If I had to wager, my guess is Notre Dame will end up #4 and Ohio State #3, but who really knows for sure? I get the argument for Texas A & M, but it's really hard to separate among a few of these teams, and ND often gets the benefit of the doubt. I also agree that the SEC argument Jimbo Fisher is making would work in many years, but this year the SEC is not the juggernaut conference....so the ACC gets the two teams in a watered down year.
If you're really arguing best teams (or teams playing best now), hell.....Oklahoma could be one - but they really shot themselves in the foot early (and screwed the Big XII) dropping early games to Kansas State and Iowa State, losing leads in the process. A one-loss Oklahoma team might have gotten the nod. I also get the argument concerning Ohio State, but no way (IMO) the Big Ten lets them get excluded, and that's why they retroactively changed the rules to have a conference team have a better chance to receive a playoff spot and an extra payday for the conference.
What I've disliked from the start of this playoff concept is the lack of specific objective criteria and the ability to manipulate the teams in any particular given year....some years it's best resume.....some years it's you're a conference champion.....some years it's just the "eye test," and some years it's "the four "best" teams. Maybe one year it will be four most "deserving" teams - whatever that means. Because we have a "committee," it must be correct, right?
In my day, we didn't have some fancy schmancy committee....oh let's all wait up to see who these FOUR are.....a freaking month before it even matters......you wanted to decide anything, we just let everybody loose in a big field and started beatin the hell out of each other until just one was standing......and we LIKED it!
Ahhhhh......what's the use.
