Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="TheCusian, post: 1246169, member: 2585"] Alabama didn't play any of the teams you mentioned except WVU this season. And they won and get the "rewards" from that win. They also played: Western Carolina, Florida Atlantic, and Southern Miss (presumably years in advance - maybe they thought Western Carolina would be a national player by then?!). Adding an extra game for TCU vs Baylor (thier only loss) would have kept OSU out, IMO. A Rutgers example? You are right they are crap... Anyways... the polls vs committee will be much like the current basketball model - where there is time to self correct by the committee (something they did a lot of). In your previous example, A&M got credit with the polls for a win over South Carolina - when Carolina started to show that they were not a very good team - A&M should have slid back in the polls. But historically, well known teams tend to cling to the top longer (and the SEC bias is real and documented). The committee has no such issues - mainly because they have rules and guidelines that they use, they talk them out, and have more consistent data to pull from than your random AP voter. Luckily A&M slid because they lost. But on the whole - the committee is more nimble than the AP. If the process is worked out how it's laid out - we should see the committee favoring teams that schedule and win tougher OOC schedules than what the SEC has grown accustomed to. This is a great thing for the sport. I've never said you erase all the prior years data, only that it's rendered much, much less meaningful by the committee. That's a good thing. I'd suggest that minimizing polls of independent voters with varying and vague criteria is probably the second best thing to come out of the new system (the actual playoff games being 1st). [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?