Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Although if we want to talk about Auburn, how is it that a 10-2 Auburn team was suddenly the #2 team in the CFP rankings going into the SECCG?

Like Ohio State, they scheduled tough OOC and lost that game. Like OSU, they had a 2nd lost on their schedule, and I'll grant that a loss away to a ranked LSU team is better than getting pantsed by an unranked Iowa team. They had a couple high-quality wins (Georgia, Bama). But what exactly had they done as a 2-loss team to be considered ahead of OU, Wisconsin, Bama, Georgia, and Miami, all undefeated or 1-loss teams, and to separate them that much from 2-loss teams like OSU/PSU/USC?

Was it their big win over Mercer?

Hang on.

That LSU team in the 4 games prior to Auburn:

Spanked by Mississippi State away
Struggled with Syracuse at home
Lost to TROY at home
1 point win over Florida away

How is losing to that LSU team all that much worse than being hit by a truck in Iowa City in the evening?

Iowa finished 8-5, had some really good wins and some really "good" close losses. They were not a terrible team at all.

... But ... SEC

so, was Auburn a really good team?  So the losses to Auburn by Bama and Georgia are "good" losses?

or is Auburn really NOT good because they have 4 losses including the loss to UCF?

If Auburn is really good, then UCF has an argument that they should have been ranked much higher than 12th by the Committee and 10th by the AP.

If Auburn sucks, then Bama, Clemson, and Georgia shouldn't get credit for their performances vs a really good Auburn 

847, you're comparing a 4-point loss to LSU with a bludgeoning by Iowa and throwing your hands up as if you can't differentiate them because they're so similar.

It's gross.  You're better than that.

This isn't a mystery guys.  Some of you are willfully blinded by conference affiliation.  It's almost comical.

And you are definitely blinded by conference affiliation. It's not comical at all; pathetic is the 1st word I associate with your dogma.

In 2011 you had 11-1 Oklahoma State and 11-1 Stanford, who were edged out by 11-1 non-champ Alabama.
You can make a claim that Alabama (having only lost to an undefeated LSU team) was the 2nd-best team in the nation. But I'm not sure you can argue that OkSU or Stanford were necessarily "weak" unless by strength/weakness you're comparing the shine of their helmet. They weren't 2-loss champs like PSU in 2016 and OSU or USC in 2017. They were 1-loss conference champs. Shouldn't that mean something?
Either way, however, the BCS was essentially a mathematical formula. It was the polls and the computer rankings. The human polls differ from the committee in that the individual human voters are independent and don't collectively agree on who the representatives in the title game should be.
The committee does, however. And the committee has several stated rationales as far as what should carry weight. 2016 PSU lost in weeks 2 and 4, and then basically rolled roughshod through the rest of the season, but were passed over for a team they beat head to head. And I don't want to argue from results, but that team got completely decimated by Clemson in the semis. 2017 OSU did what they were supposed to do (schedule tough and win their conference) and had a pretty good resume, beating two teams that finished in the top 10, but based on losing to a team that finished 2nd in the standings and having one "WTF?" game were jumped by a non-champion who didn't schedule particularly tough and didn't really have any "signature wins".
I think you can easily argue the 2016 PSU team was tough, and and beat the one-loss non-champ that was selected over them head to head. I think you can easily argue the 2017 OSU team was tough, had some great wins, and 9 times out of 10 beats that Iowa team to a pulp. Is their resume truly worse than an Alabama team with no signature wins that lost to a 10-3 Auburn team?

I want to address a few things in here that haven't already been covered by others:
First, I strongly disagreed with the BCS taking Bama after Bama had lost H2H to LSU.  However, OkSU's OOC that year was:

• UL-Lafayette
• Arizona (finished 4-8)
• Tulsa

That is hardly a murder's row and they got all their best B12 opponents at home (OU and KSU both came to Stillwater so their best road win was at Mizzou.  

Stanford's OOC was:

• SJSU
• Dook (finished 3-9)
• Notre Dame (finished 8-5)

Stanford also lost to Oregon by 23 points which I think hurt them just like Ohio State losing badly to Iowa hurt the Buckeyes this year.  

Alabama's OOC was:

• Kent
• Penn State (finished 9-4)
• N. Texas
• Georgia Southern

Penn State was far better than any OOC game that either Stanford or OkSU played and Bama's only loss was by a FG to the #1 team.  

A lot of people keep bring up PSU last year as a comparison and I view that completely differently.  I was happy with the decision last year not only because my team got in but also because I thought the committee sent a message that SoS matters.  That is a message that I want the committee to send because it will improve the viewing experience for all of us as fans.  

I agree with a statement made above that Ohio State got in last year largely because of their blowout OOC win over B12 Champion Oklahoma.  I liked that because I figured it would encourage other teams to schedule difficult OOC games because the potential reward made it worth the risk.  However, on further review, I think it really isn't and that scheduling cupcakes is probably the best bet for getting to the CFP.  

These last two years the best OOC match-up has probably been tOSU/OU both years.  Those two games included three P5 Champions (OU both years, tOSU this year), two teams that finished the regular season with one loss (OU this year, tOSU last year) and two that finished with two losses (OU last year, tOSU this year).  All of that said, I think the net result of that series was -1 playoff berths.  Imagine if the Buckeyes had hosted Tulsa both years and the Sooners had hosted Ohio U both years.  Assume that the Buckeyes and Sooners easily beat the Golden Hurricanes and Bobcats, what would have been different?
2016:

• Ohio State with one loss, no title, and no big OOC wins probably gets left out.  -1
• Oklahoma with one loss, a B12 title, and no OOC losses probably get in.  +1

2017:

• Oklahoma with one loss, a B12 title, and no big OOC wins probably gets in anyway.  even
• Ohio State with one loss, a B1G title, and no OOC losses probably gets in.  +1

Collectively, the Buckeyes and Sooners probably lose one CFP berth by playing each other the last two years.  So the message sent by the committee is to schedule cupcakes because at the end of the day "# of losses" is a higher ranking criteria than "SoS". 

And I grant them that. Auburn had quality wins. And the loss to Clemson was a quality loss. The loss to LSU wasn't so much a "bad" loss, but it was a second loss which has seemed to exclude any team from CFP consideration every time it's come up. Yet they jumped all the way to #2 in the country with those two losses.
My own suspicion was that the committee had determined in advance that the SEC champ was in regardless of whether it was Auburn or Georgia, and to forestall any bellyaching over a 2-loss team getting in they put them SO high prior to the SECCG that it would look natural that they stay in the top 4. Auburn jumped both 1-loss Oklahoma and undefeated Wisconsin to get into that #2 slot before the CCG.
Past behavior by the committee says 2 losses disqualify you from the CFP. Except when they decide they don't.

 I agree with you, sadly.  The rules keep changing to get an answer they seem to look for...