Posted by MikeT23 on 12/13/2017 10:04:00 AM (view original):
Sounds like scheduling potential losses is a really bad idea.

Well, they are as long as the "committee" keeps rewarding teams that beat up on Our Lady of Eternal Suffering College during their non-con schedule.

Whatever criteria they use should be CODIFIED, so the teams know what they're shooting for.
- Undefeated Power5 conference title (obvious)
- 1-loss to a top-25 team Power5 conference title
- 1-loss within conference, but win Power5 conference title
- 1-loss to a non-con, non-top-25 team, but win Power5
- 1-loss in Power5 conference title game
And so on....

Their current "black box" system is what leads to the inconsistency and lack of credibility of the "national title".

-

Lack of credibility of the "national title"?

I don't think anyone has disputed the winner of the NT game as the best in CFB.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/13/2017 10:04:00 AM (view original):
Sounds like scheduling potential losses is a really bad idea.

Hypothetically, let's say instead of Oklahoma, Ohio State had scheduled a non-top 25 team at home and won the game, but still had the terrible loss at Iowa. Everything else is exactly the same. If you were on the committee, is Ohio State in and Alabama out in that scenario?

So OSU has 1 loss, a conference title and a brutal beating from Iowa State on their resume'?

Yeah, 1 loss OSU with a conference title is in over 1 loss Bama with no conference title.

Clemson has been forgiven for bad losses in each of the last two seasons. Not beatdowns like OSU got but bad, inexplicable losses.

defending nat champ means a little to me

two in a row being there or in the final four means a tiny but it means

Are you a fan of the Roughriders, Frenchy?

buttless chaps is rak-style

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/13/2017 4:24:00 PM (view original):
Clemson has been forgiven for bad losses in each of the last two seasons. Not beatdowns like OSU got but bad, inexplicable losses.

But Clemson also didn't have strong competition for a spot and actually plays a strong non-con. I mean they play South Carolina every year and additionally play another strong program (the last 2 seasons it was Auburn). The committee has shown it will overlook a bad loss if the non-con games are there.

OK, tell me what you want me to say.

OSU would have had 1 inexplicable loss and a conference championship just like Clemson the last two seasons. Clemson got in both seasons. Nothing more, nothing less.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/13/2017 9:20:00 PM (view original):
OK, tell me what you want me to say.

OSU would have had 1 inexplicable loss and a conference championship just like Clemson the last two seasons. Clemson got in both seasons. Nothing more, nothing less.

So in your estimation the committee would think Ohio State is better than Alabama if Ohio State didn't have the loss to Oklahoma.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/13/2017 4:20:00 PM (view original):
So OSU has 1 loss, a conference title and a brutal beating from Iowa State on their resume'?

Yeah, 1 loss OSU with a conference title is in over 1 loss Bama with no conference title.

I think this fully explained what I thought. But, hell, if you need me to rephrase, I have a few minutes to spare.

1 loss OSU , with a conference title, is in over 1 loss Bama and their lack of conference title. The committee has shown they value wins and, to a lesser degree, conference titles. In your scenario, OSU has 12 wins/conference title, Bama has 11 wins/no conference title. They have, in the case of Clemson over the last two seasons, ignored inexplicable losses. 2015-2016 Clemson and 2017 OSU, in your hypothetical, have 12 wins/conference championship.

Scheduling potential losses in the non-con is a bad idea at this point. The committee may change lanes but, as of now, they don't like "good losses".

OSU has 11 wins (same as Bama) and a conference title, and they have 3 wins better than any win Alabama has (by the committee's own rankings). So if the committee values wins, why wouldn't OSU be in this year?

The committee appears to look at losses before anything else. OSU having two losses allowed them to say they were not comparable to one-loss ALA.

With one loss, the committee likely considers them comparable and OSU's conference championship gives them the tie-breaker.

Posted by moranis on 12/14/2017 10:44:00 AM (view original):
OSU has 11 wins (same as Bama) and a conference title, and they have 3 wins better than any win Alabama has (by the committee's own rankings). So if the committee values wins, why wouldn't OSU be in this year?

Because no 2 loss team has been in. That's part of your equation. You're replacing your OK loss with a win over Akron in your hypothetical..

We really have been thru this in this thread and over the last couple of years.