4 arguments for Clemson as the Playoff committee’s No. 2 (and 3 arguments against)

Every game matters. Beating Auburn in Week 2 counts as a win over No. 6 Auburn, regardless of how much War Eagle stock we all sold after Auburn hit two losses.

Miami and Oklahoma had top-10 wins by bigger margins, and OU’s was on the road, so the overall quality of these wins can be argued any way you like. But based just on who beat whom, Clemson’s got a point here.

This also gives Clemson a big leg up over Georgia, which got whooped by Auburn.

If every game matters, shouldn’t the Tigers’ loss to Syracuse just look uglier and uglier? Cuse is now 4-7 and has given up 120 points in its last two games.

Compare that to Oklahoma losing by a touchdown to an Iowa State team that also beat TCU and has been competitive in every game. Georgia only lost at Auburn. Even the committee’s ranked mid-majors have better losses; UCF doesn’t have any, Memphis lost only to UCF, and Boise State lost at ranked Washington State in OT and to bowl-bound Virginia.

Committee chair Kirby Hocutt has twice commented on Kelly Bryant’s multiple injuries during this game, noting the Tigers bounced back to their previous quality once their starting QB returned to the lineup. This isn’t something the committee made up for this year just to protect Clemson. Before the first-ever CFP rankings came out in 2014, the committee said it planned to take injuries into account.

This was also a road game on a short travel week for Clemson, meaning Cuse had basically double the Tigers’ rest from the week prior. The committee has stated in the past that it takes situations like that into account.

Plus, it was only a three-point loss. Top-11 teams Georgia, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Ohio State again, TCU, and USC have all been blown out.

A win should top a committee-mulligan’d loss, right?

(Also, if we’re factoring all injuries, does Georgia get to explain away its loss to Auburn? Original starting QB Jacob Eason was sidelined early in the year.)

The 2016 Clemson team played almost nothing but bowl teams all year long, and that trend continues.

Here’s a stat the committee’s fond of citing: wins against .500-plus FBS teams so far (and number of winning teams still to go).

Remember how Ohio State made the 2016 Playoff despite not winning the Big Ten? By beating No. 6, No. 7, and No. 8 and only losing to No. 5.

Oklahoma can’t top that yet, but it does have wins over No. 9 Ohio State, No. 12 TCU, and No. 13 Oklahoma State.

OU also has a chance to add a second win over TCU (its likely Big 12 title game opponent, and yeah, two wins over the same opponent count as two ranked Ws) and to see its win over Ohio State become a win over the Big Ten champ.

Hocutt’s twice called out Oklahoma’s defense as a concern. In previous years, the chair has said the committee likes teams that don’t have glaring weaknesses.

Ranking the offenses and defenses of top-five teams, according to S&P+:

1. (tie) Oklahoma’s No. 1 offense and Wisconsin’s No. 1 defense

3. Alabama’s No. 2 defense

4. Clemson’s No. 4 defense

5. Alabama’s No. 16 offense

6. Miami’s No. 19 offense

7. Miami’s No. 24 defense

8. Clemson’s No. 35 offense

9. Wisconsin’s No. 41 offense

10. Oklahoma’s No. 97 defense

Miami fans can argue they have balance, though neither side is incredible.

Alabama has balance and elite quality. Clemson can argue it’s just behind Alabama in that regard, with Wisconsin also having a case there.

Meanwhile, Oklahoma fans have to argue the committee unfairly judges shootouts, doesn’t understand Big 12 football (the chair is Texas Tech’s AD, which makes complaints about defense a little surreal), and is composed of older figures who are gonna be more prone to appreciating modest scoring. I mean, it ain’t like Frank Beamer looks at 62-52 and thinks that’s great football.

I’d mostly agree with OU fans here. Winning a shootout against another good offense can be a high-quality win, full stop, just like winning a grinder against a good defense.

OU’s list of wins is great, and the Sooners shouldn’t be punished for their effective style of play. Both have won close games against lesser teams, but neither has an embarrassing loss. And The U has a slick zero losses.

But it ain’t up to me, and Clemson’s not a bad No. 2.

Clemson, Miami, and Oklahoma are all win-and-in, with the Tigers and Canes yet to face each other. The same applies to Auburn, Wisconsin, maybe Ohio State, and maybe others as well.