main point. Just like how you score in football is predetermined, I think the selection should be the same. Top 25 wins get you this many points, out of top 25 loses you lose points, away wins get so many points, home loses you lose points etc. Then tweak it after the season if you want to, but everybody knows how to score or lose points before the season. PS Please don’t get caught in the metrics I used, those are just examples that the selection committee could work out before the season. The key is working it out before the season so everyone knows how to score during the season, and it’s not opinions of people that may have never seen several games from the teams. ** Edited by Stech at 12/5/2024, 9:18:00 AM

I don't like it, but it's hard to argue that Miami is better than Alabama. Miami just had to win against Syracuse, and couldn't get it done. Georgia Tech beating Georgia would have been a huge argument against the SEC, but they couldn't get it done. Clemson would have likely been in had they beaten USC, but they didn't get it done. Don't blame the SEC for the ACC going 0-3 in key games last week to secure more bids.

Miami barely squeaked thru a very weak schedule. Ole Miss also had inflated stats vs a very weak schedule. Plus they lost to a bad Kentucky team and an average Florida team. Bama had a better schedule than Ole Miss (played 4 teams ranked at time of game) but lost to two 6-6 teams. USC played 7 teams ranked at the time of game and only losses were to top teams. Worst loss was to 8-4 LSU. The committee just picks and chooses what they want in order to have their favorite teams in. Strength of schedule sometime matters, unless the head to head results matter more, until it becomes about bad losses or may quality wins, could also be win streaks or number of points scored. Anything is possible.

deserved it more to me.

just ahead of them.

USC played more ranked teams so they had a harder schedule (IMO). Bama lost to much worse teams which should be a knock on them. USC did lose the head to head matchups which is a knock on them. Ole Miss had a crap schedule so they are over inflated (but that is subjective). USC had a much better recent win streak than Bama (6 games vs 1). The win streak argument is one I have seen used to promote Bama over Miami. It's just all over the place. I do agree with Stech that it needs some transparency and consistency. Otherwise we get this shadow committee that just picks who they like and then molds the data to fit their picks. It's more corrupt than it has ever been and I can honestly say I hate the sport now (even though I still watch VT football).

Miami has only Florida, Duke, and Louisville, with 9-3 Duke having an argument for being ranked. But, Miami only has losses v. 7-5 GT and 8-4 Syracuse. Kudos I guess to Miami for OOC games v. Halfway decent USF and Florida. Will Bama be punished for losses to 6-6 OK and Vandy? That’s the same Vandy that lost to Georgia State, and the same OK that beat nobody but Bama. The Committee has enough ammo to pick either Miami or Bama. If Texas hammers Georgia that might knock some of the luster off that Bama win.

They haven't proven they can win any big games in the last 35 years. If they were had on a UCF jersey with the same record they wouldn't make any of these Bowl Coalition, BCS, Playoff games every time with 1 or 2 losses. They will get exposed every time. Never forget a Michael Vick led VT team got left out of the Fiesta Bowl for a 4 loss Notre Dame team that got slaughtered by Oregon State.

And 2 in top 10. Penn State on the other hand hasn’t done much.

And it wasn't hard to project. This is the future of the sport. They can go to 16 teams, and it won't matter. The ACC, B12, and G5 are only ever getting one team in.