re: Why does Bama get a Mulligan?

quote:

---

Using just the eye test or just the SOS argument is not the right way. It should be a balance.

---

We used to have that. It didn't work. The BCS was introduced specifically because the polls were unreliable. We introduced computers into the mix. The system wasn't good enough for us, and the last straw seemed to be when Bama got in over Oklahoma State in 2011. Now we have a committee/poll that decides things. It's ironic since in 2011 it was the polls, and not the computers, who had Bama at #2.

The eye test told us that Michigan was better than Sparty. The scoreboard--that is, a very simple arithmetic formula--told us otherwise. Regardless of our opinions of the two teams, we go with the scoreboard, and that's that. Why are we so averse to such a technique on a grander, more complicated scale? Why the hell would we trust human opinions with this when we have comprehensive math?

A great example happened last year. Baylor, TCU, and Ohio State were in the debate for that 4th spot.

Ohio State had a better record than the other two.
Ohio State's opponents had a better combined record than the other two's combined opponents.
Ohio State's opponents' opponents had a better combined record than the other two's opponents' opponents.

Why even attempt to frick that up with the eye test? Ohio State was #4, and they earned their spot. The other two had lesser records and weaker schedules. Why is there even an argument? The comprehensive numbers speak for themselves. I love Condi, and she knows her football, but we don't need her.