Did they get it right? Based on the performances of #1 and #2 today, I'd say yes.

Think they got it right for 1 & 2...not 3 & 4. Doubt Bama even got fired up for huskies. Only chance against them is dual threat qb and Watson fills that bill.

That's great if they only had to pick 2. But, they were tasked with picking the 4 best teams in the country. I don't think they did so.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

1 and 2 are pretty good.

3 and 4 probably wish they were playing each other in tomorrow's Rose Bowl. They were out of their depth today.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

You're right, no way osu should have been there.

Who else ya got that's better? Michigan? lost to FSU; Penn State? We'll see soon what they have for USC; Oklahoma?; 3 loss teams?

I'm fairly certain I identified two of the hottest teams right now earlier in this thread ...

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Hottest may carry you to the championship win, but you need to earn your way in and neither did that. No way a 3 loss team deserves to be in when there are 1 loss power 5 teams.

I'm an FSU alum/fan. The last few games they have played like a top 3 team on both offense and defense and would stand a decent chance to beat Alabama or Clemson. However, they've lost 3 games and haven't earned the right to play.

That being said - if the committee wanted the four best teams, I think a case could be made that FSU is one of the top four. If they want the four teams that have played best throughout the season - they don't deserve to be there.

Have you read the Committee bylaws? They specifically state that each week is a blank slate and the best teams are picked for that week. Then they list factors they will consider, like a conference championship. But as we saw this year, they do not follow those criteria. There is nothing about "earning" a spot.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

So 5 losses then 5 wins is better than 9 wins then 1 loss, got it. Somehow that was missed my me and the committee.

If the result means I don't have to watch Jake browning soil himself for three hours I'm all for it.

I watched four Wash games this year. Ass kicked by a decent but not great USC team and he was terrible. Beat awful Cal and a ridiculously overrated Colorado who's QB did more to assist WA than his own team. Curb stomped by AL. Their defense deserved better thN that.

Most people have him as a high first round pick, but I have seen nothing that leads me to believe he can succeed in the NFL. Jake Locker 2.0

Of course, I did not say that. But, it is not surprising to see you resorting to reductio ad absurdum.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Yep a little sarcasm to point out how absurd it would be for a 9-3 power five to be ranked above a 12-1 power five team based on being "hot". The body of work clearly does matter, as is clear by the committee rankings. Feel free to point it out otherwise, but I find nothing here about a blank slate or where being hot is a major factor:

Selection Committee Protocol http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/...n-committee-protocol

Seriously? Have you not been paying attention for the past 3 years???

Paul Finebaum had some interesting comments on the selection committee’s latest rankings this morning on ESPN, and it all starts with the Wolverines and the importance of conference championships on a team’s resume. “If Washington wins close, I still think they would get in,” Finebaum said. “This committee, yes they start with a clean slate, it would probably get them in because it’s a quality win. Colorado now is a good win, we all know that. Michigan’s sitting at home replaying the controversial calls from Columbus. It would be close, but [Washington] would have something on their resume that Michigan doesn’t.”

http://onwardstate.com/...with-latest-ranking/


"I will emphasize the clean slate," Arkansas athletic director and committee chairman Jeff Long said Tuesday. "We will take the new information from this week's games ... and stay with our process looking and comparing teams against teams. I think there will be movement, maybe more so than there has been in the past."

http://www.espn.com/...tion/ncf/id/11783367


While Long would emphasize every week the committee started with a clean slate, traditionally college football polls create a pecking order for teams that only gets disrupted by losses.

http://www.newsday.com/...baylor-out-1.9689637

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

You said in the bylaws. It isn't there!! Sure I've heard it on ESPN. The context has always been that you can get jumped by another team even if you win because they beat a top 5, they added conference championship, etc. Doesn't mean that entire season isn't considered. Obviously the body of work matters most. Look at the rankings.

Does clean slate mean something different to you?

Wow.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Thank you.

