I was pretty much thinking of the MI-MI State game where State won but was on the brink of losing. The computers don't take that into consideration, humans can.
Loss of key players also can't be considered by the computers. Is a team that just won still good if they lose the one player who keeps them winning?
I think if you get the right peeps on the committee, they can come up with the four best teams or close to it.
They consider conference championships highly and two teams got hurt last year by being named co-champs. That conference should have had a tie breaker in place then maybe OSU doesn't even crack the top four.
Actually, the two scenarios you listed are the exact two that came to my mind in allocating the 10% to art. If Trevone Boykin breaks both his legs on the last play of the regular season, I think it's semi-reasonable to dock TCU's chances of being in the playoff. Or, if Michigan and MSU were dead even for the last spot, then I think it would be at least semi-rational to give the spot to Michigan, given that were in not for a once-in-a-lifetime type play, they had that game won. But, bottom line, both those scenarios are rare and still debatable. That's why I say 10%.
Reading the link you posted, I have no issue with the verbiage. But the protocol needs a lot more resolution. For instance, if they're relying on strength of schedule so heavily, publish how it's computed, estimated or SWAGged, and publish each team's ongoing SOS with the weekly release. The way it is now, it's like a professor telling students that they're final grade is going to be based X% on weekly quizzes, Y% on midterms and Z% on the final, but not telling the students what X,Y and Z are or revealing any specific test results along the way. Instead, he just tells them what their final grade would be if the class ended today. That's not transparent. And lack of transparency leads to a lack of trust.
I put little faith in the committee in terms of fairness. Looking at it's members it's hard to not infer some biases. So, make the "formula" for getting into the playoff public, and follow it unless there are extraordinary circumstances that can be explained and rationalized by fans. Of course, if they were to do this, the formula would clearly show that in most years 4 teams isn't enough.
:hysterical: ), it would be difficult to argue that Alabama has played a tougher schedule than Florida or Utah. Alabama is #4, Florida is #10 and Utah is #12. One of those teams is mis-ranked. Not hard to figure out which.
