The committee seems focused on rewarding teams that, in some combination, (1) have 2 or fewer losses, (2) have defeated several teams in the final top 25, and (3) seemingly did not lose to a non-bowl team. While the first and third one are technically within the control of a team, the second one is not.

For Big 12 reference in the CFP rankings:
BYU went 1-1 vs top 25 with a loss to a non-bowl P5

ISU went 0-0 vs top 25 with a loss to a non-bowl P5 and a loss to an 8 win P5

Colorado went 0-0 vs top 25 with a loss to a non-bowl P5, a loss to an 8 win P5, and a loss to a 6 win P5

Arizona State went 1-0 vs top 25 with a loss to a non-bowl P5 and a loss to an 8 win P5

To that end, the Big 12 seems to have really suffered under (2) (limited ranked wins) and (3) (losses to non-bowl teams - Kansas and Cincinnati). Given no four loss teams made the rankings, it was fair to exclude the four loss Big 12 teams - KSU, TT, BU, and TCU - and that exclusion really hurt the resumes of the top 4 in the league since there were ultimately only 2 games against the top 25 teams among them (BYU vs SMU and BYU vs ASU). Parity seems to have been a contributing factor.

Bear8084 said:

---

Okay one thing on this: You can’t defer to the fact that the committee doesn’t work in hypotheticals, and then toss out a hypothetical that you know will make everyone mad. It erodes trust. https://t.co/JXXh748yd7

— Shehan Jeyarajah (@ShehanJeyarajah) December 4, 2024

---

I wish I was sooner to the party realizing that the only thing the committee cares about is how they can make the most money out of the playoff within the rules established. No interest in what's fair, just which team bring the most interest that drive commercials. What's sad is that just the fact that it's a playoff will drive interest regardless of teams, but they don't care.

Miami AD

Really ?? ….what put Bama over the top of Miami for the last spot in is that Miami went 1-2 in their last 3 games (by an average of 4.5 pts, to a ranked Syracuse and GT team that just took UGA to 8OT). Bama went 2-1 (to 5-7 Auburn, destroyed by OU, and beat FCS Mercer)

— Dan Radakovich (@DanRadakovich) December 4, 2024

“We chose not to rank 9-3 Duke, but have Missouri, who has been absolutely run out of a stadium twice by 30+ points, at #19 for some reason, so we can say Miami has no ranked wins and Alabama gets one for free.” https://t.co/ZSa8LI9dwA

— CFB Kings (@CFBKings) December 4, 2024

Miss the Pirate

Never forget Mike Leach talking about the committee… this was the first thing I thought of when seeing this headline just now on ESPN. pic.twitter.com/YVcDIUUGVq

— Cyclone Dave (@CycloneDave69) December 3, 2024

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

The committee seems focused on rewarding teams that, in some combination, (1) have 2 or fewer losses, (2) have defeated several teams in the final top 25, and (3) seemingly did not lose to a non-bowl team. While the first and third one are technically within the control of a team, the second one is not.

For Big 12 reference in the CFP rankings:
BYU went 1-1 vs top 25 with a loss to a non-bowl P5

ISU went 0-0 vs top 25 with a loss to a non-bowl P5 and a loss to an 8 win P5

Colorado went 0-0 vs top 25 with a loss to a non-bowl P5, a loss to an 8 win P5, and a loss to a 6 win P5

Arizona State went 1-0 vs top 25 with a loss to a non-bowl P5 and a loss to an 8 win P5

To that end, the Big 12 seems to have really suffered under (2) (limited ranked wins) and (3) (losses to non-bowl teams - Kansas and Cincinnati). Given no four loss teams made the rankings, it was fair to exclude the four loss Big 12 teams - KSU, TT, BU, and TCU - and that exclusion really hurt the resumes of the top 4 in the league since there were ultimately only 2 games against the top 25 teams among them (BYU vs SMU and BYU vs ASU). Parity seems to have been a contributing factor.

