It seems to me, you completely ignore the half of the equation that doesn't fit your argument. The losses.

People were constantly saying prior to Bama's loss, that if a poll didn't have them at #1 it was irrelevant. So you're telling me one loss to a top ranked team is enough to take them from being the undisputed best team in the country to not worthy of a playoff spot?

USC vs OSU vs Bama vs Auburn
Potential to win it all: OSU/Bama/Auburn
Potential to drop a stinker: OSU/USC

Seems to me Bama or Auburn is #4 if the goal is to put teams in that are capable to win it all and/or not give us a 31-0 loss. So do you say "Just lost to a team that's in" or "lost to 2 teams that are in" or "Head to head"?

Posted by strikeout26 on 12/3/2017 10:04:00 AM (view original):
It seems to me, you completely ignore the half of the equation that doesn't fit your argument. The losses.

People were constantly saying prior to Bama's loss, that if a poll didn't have them at #1 it was irrelevant. So you're telling me one loss to a top ranked team is enough to take them from being the undisputed best team in the country to not worthy of a playoff spot?

2 very huge differences because of that loss. 1 - Alabama didn't even play in their Conference Championship, and 2 - they lost to a team that isn't in the Playoff, instead of one that is. Had they beaten Auburn and lost to Georgia, they'be be IN.

You just can't reward a team for missing it's Conference Championship Game and avoiding another loss.

Really? Pretty sure the committee set a precedent last year and said that you can reward that team.

By the way, I know that you said "the committee already made that mistake", but the thing is the precedent has been set.

Posted by strikeout26 on 12/3/2017 10:25:00 AM (view original):
Really? Pretty sure the committee set a precedent last year and said that you can reward that team.

By the way, I know that you said "the committee already made that mistake", but the thing is the precedent has been set.

Sure but they didn't put the Big Ten champ in last year and Ohio State played a mich tougher schedule than Alabama did this year.

There are standards the committee uses to determine the "best" teams. Those standards favor Ohio State.

We shall see today.

The combined Massey Ratings now have Ohio State 3 and Alabama 5.

https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm

Posted by strikeout26 on 12/3/2017 10:28:00 AM (view original):
We shall see today.

As I've said all along I really have no idea what they will do and wouldn't be surprised at all to see Bama get the nod though I do think Auburn losing makes it more likely that OSU gets the nod

I just feel that the committee tipped their hand by putting Bama 5 in the last rankings. They basically said that if Wisconsin loses we're taking Bama. I could be way off.

Posted by strikeout26 on 12/3/2017 10:25:00 AM (view original):
Really? Pretty sure the committee set a precedent last year and said that you can reward that team.

By the way, I know that you said "the committee already made that mistake", but the thing is the precedent has been set.

Why does something that happened once need to be considered precedent instead of mistake?
Even so, aren't precedents constantly updated?

It can be a mistake instead of precedent. We get to find out which it was in about an hour.

I would be bothered if the same team benefitted two years in a row from both ends of a 'mistake'


Be it OSU or anyone......feels dirty

I didn't realize that the Big 10 is the only power 5 conference without a non-con win against a ranked team this season.

Sorry Moranis. Committee got it right.

We could very possibly see a SEC national championship.