It was touched on a little earlier by plano (if I'm not mistaken) that pointing to "the potential for regional bias, institutional bias, the formation of cabals, and the hatching of back-door deals is enormous" as a reason for avoiding a committee isn't a change from the norm but simply a continuation of what we've seen from the AP poll, the USA Today Coaches poll, etc. I see no argument against the half of a century evidence before us that his assertion is true. I've heard people mention the votes for Michigan from the mid-west writer at the beginning of last season as a great example.
What was done to remove this bias? Institute computer rankings. But yet again, now there are criticisms of said computer rankings despite them playing in our favor.
"Back door deals?" Again, no different. Hell, a great example of that is our appearance in the Cotton Bowl in 2005.
"If anyone ever thought that a playoff system involving teams chosen by a clique of "philosopher kings" would foster fairness in the selection of a college football national champion, that person doesn't know his burro from a burrow."
While I believe (think?) I understand your sentiment here I'm left laughing. "Philosopher kings?" We can run down the list of the six or seven names mentioned to date but let's start with oneāBarry Alvarez. Alvarez, a 'philosopher king?'" See why I'm laughing at that?
One thing I do have an issue with right now are those who contend "it's a bad idea from the beginning." Based on what? There is no evidence to support the idea they won't get the top four right. I'm not suggesting there won't be, but assuming and expecting the worse before the rules and requirements are even established on how their decision making process will be made, how transparent it will be, etc.? Paranoia, justified or not in the end, is still paranoia.
One thing I find entertaining is so many fans demanding a change and now that they have it they're using the same reasons they've voiced in the past as to what's wrong with college football to dismiss and discredit a move that's not even defined.
So much in here to respond to. First the content I changed to bold font:
Some of us want an improvement rather than merely a continuation of "the norm." Since when does criticism of the new proposal require support for the previous regime? That's a non sequitur. Perhaps many on this board have supported the BCS system. And perhaps your comments are intended for them. However I can readily admit my criticisms with the BCS despite it having treated Bama (and the SEC) generously. My partisan support for Bama doesn't prevent my objectivity in this regard.
Next, the underlined portions (in order):
1. I think it's important to realize that the criticisms of the computer rankings (of which I'm aware) pertain uniquely to its lack of transparency. I don't know of anyone who fails to appreciate its role as an objective compliment to human polls. I know I do. I'm curious, are you referring to any other complaints in particular?
2.
Based on ........ the degree of influence placed squarely in a relatively small number of spectator hands instead of in hands planted on grass. Some of us prefer a more decentralized and objective method. The problem with greater decentralization is that the non-Southeastern portion of the continent is sure to benefit, contrary to the economic interests profiting the most from the status quo. This is what no one really wants to address.
3.
There is no evidence to support the idea they won't get the top four right. Okay, you know you're struggling when you ask someone to prove a negative, right? The onus is on none other than the supporters of a particular reform to prove its merits.
4. The next sentence begins with "I'm not suggesting there won't be..." So not only are you asking us to prove a negative, you refuse to even support, much less prove, the positive! Haha, make up your mind. Take a stand. Defend it. Otherwise you're not really arguing anything.
5. The remainder of the underlined portion of that paragraph is part Straw Man, part incoherence. We aren't "expecting the worse," we're simply not satisfied with what we see being proposed so far. Some of us take a principled stand against a committee altogether. And like I've already noted, it is first and foremost the responsibility of the would-be reformer(s) to defend their proposed reforms. "Paranoia"? Really? As if an elemental understanding of human nature doesn't warrant skepticism of such a committee? And the incoherent part of your sentence is found in "justified or not." Actually Terry, paranoia by definition is
unjustified concern.
6. This is because the proposed changes don't sufficiently fix matters for those of us dissenting. You're implying that change for change's sake is necessarily a positive. Yea, there remains many unknown variables about the next regime, but it is possible for the few fixed variables to be objectionable to some fans out there.