---

You continue to try to find order where none exists.

This process is a farce and has been since 2014. The committee picks its teams and crafts a justification after the fact. If that justification completely contradicts past "precedent," as it almost always does, so be it.

There is no criteria, universal or otherwise. It's all vibes.

Boise State playing a game this Friday for either a bye to the Playoff Quarterfinal with a win or a trip to the LA Bowl Hosted by Gronk with a loss might be the biggest stakes on a single game in the history of the sport.

— RedditCFB (@RedditCFB) December 4, 2024

Sheesh, based on this our own resume is almost CFP worthy. We lost 3 of 4 games to top teams in conference. Only 1 bad loss compared to 2 for Bama

That Syracuse question is a good one

Rankings Reaction 📝

• There isn’t a team in College Football that receives more special treatment than Alabama. Nick Saban’s not there anymore. Giving him the benefit of the doubt was somewhat understandable most years, but the coddling has to stop now. Getting destroyed by… pic.twitter.com/JkrpVqvbJA

— CFB Kings (@CFBKings) December 4, 2024

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

The committee seems focused on rewarding teams that, in some combination, (1) have 2 or fewer losses, (2) have defeated several teams in the final top 25, and (3) seemingly did not lose to a non-bowl team. While the first and third one are technically within the control of a team, the second one is not.

For Big 12 reference in the CFP rankings:
BYU went 1-1 vs top 25 with a loss to a non-bowl P5

ISU went 0-0 vs top 25 with a loss to a non-bowl P5 and a loss to an 8 win P5

Colorado went 0-0 vs top 25 with a loss to a non-bowl P5, a loss to an 8 win P5, and a loss to a 6 win P5

Arizona State went 1-0 vs top 25 with a loss to a non-bowl P5 and a loss to an 8 win P5

To that end, the Big 12 seems to have really suffered under (2) (limited ranked wins) and (3) (losses to non-bowl teams - Kansas and Cincinnati). Given no four loss teams made the rankings, it was fair to exclude the four loss Big 12 teams - KSU, TT, BU, and TCU - and that exclusion really hurt the resumes of the top 4 in the league since there were ultimately only 2 games against the top 25 teams among them (BYU vs SMU and BYU vs ASU). Parity seems to have been a contributing factor.

---

You continue to try to find order where none exists.

This process is a farce and has been since 2014. The committee picks its teams and crafts a justification after the fact. If that justification completely contradicts past "precedent," as it almost always does, so be it.

There is no criteria, universal or otherwise. It's all vibes.

---

I sure do miss when they were using "body clocks" as an excuse to rank teams.

boognish_bear said:

---

That Syracuse question is a good one

Rankings Reaction 📝

• There isn’t a team in College Football that receives more special treatment than Alabama. Nick Saban’s not there anymore. Giving him the benefit of the doubt was somewhat understandable most years, but the coddling has to stop now. Getting destroyed by… pic.twitter.com/JkrpVqvbJA

— CFB Kings (@CFBKings) December 4, 2024

---

The committee is hoping nobody looks too closely or nobody cares enough when the CFB media darlings get into the playoff no matter how many twists and turns it takes to get them in there.

A portion of Big 12 and ACC presidents gathered Tuesday in Dallas for presentations from two entities, each proposing new models for college football: Len Perna-led College Sports Tomorrow & SMASH Capital’s Project Rudy.

No Big Ten & SEC presidents attended, nor did Notre Dame.

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) December 4, 2024

Bear8084 said:

---

A portion of Big 12 and ACC presidents gathered Tuesday in Dallas for presentations from two entities, each proposing new models for college football: Len Perna-led College Sports Tomorrow & SMASH Capital’s Project Rudy.

No Big Ten & SEC presidents attended, nor did Notre Dame.

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) December 4, 2024

---

We are definitely seated at the kiddie table

"Brands matter. It's not a meritocracy. It's a brand-itocracy... It's not equal. It's never designed to be equal."

