[Goose]

The problem with this thinking is that it manifestly doesn't matter. I've never heard any talking head say "oh but this team had thus and such player out so the win doesn't count" with the possible exception of top-20 quarterbacks. And the committee doesn't and won't care. I have absolutely no idea why you think this, there's just no indication whatsoever that it matters.

While you are correct that the committee doesn't say "I think this loss by Alabama doesn't count because their left tackle was injured", the Alabama narrative that goes on over time includes this subtext. The talking heads DO talk about these things. Listen to Matt Leinart talk about USC's injury problems. The talking heads say "It isn't an excuse but look at Team A's injury list". Of course it is an excuse. Boards like this DO talk about it. This chatter does affect what the "common wisdom"  about a football program. And that common wisdom DOES affect how choices are made.  You personally are willing to consider the effect of not having a top 20 QB. Others have much lower standards, especially when it matches their confirmation bias. How about the "best left tackle in the PAC-12"? Does that count? Some would say it does. I think there is no question that this adds up, especially in a world where repeatedly saying something makes it true. It becomes propaganda for some program. So, yes, I think things that can cloud the actual game results are undesirable. The polls are opinion. Propaganda affects opinions. History, and revisionist history, affects opinions. The polls affect our national ranking. The national ranking affects the committee. So that's why I prefer as few mitigating factors as possible. We may just disagree on this.

[Goose]

The problem with this thinking is that it manifestly doesn't matter. I've never heard any talking head say "oh but this team had thus and such player out so the win doesn't count" with the possible exception of top-20 quarterbacks. And the committee doesn't and won't care. I have absolutely no idea why you think this, there's just no indication whatsoever that it matters.

While you are correct that the committee doesn't say "I think this loss by Alabama doesn't count because their left tackle was injured", the Alabama narrative that goes on over time includes this subtext. The talking heads DO talk about these things. Listen to Matt Leinart talk about USC's injury problems. The talking heads say "It isn't an excuse but look at Team A's injury list". Of course it is an excuse. Boards like this DO talk about it. This chatter does affect what the "common wisdom"  about a football program. And that common wisdom DOES affect how choices are made.  You personally are willing to consider the effect of not having a top 20 QB. Others have much lower standards, especially when it matches their confirmation bias. How about the "best left tackle in the PAC-12"? Does that count? Some would say it does. I think there is no question that this adds up, especially in a world where repeatedly saying something makes it true. It becomes propaganda for some program. So, yes, I think things that can cloud the actual game results are undesirable. The polls are opinion. Propaganda affects opinions. History, and revisionist history, affects opinions. The polls affect our national ranking. The national ranking affects the committee. So that's why I prefer as few mitigating factors as possible. We may just disagree on this.