Indeed - if Wisconsin had beat Ohio state there would likely not be much of a controversy today. But they didn't, so there is.Who is this CFP committee anyway? Currently it is made up of 13 members consisting of former head coaches (5), current or former athletic directors (5), a university president (1), a former sports reporter (1), and a former NCAA executive (1). A good mix although I'd prefer more former head coaches. Most played college football at some time and most have recusals (not allowed to vote for certain teams due to alma mater or family playing for the team).
Did they get it right?
Probably. A good argument could have been made for Wisconsin, Bama, USC and even Ohio State (yes - in that order). All things considered I imagine that the margins between those teams were micro-thin. I wish I knew by how many votes Bama got in, though.
Was Alabama included because of history or brand?
Probably. They may not be considered by everyone as one of the top four teams, but their coach is. My guess is that is what carried them into that #4 slot.
Why not Wisconsin?
Indeed, why not? They can make just as good a case as Bama (except the coach). A weak schedule, one loss to a ranked team, no conference champ.
Why not Ohio State?
Because they are inconsistent. My guess is that the primary reason was by HOW MUCH (31 points) and WHEN (in November) they lost to un-ranked Iowa. Yes, they did beat 12-0 Wisconsin. But remember all the fuss about Wisconsin not "beating anybody" and that was what kept them from climbing the polls until the final week? So Ohio State beat the team that didn't "beat anybody", and that, coupled with their inconsistency, just didn't carry enough weight.
Did the committee just not want the Big10 to embarrass the system - again? Maybe, but we'll never know. (2015 semi-final Alabama over Michigan State 39 - 0; 2016 semi-final Clemson over Ohio State 31 - 0).
What about the top three?
Probably right and in the right order. But one should note (and this is my UGA bias coming out and looking only at the W-L column), that Clemson's 1-loss was to still un-ranked Syracuse, Oklahoma's 1-loss was to still un-ranked Iowa State, but Georgia's 1-loss was to Auburn, who finished #7, and that loss was avenged.
I'll be the first to say that the current system is the best we've had and a stepping stone in the right direction. Still flawed, but what would college football be like without the ranking controversy?
ENDZONE
To BYU: Was Ty Detmer really the best choice for the scapegoat? Second year as a college coach, using a 4th string QB the last three games and whatever string RB. All the while designing and redesigning plays for guys that were not supposed to see much playing time (if any at all). Was OC play calling really the root cause of the terrible season? Just asking...