Proof? You're asking for too much in an amateurish sport with over 120 championship eligible teams and limited time and resources to pick a champion.
But we already have the proof. That's the point and why I don't understand why a conference where everyone plays everyone needs to have a championship game to have a chance for a playoff.
I think it is pretty reasonable to assume that when picking teams that you are going to put in a championship scenario you give more value to a team that recently succeeded in a albeit smaller championship scenario.
But they've already played in that scenario.
OSU passed them when they added a big victory over a better opponent in a championship setting.
But how does that make them a better team though? That's the part that doesn't make sense. If TCU is the third best team in the country (according to the committee), then beating the next opponent by 50+ should mean they are still the 3rd best team.
Again, this is the problem with not having a set of established criteria.
It sounds like you are struggling with the committee's transparency.
It's more like I have a problem with the absence of any logic to their decisions.
Do you really think the members "just felt like it"?
Umm, yeah. It's the same BS we heard for years with the rankings (which we were supposed to be getting away from) where they "pass the eyeball test". The "eyeball test" is just a BS way of saying we don't have a legitimate reason for one team over another so we make an intentionally vague statement which cannot be challenged.
There was zero logic to what the committee did this year. Zero logic. FSU didn't lose a game and they were fourth. TCU was apparently better than FSU, won by 52 points (while FSU won by 3), and the committee decided on the basis of that 52 point win TCU was no longer the third, fourth or even fifth best team.
It is completely devoid of any and all logic and so yes, it was "just felt like it".
No, we don't but I don't want there to be any single metric, even an undefeated season to guarantee a spot. Is that a standard you want?
I want some reasonable standards. Whether it's an automatic berth based on champion of conference or computer rankings or undefeated season or some combination of those and others, there needs to be standards to prevent any impropriety.
Probably, but I'd also put money on the crowd having no impact on the outcome of the game. How much of the stadium will Bama crazies get to fill 60%? 70%?
When I went to the Notre Dame vs. Louisville game this year, I'd guess roughly 40% of the crowd was Louisville fans. It was amazing how loud 40% of the stadium can be on important downs. It makes a difference.
You've gone from there is an SEC bias to there is an SEC conspiracy.
But it is bias. It's assuming Alabama is great because they went through the big bad SEC, ignoring the fact the SEC simply wasn't that great this year. And all the rankings have aligned perfectly to benefit the one SEC team.
When was the last time you watched an SEC team play a major bowl game in a disadvantageous situation? I certainly can't remember one, unless you want to count Alabama playing LSU in New Orleans.
I thought part of the SEC bias argument was that there was also a bias against he Big 10.
I've never said anything like that. The Big 10 was probably the worst of the major conferences this year.
The final four is reasonable. The seeding is reasonable.
I don't really even disagree with you. But that's not the problem I have with the process.
They play most of their games in the late summer and fall. These playoff games are in January. The weather changes.
It's still cold and nasty in that party of the country in November, especially this year. You know this.
Plus you talk like bowl have been suspiciously down south only recently.
Not at all, but you post like I'm only now complaining about it. I've been railing against all major games in warm weather locations for years.
Money and tradition I would guess.
Money, for sure.
And any criteria we could come up with would end up looking like the verbal equivalent of an MC Escher picture.
Nah, we can come up with criteria easily. We did it for the BCS system, why could we not just keep the BCS point system and take the top 4 teams? Even if the teams and rankings would have turned out exactly the same, at least we would know what criteria was being used.
What was the criteria there? Wasn't it just a bunch of polls combined?
http://www.bcsknowhow.com/bcs-formula
It certainly wasn't perfect, but it sure beat what we have now (if there was a playoff).
