Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying Ace
The flaw with this logic:
1. You're simply comparing losses. The reality is, you balance the losses with the quality of wins and this year's committee especially has put more emphasis on the quality of wins.
Ohio State's quality wins are against a 2-loss Penn State, 3-loss Mich State, and if they win a 1-loss Wisconsin
Bama's quality wins are against a 3-loss LSU and a 4-loss Miss State. That's it.
USC's quality wins are against a 2-loss (or 3-loss) Stanford team, twice.
Then you add the aspect of a conference championship, and discount it against the quality of the losses.
2. The second flaw is, everyone compares Ohio State in a vacuum. That is you're comparing Ohio State against themselves and on a conceptual idea of "do they deserve it?". You have to compare Ohio State against the other contestants for the 4th spot.
When you look at Bama, USC, Georgia, Notre Dame, and Miami, Ohio State doesn't look so bad when you look at wins and losses.
3. There's the subjective eyeball test. It's akin to say, have UCF play Bama. You can't honestly say that the quality of play of UCF is comparable or better than Bama. It doesn't matter Bama is a 1-loss non-champion, Bama is clearly the better team. The committee has always put more weight on the final games of the season and the quality of those wins. That's why Ohio State got in back in 2014, they won and won big in all their final 4 games of conference play.
4. There's a flawed assumption that the committee is bound by ANY type of consistency across the years or within the same year. Sure, as pundits, we all want to use some base to make an opinion or estimate on the outcome, but the reality is, we created this committee to allow subjectivity back into the championship. If you hate subjectivity, then you just need a computer model. The computer model today (at least ESPN's) has Bama at #1 and Ohio State at #2.
|
Great point but I think consistency is very important. Subjectivity cannot be weighed, so it should not weigh more on a scale.