CFB based on season achievement or "best teams"?

[gojetsgomoxies]

i see all this debate but isn't the criteria season ranking i.e. your body of work throughout the year, in which case a power ranking - perhaps with winning margin cutoffs - can do lay much of the analytical groundwork.

if not, seems obvious USC should have been there even with their 3 early losses........

i think the rule is based on season's work and i think that's how it should be.

in that case, the committee picked the right teams.

lastly, nothing to do with my above comments but here goes: penn state had 2 losses AND you would think their victory over Ohio State would lose alot of value with the 31-0 shellacking by Clemson

[scratbandit]

I would say navy. 4 qb and a host of injuries. Great season..

[BigdaddyQH]

Obviously it is based on the entire body of work during the season, but this can be very dangerous. Ohio State needed every break in the world to get past Michigan at home, after barely getting by a 3 win Michigan State team the previous week. Then Clemson destroys them in the Fiesta Bowl. The previous year, Michigan State runs out of gas near the end of the season and squeaks in with two 3 point wins only to get plastered by Alabama. The Big 10 has not scored a point in their last two playoff appearances.

Can there be any question that both Penn State and USC would have at least scored against Clemson? Could BOTH of those teams defeated Ohio State in January? Is the Big 10 grossly overrated? The Committee is going to have to make a correction on the way they look at things when deciding who goes and who does not. Penn State should have gone to the playoffs, not Ohio State. Penn State was the Conference Champions. Ohio State got in because of Meyer's name recognition and the fact that they won it al three years ago. That type of thinking has to change.