CFP questions

Pitt beat Clemson on the road and Penn St. They have as many losses as Tennessee, LSU, Auburn and Utah. Why are they ranked behind them? There is no comparison when it comes to the top 2 wins of those other teams.



If the committee is going to have a SEC bias, why not rank Texas A&M over Utah? They beat Arkansas, Tennessee and Auburn which according to the committee's own rankings is better than beating USC, BYU and Arizona St. A&M beat UCLA just like Utah did. Both teams had 2 losses to teams with losing records.



Houston could beat Oklahoma at home West Virginia could not. Houston also crushed Louisville. Yet Houston is ranked behind West Virginia. I understand 3 losses vs. 2 but the committee has said it is who you beat not who you lost to. WVA's 2 best wins are BYU and Kansas St.



Anyway just venting over the bottom half of the rankings that really don't matter.

Utah rose 2 spots after losing to UC. They are there to make Washington look deserving over Michigan. I heard those two spots were really close.

Well Washington is about to beat Colorado and win the Pac12 whereas Michigan did not make their championship game.

This week's CFP Top 25 was ranked to justify the Top 4's position. They wanted Washington in the Top 4, so they kept Utah in the top 25 and even moved the UP two positions despite finishing the season 1-3. The Utes should have been out.



Pitt was added to show that Clemson's loss was to a Top 25 team. Like every iteration of the last 20 years, college football continues to be a sham.