J_R wrote:
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