Quote:
Originally Posted by Ksyrup
This is the crux of the issue. We shouldn't be trying to determine "best" with a subjective committee. I understand that's their charge, but given the number of teams and varying schedule strengths, "most deserving" should be the goal. I know I'm in the vast minority on that opinion, but I'm sick of hearing "Team X would easily beat Team Y if they played in a bowl" when EVERY SINGLE WEEK of the regular season we see teams who "should" win either lose outright or get pushed to the brink by clearly inferior teams.
I don't know why everyone thinks that just because it's for the championship that we all of a sudden know with absolute certainty who would win every single potential match-up, such that UCF - or before them, Boise State, or the next UCF in 5 years - should never get a shot, or that because UGA was able to hang with Alabama (but lose), that proves some sort of transitive property about how good UGA is. That is a crazily simplistic way of looking at football results and ignores reality.
|
Well Georgia was a top 5 team the majority of the year so hanging with Alabama just confirmed that they really are a top 5 team. Its not like people want The Citadel in the playoffs because they hung with Alabama for 30 minutes. People dont know for sure that UCF cant hang with Alabama but their is plenty of data accumulated over 12 games that says they wont be able to hang within 3 touchdowns.