Didn't even make it out of page 1 before a 2014 debate started. Tremendous.
For the record, I do absolutely believe that our conference commissioner isn't paying attention and made a mistake. He heard "the 13th data point cost you", which it did, and concluded "the 13th data point is the most important thing", which is clearly not true.
That said, the committee changed their reasoning several times. They do that throughout the season, which is odd. But can't pan GP or our Commissioner on this.
It seems pretty obvious what the committee's standards have been, and they've been pretty consistent:
-P5 only. G5 has no real path to the playoffs unless the stars align.
-Wins and Losses matter more than anything else. 1 loss > 2 loss.
-SOS matters, and good wins outrank bad losses. More than anything, this is what killed us and Baylor in 2014, our SOS stunk compared to Ohio State's despite having a "better" loss.
-In the event of a tie, 12-1 > 11-1
-In the event of a tie, an outright conference title > split conference title.
-The preceding two points do not come in to play unless there is a tie, so 11-1 without a conference title > 11-2 with a conference title, by virtue of point #2.
Face it, this whole invitational is about protecting the big brands. OU had a loss, and got into the playoffs. That loss was to a 5-7 Texas team. Our loss in 2014 was to a highly ranked 1 loss team. The reason folks said TCU should be in, is because they were playing better ball than BU in the back half of the 2014 season. And BU lost to WVU. But in the end, it was, and is always about, protecting the big boys. This was predicted by many when they announced how the committee process would work several years ago. The fact that barry fat alvarez kept pushing for revotes that first year until TCU was out and the other team got in, says it all.
This is silly.
1) Comparing OU's 1-loss in 2015 to TCU and Baylor in 2014 is faulty, because they weren't the same decision. OU wasn't vying for a spot with the other teams from 2014, and had they been in the same boat as us the odds are they'd have been left out as well. In 2015, Pac-12 champion Stanford had 2 losses, making the decision between 1-loss OU and 2-loss Stanford pretty easy and not necessitating the introduction of the tiebreakers used in 2014. Apples and Oranges.
2) B1G champion Penn State got left out in favor of Washington, yet we're supposed to believe that blue-blood bias trumps all.