I'm not going to call them corrupt by any stretch. Now, if you ask me if they got this decision right?? HELL YES!!!!!!!! And had it gone the other way, TBH I wouldn't have had much beef. But here's why Alabama deserved the nod over Ohio State, and also USC; one loss vs. two in a nutshell. Now, does Ohio State boast a better schedule? Yes, so does USC. Did Ohio State win their conference? Yes, so did USC. Here's the problem.
Alabama lost one game -- the Iron Bowl to Auburn by 12 points.
Ohio State lost TWO -- Oklahoma by 15 and...drum roll, please...by 31 at IOWA!!!! An unranked IOWA!!!! (BTW, they'd shortly thereafter lose at home to a subpar Purdue team!!!! That make the drubbing look much worse with the selection committee!!!!)
USC lost TWO -- at Notre Dame by 35 (worse than the Buckeyes' loss to Iowa!), which is bad considering the walloping the Irish took at the hands of Miami and Stanford...and speaking of Stanford, there's one glaring conference loss that they and USC share. They BOTH lost to Washington State, whose worst loss was to 5-7 Cal. Double yuck.
So, you got two conference champions with two bad losses (or even blowouts), and one non-conference champion whose sole defeat was a 12-point loss at the hands of a hot intrastate rival at the time. The committee chose the last. Alabama deserved the nod, Ohio State and USC, too bad. Next time, don't worry about the 'cupcake' schedules other teams get, handle your own business convincingly, and when you do lose, don't get blown out by a mediocre team or a nobody.