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.