quote:
Strength of schedule, head-to-head competition and championships won must be specifically applied as tie-breakers between teams that look similar;

TCU lost head to head against Baylor, and did not win the big 12 title. Or, if we believe the Big 12, then we'll credit them with a share of a the title, which is less than Ohio St's full title share. And the SOS was remarkably similar between the teams. TCU held a slight edge, but they had 9 opponents in common with Baylor plus their head to head. Playing the exact 10-game schedule means that TCU did not have a significantly harder schedule than Baylor (though it is harder, as Minnesota is better than Buffalo).

The rules actually reference head to head three separate times, especially in conjuntion with the invalidity of ranking formulae:

quote:
Under the current construct, polls (although well-intended) have not expressed these values; particularly at the margins where teams that have won head-to-head competition and championships are sometimes ranked behind non-champions and teams that have lost in head-to-head competition. Nuanced mathematical formulas ignore some teams who “deserve” to be selected.

Basically, the Big 12 shot themselves in the foot by weakening Baylor's case. By the criteria set out in the preseason, Baylor was the obvious selection over TCU. By weakening Baylor's title claim, it gave the committee the opportunity to put in Ohio St.

I do agree this had a lot to do with brand names, but it is the Big 12 who opened the door to it by trying to change their own rules for crowning a champion midway though the season. The committee seized upon the opportunity to screw over the conference who was clumsily and transparently trying to rig the game.

Baylor is the team that got screwed, but it was the Big 12 who screwed them.