[cardcoug]

Obviously it's a statement without definitive proof. But given how much love the SEC has in the polls and how they dominate the national discussion, a SEC champ game winner even with two losses, will go to the playoffs.

I don't agree with the fairness of it, but I think that's how it shakes out.

And really, I could write the argument for why that team should beat out a 1 loss Stanford for that spot. Lost to Northwestern!!!! Faced 6 freshman quarterbacks! Out of a weak Pac12 that might be the 4th or 5th best conference!

Again, not that I believe it, but still.

You may well be right about this, but I'm still somewhat confident that the selection process is going to eliminate a lot of this crap. When polls were controlling things, I would be in complete agreement with your take. Stupid non sequiturs, the preseason pecking order, the history of the programs involved, who played on which network and at what time, etc... could be a determining factor. But if one of the little arguments you mention is going to carry any weight now, a committee member is going to have to present it to a room full of people who have a bunch of evidence laid out in front of them, and who are making decisions only after a lot of back and forth where many other arguments are presented as well. I think that people are much more likely to make rational decisions in such hyper-critical contexts than they would be otherwise. If one person says "7 freshman quarterbacks!" someone else will say, "well, here's what those freshman quarterbacks did on average this season and here's what they did against Stanford", etc...  In contrast, I wouldn't be surprised if some voters fill out their ballots while sitting on the toilet after checking the scores online.

Of course the committee isn't going to be perfect, but lets not forget that there is actually no such thing as "perfect" here. There is no answer to the question "who are the best 4 teams" or even "who has the best 4 resumes". If we could somehow prevent teams from changing in any way and force them to play thousands of games against each other, then their overall records would settle the question. But when looking at a real football season, there are many different reasonable criteria one can and should play a role in figuring out who the "best" 4 teams are. These different criteria will yield different answers, and there is no obviously correct standard for how to put them all together. In basically everything except college football, being "best" is completely irrelevant.  What matters is winning the series of games that we all simply agree, by convention, are to count as the important ones (the playoffs), and that is the goal everybody strives for. The Patriots were the best team of 2008 according to basically any reasonable measure, but we've decided as a society that we don't give a shit because they lost the Superbowl.  Since we can't fit everyone who would have a real chance of winning into CFB's version, some teams are going to get "screwed" unless you have something like 4 undefeated conference champions and nobody else with less than two losses.

Generally speaking, there will usually be 5-8 teams that have a reasonable case for inclusion, and I am confident that the 4 teams that get in will always be from that group. I don't think you can do any better than that, in principle. So I think a two loss SEC champion would only get in over a 1 loss Stanford if things play out such that it actually makes some sense. This year, if Stanford and Ole Miss win out, there would probably be no reasonable case to be made for Ole Miss. We would have as many or more good wins, their Memphis loss isn't much better than our loss, if it is at all, and they got absolutely throttled by Florida.

[cardcoug]

Obviously it's a statement without definitive proof. But given how much love the SEC has in the polls and how they dominate the national discussion, a SEC champ game winner even with two losses, will go to the playoffs.

I don't agree with the fairness of it, but I think that's how it shakes out.

And really, I could write the argument for why that team should beat out a 1 loss Stanford for that spot. Lost to Northwestern!!!! Faced 6 freshman quarterbacks! Out of a weak Pac12 that might be the 4th or 5th best conference!

Again, not that I believe it, but still.

You may well be right about this, but I'm still somewhat confident that the selection process is going to eliminate a lot of this crap. When polls were controlling things, I would be in complete agreement with your take. Stupid non sequiturs, the preseason pecking order, the history of the programs involved, who played on which network and at what time, etc... could be a determining factor. But if one of the little arguments you mention is going to carry any weight now, a committee member is going to have to present it to a room full of people who have a bunch of evidence laid out in front of them, and who are making decisions only after a lot of back and forth where many other arguments are presented as well. I think that people are much more likely to make rational decisions in such hyper-critical contexts than they would be otherwise. If one person says "7 freshman quarterbacks!" someone else will say, "well, here's what those freshman quarterbacks did on average this season and here's what they did against Stanford", etc...  In contrast, I wouldn't be surprised if some voters fill out their ballots while sitting on the toilet after checking the scores online.

Of course the committee isn't going to be perfect, but lets not forget that there is actually no such thing as "perfect" here. There is no answer to the question "who are the best 4 teams" or even "who has the best 4 resumes". If we could somehow prevent teams from changing in any way and force them to play thousands of games against each other, then their overall records would settle the question. But when looking at a real football season, there are many different reasonable criteria one can and should play a role in figuring out who the "best" 4 teams are. These different criteria will yield different answers, and there is no obviously correct standard for how to put them all together. In basically everything except college football, being "best" is completely irrelevant.  What matters is winning the series of games that we all simply agree, by convention, are to count as the important ones (the playoffs), and that is the goal everybody strives for. The Patriots were the best team of 2008 according to basically any reasonable measure, but we've decided as a society that we don't give a shit because they lost the Superbowl.  Since we can't fit everyone who would have a real chance of winning into CFB's version, some teams are going to get "screwed" unless you have something like 4 undefeated conference champions and nobody else with less than two losses.

Generally speaking, there will usually be 5-8 teams that have a reasonable case for inclusion, and I am confident that the 4 teams that get in will always be from that group. I don't think you can do any better than that, in principle. So I think a two loss SEC champion would only get in over a 1 loss Stanford if things play out such that it actually makes some sense. This year, if Stanford and Ole Miss win out, there would probably be no reasonable case to be made for Ole Miss. We would have as many or more good wins, their Memphis loss isn't much better than our loss, if it is at all, and they got absolutely throttled by Florida.