-- @AaronTaylorCFB on Alabama potentially sneaking into the College Football Playoff pic.twitter.com/MervDbgY9M

— CBS Sports College Football 🏈 (@CBSSportsCFB) December 4, 2024

Hammer, meet nail.

SMU should opt out of the game then.

Seriously.

Give Clemson the CFP AQ and force the committee to judge the Mustangs’ 12-game sample they already deemed being three spots better than Bama. https://t.co/YUM8lueCVM

— Josh Graham (@JoshGrahamShow) December 4, 2024

Lots of frustration from the Big 12 fans, and rightfully so, on being behind Boise State for the 4th bye in the CFP.

See if you can spot the difference between the resumes below. Both Big 12 teams well ahead on both strength and raw resume. pic.twitter.com/js4mVKwEeW

— CFP Resume Rankings (@CFPResumeRanks) December 4, 2024

ursamajor said:

---

It's such a ridiculous circle. Preseason rankings are meaningless guesses. But because the Big 12's highest ranked teams in the preseason did not perform well, the conference is considered weak. Then, because ASU had to work it's way up from the bottom (of made-up preseason rankings), people took forever to buy in. If KSU, Utah, or OSU had ASU's record, they'd be higher than ASU. Because that would have validated what the pollsters already thought they knew.

If a 10-2 Utah was playing a 10-2 OSU, I bet both would be ahead of SMU and Boise.

---

Will never happen but that's why the first AP and coaches poll should not be released until the same time the first playoff rankings come out. Eliminate the preseason poll bias.

Just losing to Vandy should have put Alabama outside the top 12 and losing badly to OU should have sealed that. Ridiculous they are even in consideration.

They aren't in consideration, they're in. And the worst part is they all but admitted an Smu loss Saturday in the title game will eliminate them even with a 11-2 record. The B12, ACC need to look strongly at eliminating conference title games as they seem to only benefit the B10, SEC

I don't agree with your last sentence. They left an undefeated 13-0 FSU out last year which set the precedent that the games don't matter. The committee is picking which teams they want based off of potential TV revenue and that's been the case since the playoff was introduced a decade ago

IowaBear said:

---

I don't agree with your last sentence. They left an undefeated 13-0 FSU out last year which set the precedent that the games don't matter. The committee is picking which teams they want based off of potential TV revenue and that's been the case since the playoff was introduced a decade ago

---

It's all up to the bias of the committee. I agree with the tweet earlier in the thread. It's a Brand-ocracy not a meritocracy.

I actually think they now view the ACC and B12 in the same realm. It was put best my poster earlier in the thread. Everyone aside from the SEC/B10 are sitting at the kids table in the eyes of the committee and that'll show itself every single year

IowaBear said:

---

I actually think they now view the ACC and B12 in the same realm. It was put best my poster earlier in the thread. Everyone aside from the SEC/B10 are sitting at the kids table in the eyes of the committee and that'll show itself every single year

---

It'll never happen because we like the money too much, but I'm sorely tempted by the thought of letting the SEC / Big10 go play only with themselves and breaking off into another CFB division. Don't even have Big12 / ACC / AAC / MWC play them. All of their OOC can be with each other. Thats what they want, isn't it?

Maybe that's what the ACC and Big12 met in Dallas about. It's clear there's a ridiculous bias that isn't being addressed.

ursamajor said:

---

It's such a ridiculous circle. Preseason rankings are meaningless guesses. But because the Big 12's highest ranked teams in the preseason did not perform well, the conference is considered weak. Then, because ASU had to work it's way up from the bottom (of made-up preseason rankings), people took forever to buy in. If KSU, Utah, or OSU had ASU's record, they'd be higher than ASU. Because that would have validated what the pollsters already thought they knew.

If a 10-2 Utah was playing a 10-2 OSU, I bet both would be ahead of SMU and Boise.

