With a LOT of SEC SEC SEC Bias thrown in.If Indiana lost by 3 then they might not have dropped.
If Bama beat Georgia then Georgia would have dropped.
It’s just putting the winner over the loser.
Upvote
0
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
With a LOT of SEC SEC SEC Bias thrown in.If Indiana lost by 3 then they might not have dropped.
If Bama beat Georgia then Georgia would have dropped.
It’s just putting the winner over the loser.
Buckeyes lost to an undefeated team just below them, they have to drop at least to #2.Please explain this to me:
#1 Ohio State loses its CCG by 3 points and drops in the CFP standings....
But #9 Alabama loses its CCG by 21 points and doesn't drop in the CFP standings.
How is this fair?
1. I wasn't being entirely serious.Buckeyes lost to an undefeated team just below them, they have to drop at least to #2.
Bama was at #9 and lost to #3, so it‘s a different scenario.
The incocsistency of the committee is better questioned by pointing out that:1. I wasn't being entirely serious.
2. Your explanation may explain why Ohio State dropped, but it doesn't explain why Alabama didn't.
The incocsistency of the committee is better questioned by pointing out that:
Bama lost to #3 by 21 in a CCG and didn’t drop below ND
BYU lost to #4 by 22 in a CCG and dropped below Miami
That combination allowed ND and Miami to get next to each other and have the head-to-head result come into play.

I think the answer is that the committee started with the result they wanted, then rationalized their selections by adjusting the evaluation criteria until it provided that result. In their defense, we all do this to some extent. Sometimes without even realizing it.The incocsistency of the committee is better questioned by pointing out that:
Bama lost to #3 by 21 in a CCG and didn’t drop below ND
BYU lost to #4 by 22 in a CCG and dropped below Miami
That combination allowed ND and Miami to get next to each other and have the head-to-head result come into play.
The incocsistency of the committee is better questioned by pointing out that:
Bama lost to #3 by 21 in a CCG and didn’t drop below ND
BYU lost to #4 by 22 in a CCG and dropped below Miami
That combination allowed ND and Miami to get next to each other and have the head-to-head result come into play.
And we could see it coming the week before, when they moved Bama ahead of ND after they barely survived at Auburn while ND obliterated Stanford. The only justification was that an ND loss got a little less forgivable once aTm was no longer undefeated. But losing to a #7 team as compared to a #3 team (aTm before they lost) isn’t much of a difference. They JUST wanted Bama ahead of ND to protect them prior to their upcoming loss to UGA.I think the answer is that the committee started with the result they wanted, then rationalized their selections by adjusting the evaluation criteria until it provided that result. In their defense, we all do this to some extent. Sometimes without even realizing it.
The biggest joke is Bama getting nuked in the SEC title game and not even moving at all.