The Buckeyes had more positive marks on their resume, but there were also more negatives.
Here are five takeaways from Sunday:
1. The announcement sounds like an early death knell for the four-team playoff.
I don’t know how long it’s going to take for an expansion to eight teams, but I’m pretty certain it’s going to happen for the same reason Alabama making the BCS championship in 2011 killed the two-team system.
This proves again every game doesn’t matter, which was the mantra the BCS reps leaned on and the one used by defenders of the four-team playoff against expansion.
If we’re still just guessing who are the best four teams, we might as well just go back to voting on the winner on Jan. 2.
2. The four-team playoff’s biggest issue: Five power conferences.
The conferences are very hard to compare in any given year, and we start necessarily having to leave out one based on some assumptions that may or may not be correct.
That’s not ideal, and it’s often going to be unsatisfying.
But leaving out two leagues even when none were dominant (or blatantly down) is even worse.
Ironically, if this were 2011 it would have made a lot more sense, because LSU and Alabama reasonably were considered to be a lot better than everyone else.
Now that the conference of Jim Delany, one of college football’s ultimate power brokers, has been spurned, I would expect change to happen sooner or later.
3. The committee simply believed Alabama was better than Ohio State.
Therefore, they used whatever justification they wanted to explain the decision to pick the Crimson Tide. That was the Buckeyes’ blowout loss at Iowa.
I want the the four best teams to make it, but only when it’s unequivocal who those are.
That was not this year.
Neither team really passed the eye test, so claiming one did rang really hollow.
That is why I still would have gone back to the resumes, and I have always felt comparing wins was better than comparing losses because if nothing else it is a larger sample size.
I’m also more interested in what a team is like on its best days than its worst, but if the committee disagrees that’s how it’s going to be I guess.
And yet CFP chairman Kirby Hocutt’s statement, “Alabama was clearly the No. 4 ranked team in the country as a non-champion,” just doesn’t hold water to me.
4. Four-team idea came too late for Ohio State.
In 2015, Ohio State was probably one of the top two let alone four, but the Buckeyes were not afforded the same treatment as Alabama this year.
That year, too, the Buckeyes could have made the argument moot by taking care of business against Michigan State, but that’s beside the point. At least they finished the season by crushing Michigan in Ann Arbor, leaving a positive last impression rather than a loss like the 2017 Crimson Tide.
It was generally agreed upon that was a special Ohio State team even with its flaws.
Can we say that about this Alabama squad?
5. What would prevent expanding the playoff?
The conferences -- which made up the BCS and comprise the group that oversees the playoff -- might still draw the line in the sand at four teams in the playoff so they can protect their garbage championship game cash cows that often don’t mean anything in the playoff discussion.
Lots of people say every year the first weekend of December works as the round of eight, but that’s obviously not true, since 50 percent of the time a playoff participant has not even taken part.
A move to eight teams could guarantee the importance of a conference championship by granting the Power 5 winners a spot and leave room for someone who might have had a fluke loss. Also, someone like this season’s undefeated Central Florida could get a shot to be a college football Cinderella.
That could be fun, right?
They left room in the calendar to do this already, and expanding just this once wouldn’t upend the bowl system as a 16-team playoff would, which is why the latter will never happen.
It’s all fantasy for now, but I have a feeling we’re closer to it becoming reality than we have ever been.