I'm always impressed when someone can do that kind of mental gymnastics without getting a nosebleed. Do you have a nosebleed right now?

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Went that route instead of answering the question, huh?

I'll point out again, the rankings are consistent with me, not you. With that said, might USC have best chance to beat Alabama? Perhaps. If you want to argue what the system should be, I'd probably not argue it, but arguing that they should have ranked otherwise with the current guidelines is silly.

I didn't argue that. You seem to be having a lot of trouble keeping up.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I think you have no argument at all.

Well, you have been unable to keep up since the start of the thread, so I am not surprised.

Here is the stated purpose of the Committee, per their own guidelines:

"For purposes of any four team playoff, the process will inevitably need to select the four best teams from among several with legitimate claims to participate." (Emphasis added).

My question in the OP was - did they get it right? I (and others) question whether they did.

The Committee applies a clean slate each week when ranking teams. That is not debatable. They have said so for the past 3 years.

There is nothing in the Committee guidelines that says win-loss record must be considered when making the final selection. To the contrary, the guidelines say, in at least 2 spots, that factors like conference championship, head-to-head, strength of scheduled, etc. only applies, "When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable" or "The committee will select the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering...".

The guidelines also criticize the ranking system and repeatedly say rankings will not be relied upon.

So, the question remains -- did they get it right? Based on their own words and guidelines, USC and FSU could have easily been selected in the top 4 without, in any way, running afoul of their own stated selection criteria.

You seem to disagree. Identify your support for your position.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Yes, they got it right.

Do you and the Committee agree on definition of best? Apparently, no.

Based on what? This is the sum of your argument: "Did they get it right? Based on the performances of #1 and #2 today, I'd say yes."

Brilliant insight! Let's use your logic. Alabama beat Washington by 17. Thus, looking at 'Bama's results this year, the Committee could have put them against Arkansas (19 point win) or Auburn (18 point win) and gotten the same result. Using your "logic," the Committee would have gotten it right.

Clemson beat OSU by 31. Looking at Clemson's results, the Committee could have put them against Boston College or Syracuse and gotten a similar ass-kicking. Using your "logic," the Committee would have gotten it right.

Boy, you really are a master of critical thinking ...

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I think that the rankings are consistent with the process guidelines. Where are the inconsistencies?

You still haven't answered what blank slate means to you. I don't think it's the same context as used by committee members.

Based on what??? The lop-sided results certainly indicate they did not pick the FOUR best teams, which would be inconsistent with the guidelines.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Not necessarily. I used performance of 1 & 2 to validate those two choices that came out a month ago.

Maybe we have an internet forum disconnect. What teams would you have placed at 3&4 *when the rankings came out?* For me , the ones that were picked. Penn Staters complained a little, but their big 10 championship came with an overall worse record than OSU. Three losses is just too much to jump a 1 loss.

I agree they got 1 and 2 correct. But, there was really no question or speculation when those two were announced and there was pretty much universal agreement those were 2 of the best teams in the country, at the times the rankings came out. But, Washington was always suspect. They were going to get in for winning the PAC 12, but, most agreed they were not one of the 4 best teams in the country, at the time the selection was made. Washington had a pathetic SOS and no signature wins. The only tough team they played (USC) absolutely destroyed them. They were huge underdogs (and rightfully so) when matched against 'Bama. Most pundits agreed that, at the time of the selection, they were not one of the four best teams. Most agreed USC was, but also agreed the Committee would hold their 3 losses against them. Whether that was right or wrong is debatable.

Regarding OSU - they couldn't even get to the conference championship game, let alone win it. Wisconsin should have beaten OSU (took them to OT) and WI is a good, not great, team. OSU struggled against Northwestern and Michigan State and looked questionable down the stretch.

So, my question really isn't, did they follow the "rules," it is, did they get it right? Review of the guidelines clearly shows enough wiggle room for them to say, fuck it, 3-loss USC is in. In fact, that was the entire point of the human committee - to do what the rankings would not do.

