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

With the playoff, conference strength isn't that much of an issue anymore.  However, it was ridiculous to have the B1G left out of the last two playoffs.

That really is an Ohio State thing and even as an Ohio State fan it doesn't really bother me very much.  Both years the Buckeyes took horrendous losses to mediocre teams and you just don't have much of a complaint when you do that.  If they had lost on last second FG's to better teams it would have been different but that isn't what happened.  

Last year, if it wasn't Ohio State left out it would have been Oklahoma.  Some argued UGA should have been fourth (not me) and they were close (fifth).

OSU was sixth.

There will always be 1-2-3 teams "left out" no matter what, but when ND is 12-0 that goes up one.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the committee sometimes organizes their final rankings so as to minimize controversy.  In 2018 the top-3 were abundantly obvious to anyone:

• 13-0 SEC Champion Bama
• 13-0 ACC Champion Clemson
• 12-0 Notre Dame

After that it got hairy.  Based on their final rankings of #4 OU, #5 UGA, #6 tOSU is looks like it was between OU and UGA but I don't think that was actually the case.  I believe that if OU had lost the B12CG to Texas, Ohio State would have gotten in.  I just don't believe that two-loss non-champion Georgia would have been in ahead of any one-loss P5 Champion.  

FWIW, I think they did a similar thing in 2016 when 1-loss non-Champion Ohio State got in over 2-loss B1G Champion Penn State despite losing H2H to the Nittany Lions.  In the final rankings they had one-loss Pac Champion Washington in between the #3 Buckeyes and the #5 Nittany Lions.  

The committee seems to seriously frown on really bad losses.  In 2018 Ohio State had a blowout loss to a mediocre Purdue team.  In 2016 Penn State had a close loss to a bad Pitt team and a blowout loss to Michigan.  

I think that the committee's view of bad losses has perhaps evolved over the years.  In the first couple years of the playoff some teams got in with pretty bad losses.  Lately that hasn't been the case.  Of course the other thing at play is that it isn't a set criteria.  One year you might need to be undefeated.  Eventually there will be a year when a two or even three loss team gets in.  That all depends on how strong the competition is.  

Last year was a highly unusually strong year.  The P5 plus ND produced three undefeated teams, two one-loss Champions, and a two-loss Georgia team whose only losses were by a TD to the consensus #1 and on the road to LSU.  Additionally, Michigan finished with two losses both on the road to teams that ended up #3 and #6.  That is five really strong contenders and two others not far behind.  

When a year happens like last year with 3 undefeated  P5s and ND, there won't be a good solution that pleases most.  Fortunately, that is rare.

Any year where ND is 12-0 is going to be more difficult than usual as it means two P5 conference champs get left out.  The year before when Bama was put in over 11-2 OSU was more of a weird thing, to me.  Bama ended up somewhat "redeeming" their selection, unfortunately.

in 2017-2018 the B1G was unquestionably the best conference in CFB.  They went 8-1* in their bowl games, had the best out of conference record at 39-11, and also had the toughest non-conference schedule. 

Then they were left out of the playoffs. 

Not good.  You should always take a conference champ before you take a second team from the same conference.

*Thanks, Michigan

They will never satisfy everyone of course.  

Ohio State looks to me like a No. 1 team based on 5 games, but we play 7, 8 probably, more.

Folks wags claim they have not played anybody of course, but neither has Bama or Clemson.  Many teams have not played anybody yet and are undefeated.

*The national champions also lost to that Pitt team.

They did, but they didn't also get run out of the stadium by Michigan.  

How does one evaluate a team with say two ugly losses to bad teams and three really impressive wins versus good teams?

Their 'spread' is wider than normal, which means they're less consistent and when it comes to valuing sports teams or even individual performers - think fantasy sports drafting here - the less consistent they are, the further down they fall.  Consistency is rewarded - be predictable.  Run from uncertainty.  You might be drafting (or ranking) the lesser player (or team), but it's a safer pick (rank).