Because they didn't do as much on the field by not playing. Neither are outright conference champions. Neither had to play a championship game. Therefore, they've done less. If we replaced them with an 11-1 Notre Dame team, I'd say the same thing.
I don't like the idea of selecting the playoff teams the day after the games are done. Seems like waiting a few more days would make people more likely to consider the entire body of work instead of just the last game.
I know that it's basically universally accepted, but I think the idea of comparing the quality of losses is really kind of silly. A loss is a loss. So one team got upset and the other didn't... but then that same team that got upset can turn around and say we won every big game we played. The whole comparing loss quality puts too much emphasis on the one time each year that a team failed and detracts from the whole body of work. They should use 1) objective OVERALL strength of schedule/resume (last weekend shouldn't count for anymore than week 1 in this criteria) 2) the human eyeball test to settle "ties" (or more objectively, who would Vegas favor on a neutral field.)
But since they didn't play a championship game, neither deserves to get in? You should rethink that. It is seriously dumb.
I think number of wins argument is dumb. I don't think that is dumb. At least not extremely dumb. It would be a pretty big star in the crown of the winner of Baylor/TCU to beat a top 6 team last weekend for their outright conference championship. As it was, neither had that on their resume going into the selection process. That said, I don't thnkk last week of the season should count for double points like some seem to think. Here's an interesting thought: if there were divisions in the Big 12, Baylor and TCU would have very probably been in the same one. Baylor beats TCU in the head to head and they go to the championship. Who would they have played on the last weekend: Kansas State --exactly what happened. So really having a Big 12 championship probably would've just resulted in an extra win over K.State for the conference championship.
Wait a minute--if TCU played Baylor again, the winner should be in. Since they didn't, neither one deserves it. That is, by definition, nonsensical. I wonder if this "undisputed conference champion" babble would still hold true if you had one-loss Miss St sitting in the top 4 ahead of everybody else.
8 teams is too many, IMO. And then, what do you do if Arizona is #7 or like Georgia is #6 and they play Oregon/Bama in conference title games? Do you penalize them for losing to elite teams while someone like Auburn wins by sitting at home?
I disagree. It is a resume booster for the winner. It adds a huge quality win to the overall list and boosts the heck out of both's SOS. If there were two SEC teams with one loss going into the SECCG both sitting in the top 4, would you think they should both get in regardless of the outcome? I don't. But that's exactly the same kind of logic you're using here. Adding a win over another contender is a de facto quarterfinal game.
The one game that affected TCU's outcome was the Clemson/FSU game. Clemson was ready to kick the game winning field goal at anytime, but fumbled it away and lose in OT. FSU won shitty games but ran the table in a shitty conference.
a risk? for the guys vying for the last spot, it's a highlight game. Those guys need the title game to overcome the resume issues they have. Had this stopped at the conclusion of the conference season, fOSU isn't playing in the mini dance.
