Re: Minnesota - Close wins against bad teams are worse than close losses against good teams? They had a test against a good team and won. Why not have them in the top 6 then move them down if they fail rather than keep them down until they prove themselves while propping up those that have not proved themselves other than losing closely?
Re: Baylor - Didnt they beat the team that beat Oklahoma, who is still ranked ahead of them? LIke beat KState 31-12. Do common opponents matter or not? Again, why not put them in the top 6 then move them down if they fail?
If all we have to do is look at Vegas, lets just not play and award whomever is the favorite the championship. Games dont matter anymore.
This finding the "best teams" using the eyeball test versus who actually deserves to be in the playoff has got to go away. Otherwise, its just like the second version of the BCS with 4 getting in instead of 2. Utter BS.
The original BCS was the best system so far imo. Sure, it wasnt perfect, but at least it mattered more who you played, who the teams you played against, played against, and what happened in those games. Now, instead we care what Vegas thinks, recruiting rankings, and the names on jerseys. And yes, i know my school's team benefits from the current system. I dont care, its still dumb.
I feel like ive seen this discussion since 2003. Best team v. Most deserving. I rarely bother engaging, but since my school's team is involved this year for the first time in a long time, i guess i cant help myself.