I was hoping it'd be (in no particular order) Bama, Oregon, TCU and OSU, but this is how I expected it to turn out. Also, Baylor's argument is dumb.
It was assumed they'd "get wrecked" by Wisconsin as well. We saw how that turned out. Plus--we're talking about Ohio State here; their 3rd string QB was likely more highly recruited than either TCU or Baylor's starter. And based on what we saw Saturday, they're clearly very good and very talented throughout their entire squad. They're not as dependent on their QB as Baylor is. I think Bama-OSU is going to be an excellent matchup, and I think the winner will be favored in the championship game.
It wasn't assumed that they'd get wrecked by Wisconsin by anyone that I know of. Wisconsin is an average team. Bama is not.
True, nobody saw that beatdown coming. Why they should jump TCU is beyond comprehension in my opinion though. Starting a 3rd string QB against Alabama in a Bowl Playoff game? Good luck with that...
Easy. TCU wasn't getting in over Baylor due to head to head, and OSU made a much bigger statement in their blowout of Wisconsin than Baylor did in their tight game against KSU. Same thing was said going into the B1G championship game against a comparable defense; he seemed to do OK there. He'll likely be even better prepared for Alabama, given the 3-week lead time.
I think they would be setting a bad precedence if they let a team in if they lost to a team that wasn't making it and they had a same record. Had OSU lost to Wisconsin, that would have been a mess.
Yeah, I think it should've been TCU or Baylor that made it over Ohio State. TCU only lost by like 3 to a top 6 team in Baylor, tOSU lost to a bad VaTech team.
"Best loss" is just one of several things that are taken into account. By your logic, you'd put TCU in over Baylor, despite TCU having lost to Baylor.
I didn't say TCU should be over Baylor. I just said it should've been between those two teams. Ohio State plays in the Big 10 (14), an insanely weak conference. The real Big 10 (12) was a tougher conference. If it was my choice to put the teams in order I'd do 1. Oregon 2. Bama 3. FSU 4. Baylor Also, in my honest to God opinion, the committee didn't pick TCU or Baylor because of the ncg being played in Dallas. Then "lower" seed getting hfa would be a nightmare.
What's your basis for saying that the Big12 was so much tougher than the B1G? Because they had "better" teams at the top? That's an unsupported myth. Going down the line, top team v top team, where Big12 is definitively better? Baylor-OSU? TCU-MSU? Wisc-KSU?OU-Minnesota? Texas-Nebraska? Pretty even down the line. In fact, the only reason the B1G's #2 team wasn't also in the playoff picture like the Big12 was because they actually had the balls to play Oregon. If they'd just played patsies like Baylor & TCU did, Michigan St would also have been in the playoff argument. Maybe the Big12 is better because their teams beat the B1G head-to-head? I guess if Iowa St v Iowa and WVU v Maryland are what you want to hang your hat on, then sure. By that logic, the ACC was superior to the SEC as well, given its 4-1 head-to-head record. But then, since Indiana beat Missouri and Nebraska beat Miami, that must mean that the B1G is better than both those conferences too. Or perhaps the "conference A is better than conference B" stuff is nothing but a bunch of speculation, and really doesn't mean anything. The only problem with that is that the committee had already indicated that they thought OSU was better than Baylor, and then with similar final weekend matchups, Baylor had more difficulty at home than OSU had at a neutral site. There was at least some logic in jumping OSU over TCU; the Buckeyes made an unmatched statement in their demolition of Wisconsin. To jump Baylor over OSU after that performance would have been indefensible. I think the committee simply knew that TCU was actually a better team than Baylor, but couldn't justify putting them in over a team that beat them head-to-head, so they took the coward's way out by not putting either one in.
