Agree that Bama shouldn't be #1, but if the committee is saying they are looking at record of opponents, then they aren't valuing an undefeated team over ones with losses. It is what it is.
If you're in the camp that says it doesn't matter that team A's schedule and wins are better than team B's, the only thing that matters is that team B is undefeated, than you have to have (absolutely must have) any undefeated team left in the top 4 (or 5, or 6, or however many teams are undefeated). Either the schedule matters, or it doesn't...you can't have it both ways. Any one loss team's schedule, even though it may be twice as difficult as Houston's (or whichever team from the non Power 5 is undefeated in a season, just happens to be Houston now), has no claim to be ranked above the undefeated team using that logic.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that either, just pointing out the potential hypocrisy. If people don't think who a team has beaten actually matters, then the committee's job wouldn't even begin until there are less than 4 teams with a loss. Whether it be Ball St, USC, or Idaho...if they are undefeated they belong in the top 4 (or however many teams don't have a loss) until they lose.
