Auburn played Clemson, Georgia, Alabama, LSU during the regular season and went 10-2 beat Alabama head to head soundly the very last game of the season. Had they not won the division and had to play an extra game they would have been ranked ahead of them 100 percent without a doubt.

How is it fair to put Alabama ahead of Auburn because Auburn had to play an extra game vs a top 4 team when they had a comparable record considering they played 2 top 4 teams more than Alabama and beat them soundly head to head.

So Auburn should be in the playoffs instead of OSU instead?

Well if you want it.

1 loss > 3 losses. Even if that 1 loss was to that 3 loss team

Carr2Cooper wrote:1 loss > 3 losses. Even if that 1 loss was to that 3 loss team

But why are you comparing 3 losses to 1 loss.

Who had to play an extra game against a top 5 team because they won head to head and won the division? Why are we punishing Auburn for winning the division and beating Alabama?

Here is my argument, Alabama can't lose a game if they don't play a game its a 10-2 team that won head to head and played 2 extra top 5 teams, compared to an 11-1 team is what it should be.

08GatorBait wrote:So Auburn should be in the playoffs instead of OSU instead?

Well if you want it.

I would take that over Alabama, Auburn should be ranked higher. They played 3 more top 5 teams beat just as many power 5 teams and won head to head soundly.

They have 2 wins over top 5 teams Alabama has 0.

Here is something else that is odd.

Why is Auburn ahead of USC if Alabama is ahead of Ohio State?

Isn't it the same thing pretty much only worse in favor of Auburn that Ohio State?

I mean USC has the conference title, their schedule is more comparable to Auburns than Alabamas is to Ohio State. Both have blowout losses to good teams but USCs was way earlier, USC has 1 less loss and a CC.

To me they are valuing Auburns 2 top 10 wins more than USCs better record and CC but why aren't they valuing Ohio State's 2 top 10 wins more than Alabama's record.