Is the CFP Committee pushing an agenda?

No. It looks like they are not letting the fact that a team loses once deter them from the fact that they're still one of the best teams in the country.

No the teams that lose aren't even dropping out of the Top 4

Sounds like your agenda is that LSU should be allowed to lose 3 games with immunity and therefore is somehow better than a couple of 1-loss teams who both beat one of the teams (Wisconsin) that LSU lost to. Those teams ranked in the top four have resumes that are substantially better than all teams ranked behind them. The committee has it right at this point. The top four will change some after Dec 3rd. But LSU will not be in the conversation.

Those are the the 5 best records in football.

A loss is a loss, but at this point most teams have more than 1. You don't drop because you lose a game, you drop because your record is now worse than X number of teams.

IN Clemson and Michigan's case X is a very small number.

Yes I think LSU would beat Ohio St, Michigan, and Clemson at a neutral site. I'd love to be able to see it. We Bama people don't hate you LSU people. We never have. Even in 2000-2007 we never hated y'all.

quote:

---

and might beat Wisconsin

---

Ironically, LSU would have beat Wisconsin the first time if Les Miles had run the ball in field goal range on the final drive instead of letting Brandon Harris throw the game sealing interception (go figure)

You should've studied for your mid term instead of posting here all the time.

quote:

---

Seems like certain teams can lose with total immunity, it's almost like they've made up their minds already as to who they want in the playoffs.

The only team that deserves to be up there is Alabama and maaaaaaybe Michigan. I also believe that LSU would be the majority of teams in the top 6. Except Alabama of course and possibly Michigan. Sorry I'm bias towards the SEC

---

I'm honestly not sure why so many people are in an uproar about this. While the CFP committee could stand to be a little more nuanced, these rankings are pretty much what you'd get with the old system of rankings, and the top 6 are pretty close to what the AP and Coaches polls currently have (with Wisky exchanged for Washington.) What they have in common isn't exactly complicated -- the top 6 are all in major conferences and have the best records in CFB. Most of them didn't drop far after losing because, 1) they still have the best records; and 2) they were lucky enough to lose during a slaughterhouse weekend for top-ranked teams. They didn't lose with total impunity ("immunity" works too, I guess) because their losses had to be taken in context when talking about rankings. A team doesn't just drop 10 spots in a void...those 10 spots have to be filled with other teams.

As I said before, the CFP committee could be a bit more nuanced, but there's really no irrefutable argument for ranking most of the teams below the top 6 above them. You're looking at 6 of the most successful non-directional schools in the country. And, as the CFB playoff committee has made a point of demonstrating in the past, the rankings will sort themselves out week-to-week. One of OSU and UM will be eliminated shortly. Clemson and UL don't play again, if I'm recalling correctly, but there's no reason why the final rankings can't move a Pac-12 winner UDub (assuming they win out) over a team that doesn't have that extra game (UL in this case.) And so forth. I just don't get why people are treating the top 6 as being massively controversial rather than generically rewarding W/L records. Deserving or no, it's not exactly hard to see what's happening with these rankings, and why.

Yep. But it's not just W/L record. It's who you beat and who you lost to. Resume is a better term to use than record. It's about ranking the teams based on their resumes. And that's how it should be. It will work itself out by the end and the four teams with the best resumes will get in, giving consideration to tiebreakers such as, head-to-head, CGs, etc. as needed.