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

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".

Except that it isn't. Auburn should get credit for scheduling Clemson, as OSU/OU should get credit for scheduling each other. 
But Auburn by losing that game *and* losing to LSU isn't punished, while OSU is. 
Auburn was #2 in the CFP going into the SECCG. I could maybe understand them getting into the CFP after beating Georgia in a rematch, because that would be 3 really big wins and being conference champ at 11-2. And it would play into the "improved team" mantra that perhaps since those losses were early the team had become much better by the end of November and were now one of the best 4 in the country. That would tell the world that SoS and conference championships matter, because they'd have both of them but still 2 losses.
But the committee didn't wait until after the CCG. They had them all the way at #2 before the CCG. 
So # of losses is a higher ranking criteria than SoS, except when it isn't. Just as SoS and conference championships "carry a lot of weight", except when they don't. 
This is my ENTIRE point of the OP. This is a terrible system. This changed from being a beauty pageant by the AP to a beauty pageant by the AP/Coaches/computers to being a beauty pageant by the committee. And beauty is non-objective, so they can change their minds and do whatever they want, whenever they want, by whatever rationale they deem necessary on that day.
Just as someone [perhaps you?] mentioned that the week before the CCGs, the committee said "#5-#8 is really close", and then all of a sudden #8 beats #4, #6 beats #2, and #7 loses, while #5 sits at home and watches its "good loss" lose some shine as the team that beat them picks up its third loss. Yet #5 is rewarded for that while #8 which was "really close" gets no reward for beating #4. 
It's a terrible system. It's arbitrary and capricious. And any attempt to dress it up to find a "true" champion doesn't change the fact that it's still a completely subjective beauty pageant. 

Actually you are being simply ridiculous. Auburn had just beaten two number 1 teams on successive weekends. At the time Auburn was ranked number 2 they had not lost by 30 points to a mediocre team. They deserved the number two ranking. There was no comparison between their ranking and how Ohio State was treated.

The BCS was good; not perfect, but good. Certain people didn't get what they wanted so they cried, and cried and they changed the system. Now, those people didn't get what they wanted again; so we are back to the cry fest again.

on 8 team playoff, i'm not really a fan of going to 8, but not completely against it either.

and in one sense, i am excited about the potential: cfp games at home stadiums. if they will make rd1 games at the higher seeded home stadiums that'd be amazing.

Actually you are being simply ridiculous. Auburn had just beaten two number 1 teams on successive weekends. At the time Auburn was ranked number 2 they had not lost by 30 points to a mediocre team. They deserved the number two ranking. There was no comparison between their ranking and how Ohio State was treated.

The BCS was good; not perfect, but good. Certain people didn't get what they wanted so they cried, and cried and they changed the system. Now, those people didn't get what they wanted again; so we are back to the cry fest again.

Now, as I said to OAM, note that I'm not an OSU fan. I'm not a fan of any helmet team in general. I'm a Purdue fan, so it's not like CFP selection criteria will ever affect my team either way. I just think it's a bad system.
But I do wonder if Bama fans would be grousing if OSU had been selected but Bama hadn't. Especially if OSU had gotten beaten by Clemson in a lopsided game again. 

on 8 team playoff, i'm not really a fan of going to 8, but not completely against it either.

and in one sense, i am excited about the potential: cfp games at home stadiums. if they will make rd1 games at the higher seeded home stadiums that'd be amazing.

I think that would be cool... However I'd almost prefer the other idea of keeping the traditional bowl games as the quarterfinal sites (perhaps without seeding) such that the traditional bowl matchups are preserved. Something about the Rose being B1G champ vs PAC champ just seems like it shouldn't be messed with. 

The PAC and B1G wanted home venues for the 4 team playoffs we currently have.

The other 3 conferences wanted no part of it.

Of course not. It's self-serving. The PAC is far from everywhere, so it forces other teams to travel to them. The B1G is cold, and nobody in any of the other conferences wants to play a game in December outdoors in Ann Arbor, Columbus, State College, or Madison. 
Those two conferences are the ones always the most chagrined about travel distance to bowl games, and the idea that they could force other conferences to come to them instead seemed like a benefit.

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.

Your own suspicion was that the committee had determined in advance that the SEC champ would get in?  Why?  Why would you think that?  Jesus guys. Please stop with the conspiracy theories.  What do people like Gene Smith,  Kirby Hocutt, Frank Beamer, Rob Mullens, Ty Willingham, Dan Radakovich, Herb Deromedi, and Chris Howard have to gain for being shills for SEC football?
I'll ask again. What are we accusing these people of?  Is ESPN paying them off?    If not that then what?  If ESPN execs are in the room going, "No, I think you need to revisit where you have (insert team here)  then why are these busy, successful, well thought of people wasting their valuable time?
I understand not agreeing with every decision but the comments on here make it sound like something conniving and unethical was happening.  I don't get it.

2-loss Auburn did something I'm not sure anyone else did - hence their being rewarded with the #2 ranking.  Yes, it's odd to see a 2-loss team ranked over 1-loss helmets and undefeated Wisconsin.......but at the same time, haven't we all bitched about the laziness of voters when they simply rank the teams by how many losses they have?  We can't have it both ways.

The only team that came to mind, doing what AU did, was Miss State a few years back when they were #1.  They jumped from unranked (AP poll) all the way up to #1 because in 3 straight weeks they beat #8, #6, and #2.  So in the first committee ranking, they were first.  Rewarded for their multiple wins over highly-ranked teams.  They jumped a much bigger, undefeated helmet in FSU (defending champs) thanks to those big wins.

If we're going to penalize teams for bad losses (as we do and should), we should also reward teams for great wins.  Obviously, right?

The committee just needs to be silent until the CCG's are over.

I know nobody here is complaining about the selections (other than in jest). These are two worthy teams, for sure. They proved it last weekend.

It's the process that is in question. Again, there was "very little separation" from teams 5-8 before the CCG's were played. Then the CCG's happened.

#8 beat #4 on a neutral field while #2, the team that solidly beat #5 a week prior, got smoked by #6.

"Very little separation" somehow magically turned into #5 now being the "clear" #4, while #6 moved into the #3 spot.


This is what people are bitching about. That and we again have another non-champ.