saturday will make for a second common opponent. (Michigan beat the Buffaloes, 45-28, at home. Both also played Rutgers: Michigan won, 78-0, on the road, and Washington won, 48-13, at home.)

“As I said last night, the separation between No. 4 Washington and No. 5 Michigan is very, very small,” Hocutt said. “That was the conversation we spent considerable time on, and I know that some of the selection committee members were really struggling with who they thought the best football team was for those two spots this week.”

With committee members “struggling,” their feelings could change in a week.

Russillo also asked about the potential of having three Big Ten teams in the four-team field if Clemson and Washington both lose.

“Too many hypotheticals there,” Hocutt said.