When I see them say "clean slate," that means they erase the prior "rankings" and say, at this point in time, who is the best? You don't ignore what they did in the regular season. But, you have no hesitation to jump #5 over #2 (for example). Their guidelines even permit them to look at the reasons for a loss during the regular season.

So, IMO, based on the reasons I set forth above, Wash and OSU were highly suspect and were not in the 4 best teams in the country. If that is the objective -- four best -- then I don't think they got it right. If the objective is -- 4 justifiable teams -- then, arguably, they barely got that right.

IMO, this gets "fixed" if you expand the playoffs. If there were 8 teams, I don't see how USC and FSU get left out. No chance. I think those teams would have made a run. I also hate the long layoff. Some teams thrive off it, while it kills others.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I mostly agree with you. I just don't see where there were enough "wiggle factors" to justifiably leap over the better records of 3 & 4 without revisionist post NYE ranking. Given that, I say they got it right.

Ok, THAT argument, I understand. But, it still sounds to me like you are agreeing that while they made justifiable picks, they did not necessarily pick the 4 best teams in the country. They took the teams with the best records, but were the final records indicative of quality at the end of the year, when the selections were made? I don't think they were.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

You seem really confused. Must have been drinking too much last night. Starting with a clean slate means the RANKINGS don't matter. The games that came before still matter. It isn't a best game of the week contest.

The alternatives to who was in comes down to Michigan, Oklahoma, and Penn State. FSU and USC never enter the conversation. Not only do they start with a clean slate, they also take into account the entire body of work.

USC's resume includes 3 losses including a 52 - 6 loss. And only two wins against teams ranked at the end of the season. Oh boy, that is amazing. Getting hot in the soft part of the PAC 12 schedule is not anything to get excited about. If anything, Washington's loss makes USC look worse since that was USC's big win.

FSU gave up 63 to Louisville. Case closed counselor. But there were two others, including to UNC.

Just because UW and OSU laid eggs does not make USC or FSU better than UM, OU, or PSU, let alone UW or OSU. The committee got it right, UW and OSU did not.

And boy did OSU lay an egg. Couldn't get out of their own way. One good play followed by 3 bad plays or a fumble at the end of the good play. Made yesterday's party really sucky.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Sure they did. It was clear FSU and USC were not going to get in, but just about every pundit was saying they were in the top 4 or at least the top 6.

Don't be a bitch just because OSU proved to be a complete, total, and utter fraud last night.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Now you're just doing your Harbaugh imitation. I still remember what happened mid-October.

Let's just hope the weasels don't blow it against directional Michigan tomorrow.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

I don't wear khakis.

OSU sucks.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Scoreboard.


http://www.espn.com/...ore?gameId=400869644

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Indeed.


Ohio State wasn't ready to be CFP contender after all


http://www.espn.com/...-year-away-after-all

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Apparently not, they got beaten like a red-headed Rousey.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Truth be told, the game crushed me. Wifie and I were pulling for OSU. We never expected to see a blowout. At one point, I posted on FB to my other Big 10 friends/fans, "Good grief! OSU is as effective tonight as Rowdy was last night!"

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

This is a dumb post. You lose all sense of reason when talking college football. Complete nonsense.

Not in the least.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Rose Bowl was interesting and competitive, but I don't think that either of those teams would have wanted any piece of Alabama. Gotta bring it every down to have a chance.

I cannot decided whether that was 2 really good offenses or two really horrible Ds. But, yes, very fun game.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

And Oklahoma. The Sooners might have been the best team at seasons end.

No, the choice of OSU over the BIG 10 Champion PSU was a mistake.

Whether they get it right or not, the teams still have to show up and play. The results could have been the same had it been other teams involved.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda. The question still remains valid.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Not really. The question is always a coulda, shoulda, woulda when it comes to people.