Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The problem is....except for in extreme cases (ACC this year?....maybe the PAC-12?)…..any team playing in a Power 5 conference is going to rack up enough quality wins where it would be impossible to say that they've "played nobody".  Especially with the conference championship.

So, this "extreme scenario" as you call may be extant on two occasions this year.

Maybe it's not that extreme after all.

So, this "extreme scenario" as you call may be extant on two occasions this year.

Maybe it's not that extreme after all.

Well.....the PAC-12 has enough decent teams this year.  And it's highly unlikely with their remaining schedules that Oregon and Utah do not win out and play each other in the championship game.  That would be a very good win for either.

The ACC is historically bad this year.  I cannot imagine that they'll remain without one or two other top 15 teams in the future.  Even so....I never said that I would leave an undefeated Power 5 team out.  Clemson may not end up playing any high end teams this year....but that isn't exactly their fault.  If they take care of business, they'll belong in.

The ACC is historically bad this year.  I cannot imagine that they'll remain without one or two other top 15 teams in the future.  Even so....I never said that I would leave an undefeated Power 5 team out.  Clemson may not end up playing any high end teams this year....but that isn't exactly their fault.  If they take care of business, they'll belong in.

It's Clemson's fault they scheduled Wofford and Charlotte

That's your prerogative.  But if Minnesota continues to win, trying to leave them out in favor of a one loss team would be a joke.

No, supporting a system that ignores context is a joke.  

This thread is pretty revealing.


It's not just resume.  It's not just eye test.  Why do so many people have trouble taking both into account?  It's just 2 variables!

Because of bias.   Anything left to opinion will be widely disputed.  

What is “best”?   It is nothing more than a debate- with no correct answer.  

This is logically false.  It presupposes all conferences are equal.  It presupposes the conference champions are the actual best teams from their conferences. 


The committee's self-described task is to pick the 4 best teams.  Not the 4 best resumes.  Not the fairest method.  Not the most widely-approved selections.  The 4 best teams.

I hear what your saying OAF.   It does presuppose those things.  But going the subjective route presupposes an almost infinite number of things.

In sports, I never enter those debates that don’t have an actual correct answer, like who is the greatest RB or QB.   Same with 4 “ best” teams....there is no correct answer.

thats why I favor conference champions, as one example.   It is clear, predetermined accomplishment that must be done.  Who cares if the perceived best doesn’t win it.    The winner earned it.

No, supporting a system that ignores context is a joke. 

Supporting a system that awards accomplishments on the field is a joke?  Alabama lost to LSU on their own field.  If their are undefeated Power 5 teams....how can you possibly say that Alabama should get another shot at them over a team that hasn't lost a game, plays in a conference that has quality teams, and hasn't gotten a shot at the "best" team in the nation?

Now THAT would be a joke.

And again....your context is filtered through a flawed system to begin with.  One that constantly assumes that SEC teams are better than everyone else.  Preseason bias is a b1tch....and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to treat other Power 5 teams like second class to the SEC teams.  Like I said.....Texas A&M is a perfect example of this.  Top 15 team to start the season.  Scraped by a horrible Arkansas team by four points and Ole Miss by seven.  Is that good?  They have five very good teams on their schedule.  So far they've proven that SEC bias by losing all three that they've played so far.