I simply don't like the idea of a human committee, and would rather go back to a computer system where at least we'd know what matters. Random reasons why:
-As it currently stands, there is little to no reason a team should play a difficult game early in the year. Any victory or close defeat can easily be wiped away by a clunker of a game. Barely beating TCU's backup QB and WR generates steam, and all but eliminates what was a bad loss to Texas. Reverse those situations and OK's close win to TCU wouldn't matter. I am not a believer that a bad game proves you are regressing. If that was the case, Alabama should be taking steps back after only beating Tennessee in week 8 because UT doesn't have a kicker. MSU is getting worse, no way they could beat OSU with a backup QB 2 weeks after losing to terrible Nebraska. Take ND's schedule with the exact same results and move BC back to week 3 and Navy to last week, we are in the top 4. I don't understand the logic to that.
-Related to that point, Long has stated that NC's bad loss to SC is hurting them. That was a long time ago, but still matters. Washington State lost to an FCS school and is 20th. I understand Wazzu has some decent wins, but with 3 losses and one to Portland State, how do you justify that? NC is only 6 spots ahead of Wazzu because of a loss to South Carolina? Did not Oklahoma lose to a Texas team that managed 0 points to Iowa State (97th ranked scoring defense) and needs to win out to make a bowl?
-The fact that anyone thinks Iowa is somehow better than ND now that they beat Purdue and we struggled against BC is frightening. Literally one week prior Iowa barely beat Minnesota (2-5 in that conference). Minny scored their second most points of the year against Iowa. Iowa has the 62nd toughest SOS, but because they showed up against Purdue and we handled BC but had 3 turnovers inside the 10, now they are more deserving? I understand this one ultimately doesn't matter, but it allows us to see the process and it boggles the mind.
-Arbitrarily a win against Miss State or TCU is considered better than beating Pitt. None of those teams have beat anyone to prove they are very good. Pitt's losses have come from 3 teams a combined 31-2. Miss State is Alabama's marquee win at this point and no one even considers asking if they shouldn't be second. Pitt has a tougher SOS than both teams by the way.
-Last year the committee specifically pointed to giving Ohio State a pass against Va Tech because it was Barrett's second start. We don't get a pass for losing to Clemson by 2 at their place in Kizer's first road start? Losing to bad teams should matter, but it only does when the committee doesn't feel like making up an excuse as in the case for N. Carolina.
-As mentioned, Alabama is second. By what logic, I wonder? They have 1 top 25 win at this point and a worse loss than ND. Is it SOS? Can't be because Oklahoma is ahead of ND despite losing to Texas after we pounded them plus our slightly more difficult schedule. Simply the eye test?
All of this to say the committee is not my cup of tea. It's almost as if the body of work is accounted for during the first rankings, and then from there it's simply how you look week to week. As if it's no longer just a piece of the whole body.
-As it currently stands, there is little to no reason a team should play a difficult game early in the year. Any victory or close defeat can easily be wiped away by a clunker of a game. Barely beating TCU's backup QB and WR generates steam, and all but eliminates what was a bad loss to Texas. Reverse those situations and OK's close win to TCU wouldn't matter. I am not a believer that a bad game proves you are regressing. If that was the case, Alabama should be taking steps back after only beating Tennessee in week 8 because UT doesn't have a kicker. MSU is getting worse, no way they could beat OSU with a backup QB 2 weeks after losing to terrible Nebraska. Take ND's schedule with the exact same results and move BC back to week 3 and Navy to last week, we are in the top 4. I don't understand the logic to that.
-Related to that point, Long has stated that NC's bad loss to SC is hurting them. That was a long time ago, but still matters. Washington State lost to an FCS school and is 20th. I understand Wazzu has some decent wins, but with 3 losses and one to Portland State, how do you justify that? NC is only 6 spots ahead of Wazzu because of a loss to South Carolina? Did not Oklahoma lose to a Texas team that managed 0 points to Iowa State (97th ranked scoring defense) and needs to win out to make a bowl?
-The fact that anyone thinks Iowa is somehow better than ND now that they beat Purdue and we struggled against BC is frightening. Literally one week prior Iowa barely beat Minnesota (2-5 in that conference). Minny scored their second most points of the year against Iowa. Iowa has the 62nd toughest SOS, but because they showed up against Purdue and we handled BC but had 3 turnovers inside the 10, now they are more deserving? I understand this one ultimately doesn't matter, but it allows us to see the process and it boggles the mind.
-Arbitrarily a win against Miss State or TCU is considered better than beating Pitt. None of those teams have beat anyone to prove they are very good. Pitt's losses have come from 3 teams a combined 31-2. Miss State is Alabama's marquee win at this point and no one even considers asking if they shouldn't be second. Pitt has a tougher SOS than both teams by the way.
-Last year the committee specifically pointed to giving Ohio State a pass against Va Tech because it was Barrett's second start. We don't get a pass for losing to Clemson by 2 at their place in Kizer's first road start? Losing to bad teams should matter, but it only does when the committee doesn't feel like making up an excuse as in the case for N. Carolina.
-As mentioned, Alabama is second. By what logic, I wonder? They have 1 top 25 win at this point and a worse loss than ND. Is it SOS? Can't be because Oklahoma is ahead of ND despite losing to Texas after we pounded them plus our slightly more difficult schedule. Simply the eye test?
All of this to say the committee is not my cup of tea. It's almost as if the body of work is accounted for during the first rankings, and then from there it's simply how you look week to week. As if it's no longer just a piece of the whole body.
