benatc1
Hooked
I don’t have a strong opinion on whether they got it right or wrong, but I worry about the message that they sent. If Ohio State had played some high school team instead of Oklahoma earlier in the year and finished as a one loss conference champion then they get in, even if that one loss was to Iowa. As a football fan, I enjoy big time non conference matchups, but if I’m Ohio State or another school hoping to get into the playoff why would I schedule tough non conference teams?
You make a good point and your right if osu was a 1 loss conference champ they are in over a one loss anyone else who isn’t a conference champ, but I think what The committee did was put the importance of a whole body of work through the season on a higher pedestal than being a conference champ. Alabama for example scheduled #3 FSU to open the season and it worked out for them, granted due to injuries and whatever other reasons FSU ended up not being that good but at that point in he season everyone looked at that as their marquee win. You can’t blame a team for how their opponents ended up being unless they lose and it’s hard to forgive them for their losses unless that team that beat them ends up a top team. But you never really know how that’ll shape out until the end of the season.
You are correct about strength of schedule though, why risk scheduling tough games, reality is, the debate should be between USC and bama- not Ohio State - as USC had the highest strength of schedule. But above all the committee was formed to remove the broken system of metrics that applied to the old BCS formula, so in reality they are tasked to decide who the best 4 teams are, and while taking metrics into account they can offer the eye test, but can also bring a sense of bias. Crazy the amount of money that moves around based on these decisions though, which can lead to a possible whole other conversation of why maybe bama was selected over some other programs..
Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app