re: 2011 Alternative Scenario

quote:

---

I understand the mentality that Oklahoma State deserved their chance since Oregon and Alabama had blown their opportunities, but who wants to watch the national championship if the two best teams aren't featured? I wouldn't. Based on a variety of factors, I'm certain Alabama would have crushed anyone else in the country.

---

Well, no one much wanted to watch the rematch, as it got awful ratings. So if we're talking about "what do the people want?" Bama clearly loses.

What I really hate about this argument is this assumption that obviously Bama was the best team. Like people were arguing for OSU because they were a weaker squad. Nothing of the sort. OSU had the better objective resume. Bama had a better subjective quality, according to its backers. Frankly, the eyeball test is frequently wrong. We all "knew" that Ohio St was much better than Florida in 2006 and was going to kill them. I'm always loathe to accept that we "know" one team is better based on the eyeball test.

It's just confirmation bias and fitting a team in the narrative. We don't know squat because there's barely any data out there. But we can rate objective criteria. It's why resume matters more. Who did you beat? What did you accomplish? Everything else is just BS.