---

100% this.

IowaBear said:

---

I actually think they now view the ACC and B12 in the same realm. It was put best my poster earlier in the thread. Everyone aside from the SEC/B10 are sitting at the kids table in the eyes of the committee and that'll show itself every single year

---

It's pretty clear that the committee believes the only real football is being played in the SEC and Big Ten.

The only way to change that perception is to win playoff games, but that's really hard to do when you're getting a quarter of the representation those teams do.

Even with an expanded playoff, the system remains rigged to benefit the Power 2 -- just as everyone knew it would be.

At some point the Big 12 and ACC need to stop fighting each other and unite against a system that is clearly biased against them.

And if there's no way to increase their representation, they need to pull out of the playoff altogether and stop scheduling the Power 2 in anything.

If those two leagues want to separate from everyone else, let them. But make it be a clean separation across all sports. At some point, remaining in an unhealthy, one-sided relationship is just willful servitude.

BaylorGrad09 said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

I actually think they now view the ACC and B12 in the same realm. It was put best my poster earlier in the thread. Everyone aside from the SEC/B10 are sitting at the kids table in the eyes of the committee and that'll show itself every single year

---

It'll never happen because we like the money too much, but I'm sorely tempted by the thought of letting the SEC / Big10 go play only with themselves and breaking off into another CFB division. Don't even have Big12 / ACC / AAC / MWC play them. All of their OOC can be with each other. Thats what they want, isn't it?

Maybe that's what the ACC and Big12 met in Dallas about. It's clear there's a ridiculous bias that isn't being addressed.

---

The Big 12 and ACC need to take over and control basketball the same way the SEC and Big Ten have football. Freeze those leagues out of the tournament the same way they've squeezed us out of the CFP.

BCS 2014: "Ohio State is in because they have a 13th data point."

CFP 2024: "Alabama is in because they don't have a 13th data point."

And Paul Finebaum, who has his head so far up Nick Saban's arse, agrees..

The best thing about not being in the CFB Playoff discussion is not having to listen to these 2 idiots discount us.

Bama could by 0-12 and Finebaum would be whoring for them to get in the CFP. It's just who he is. Seriously, the guy has no credibility and is a perfect example of the decline of sports media.

“If our team all got COVID today, we’re in.” - SMU HC Rhett Lashlee (who goes onto clarify that they’re absolutely playing on Saturday, but it’s an accurate statement given present CFP policy) https://t.co/LmfXqhxXR5

— RedditCFB (@RedditCFB) December 4, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

“If our team all got COVID today, we’re in.” - SMU HC Rhett Lashlee (who goes onto clarify that they’re absolutely playing on Saturday, but it’s an accurate statement given present CFP policy) https://t.co/LmfXqhxXR5

— RedditCFB (@RedditCFB) December 4, 2024

---

It will only hurt non-SEC/Big10 teams. If one of those teams loses a close championship game, they may even move up in that 13th week for a "good loss".

So many of us are looking for logic and reason where neither exist. The deck is stacked against teams that aren't in the big 2. Like Denzel said in Remember the Titans, "we must be perfect". Any minor blemish will be exploited.

Big 12 commish Brett Yormark comes out swinging about CFP rankings ahead of ASU-Iowa State:

“In no way should a Group of Five champion be ranked above our champion.”

“No three-loss team from a Power Four conference should get a bye over a two-loss champion from the Big 12.”

— Chris Karpman (@ChrisKarpman) December 4, 2024

Another P4 team being outranked by a G5.

Not only did they beat them head to head… Syracuse also owns a Top25 win over now #12 Miami. UNLV has zero wins over current top 25 teams.

It only took me 23 hours to notice this, but 9-3 Syracuse is ranked 2 spots behind 10-2 UNLV in the new CFP rankings.

Syracuse won at UNLV this season.

— Stewart Mandel (@slmandel) December 4, 2024