It's clear at this point that the committee is going to do whatever it wants, and is strongly signaling a willingness to include Alabama in the playoff, regardless of whether they win the SEC championship. So, let's say Bama loses a close game to Georgia and sneaks into the playoff as the four-seed, setting up a rematch of the SEC title game. How can the committee reconcile putting a two-loss non-conference champ with no impressive wins with their decision to exclude Penn State from the 2016 playoff? That year, PSU had two losses: a close one in week two to Pitt, and another in week four to what was arguably Harbaugh's best Michigan team. However, they finished the season as the B1G champ, and as we know, they beat an OSU team that was ultimately selected as the third seed in the playoff.

I've said for years that Penn State should have been chosen over us--I would have much rather played USC in the Rose Bowl that year, and while I was happy when we were picked for the CFP, I was concerned about the precedent that would be set by including a team that didn't even win its division. I also think Penn State would have at least put points on the board against Clemson. But I digress.

The point is, the argument for excluding Penn State in '16 was their two-loss record, and the committee argued that not even a B1G championship and a win over OSU was enough to get them into the playoff. I'm fine with that logic, as long as it's applied consistently. So how exactly can they argue that a non-conference champ with two losses deserves the four seed, if Penn State's resume wasn't considered playoff-caliber in 2016?