Top 25 ranking anomaly

[tornado]

TAS -- wrong on so many fronts -- the NCAA didn't always let the Morgan State's and Cal-Poly's in the dance just because they won their conference - they ruled those guys simply weren't eligible and a lot of of was racially motivated...maybe you're too young to recall...
The rule limiting just the conference winner was because at a certain point in time they only took 16 and conferences like the Valley were among the elite -- we were NOT a mid-major at that time.

anyway - your statement about how they must be wiping the sentimental tears from their eyes and pouring out their love for VCU, etc...is not reality when you see how well those teams do --
you point out how some 9th best team in an east-coast conference never had a doubt about getting in yet VCU just barely made it by the skin of their teeth.

..and thanks cpacmel - there's something we can agree on after all!

 

[TheAsianSensation]

The eye test is bogus. Sorry TAS, I totally disagree with all you have said here about it.

I don't buy that the committee sees as many games involving non-bcs as you say they do. Just as I don't agree that Bilas and company see non-bcs teams on a regular basis either.

There needs to be an OBJECTIVE way to pick at-large teams. Subjective doesn't work. Those AD's and commishs all have bias. And how could they not? It's their professional careers we are talking about.

I do buy that the committee sees as many mid-major games than other games. As for Bilas and friends, the media is different. They don't see enough. But the committee does.

And yes, the ADs and commishes in that room all have personal biases. But 6 of them are from mid-major schools or conferences. Doesn't that mean that a mid major bias is fairly represented compared to the high-major bias?


Even though the comparison is a little bit apples-to-oranges, compare the selection committee in basketball with the BCS. The BCS started out as a very complex mathematical formula. Polls were one part, but there were 3 other components, it was highly mathematical, etc etc. In other words, objective. Yet, the BCS failed time and time again, to the point that now it's 2/3 based on human polls. In other words, subjective. The objective/subjective balance shifted and it's no accident.

To argue that there should be no subjectivity, no check or balance against the numbers, when it comes to selection, is a bad idea, because numbers are always incapable of giving a full story. This is a mathematician saying this by the way, math degree and all. Is there really a formula, some set of numbers that we can reduce to a single value that tells us how worthy a team is? No. The RPI takes too few things into account, even something like kenpom admits it's a predictive system instead of a evaluation of what a team's done so far. So the selection committee has their nitty gritty sheet, but if you don't allow any room for interpretation of the story behind those numbers on that sheet, you're not getting the full picture.

 

[TheAsianSensation]

TAS -- wrong on so many fronts -- the NCAA didn't always let the Morgan State's and Cal-Poly's in the dance just because they won their conference - they ruled those guys simply weren't eligible and a lot of of was racially motivated...maybe you're too young to recall...
The rule limiting just the conference winner was because at a certain point in time they only took 16 and conferences like the Valley were among the elite -- we were NOT a mid-major at that time.

Yeah, I sorta realize that now. Although it sounds like you're now arguing that BU faced unfair situations for being a high major back then AND for being a mid major now. Basically, we were on the wrong side of the coin at every point in college basketball history?

anyway - your statement about how they must be wiping the sentimental tears from their eyes and pouring out their love for VCU, etc...is not reality when you see how well those teams do --
you point out how some 9th best team in an east-coast conference never had a doubt about getting in yet VCU just barely made it by the skin of their teeth.

..and thanks cpacmel - there's something we can agree on after all

But what if that 9th best team in a conference had a much better resume than the VCU?

And you're right. Bubble teams from mid majors generally do better than their fellow major bretherens. But I'm of the belief that you can't be predictive in your selection of teams for the tournament. You bring in the teams that earned their way in during the season. You find the most worthy. Whatever happens once you select the teams is irrelevant towards "validating" the selections.

 

[TheAsianSensation]

Also, cliff notes for everyone else:

What I'm really saying is that the committee is incompetent. Others think the committee is biased. That's what it really boils down to.

 

[cpacmel]

I do buy that the committee sees as many mid-major games than other games. As for Bilas and friends, the media is different. They don't see enough. But the committee does.

How many times do you think Lynn Hickey (the AD at UTSA) has personally seen Creighton or Wichita State? She is watching them while keeping on eye on hundreds of other programs WHILE being the Athletic Director at UTSA and all the duties that go with that?

Sorry, not buying it.

And yes, the ADs and commishes in that room all have personal biases. But 6 of them are from mid-major schools or conferences. Doesn't that mean that a mid major bias is fairly represented compared to the high-major bias?

Depends on how strong of personality they are. In year's past you have had SEC commish's and guys like Gene Smith (ohio State) on the committee (chair's even). I just don't see people like the UTSA's AD or SMU's AD putting up too much of a fight for schools like Wichita State or Iona. Especially when you have some of the most powerful people in college sports sitting at that table.

To argue that there should be no subjectivity, no check or balance against the numbers, when it comes to selection, is a bad idea, because numbers are always incapable of giving a full story. This is a mathematician saying this by the way, math degree and all. Is there really a formula, some set of numbers that we can reduce to a single value that tells us how worthy a team is? No. The RPI takes too few things into account, even something like kenpom admits it's a predictive system instead of a evaluation of what a team's done so far. So the selection committee has their nitty gritty sheet, but if you don't allow any room for interpretation of the story behind those numbers on that sheet, you're not getting the full picture.

#'s don't lie

You don't need a single value either. Just a set of DEFINED criteria. That is something the committee has never stuck too. You can't say that RPI is important one year and then 3 years later SOS or road wins are more important.

Just my 2 cents though

 

[Da Coach]

Also, cliff notes for everyone else:

What I'm really saying is that the committee is incompetent. Others think the committee is biased. That's what it really boils down to.

Why can't it be both?

It seems everything about the "eye test" excuse is designed to work in favor of the BCS big boys, and against the midmajors. They really don't like seeing midmajors knocking off their BCS friends and making their way to the final four year after year. And they especially don't like seeing that piece of the pie taken way from the big boys.

 

[TheAsianSensation]

How many times do you think Lynn Hickey (the AD at UTSA) has personally seen Creighton or Wichita State? She is watching them while keeping on eye on hundreds of other programs WHILE being the Athletic Director at UTSA and all the duties that go with that?

Sorry, not buying it.

Well, no, because they divvy up responsbility. Each committee member is assigned 3 or 4 conferences to watch more closely, and others will depend on their observation to help form their opinion.

Depends on how strong of personality they are. In year's past you have had SEC commish's and guys like Gene Smith (ohio State) on the committee (chair's even). I just don't see people like the UTSA's AD or SMU's AD putting up too much of a fight for schools like Wichita State or Iona. Especially when you have some of the most powerful people in college sports sitting at that table.

It's certainly possible but I don't think it's fair to assume that they don't treat each other as equals. I'd like to think they're professionals until proven otherwise.

#'s don't lie

You don't need a single value either. Just a set of DEFINED criteria. That is something the committee has never stuck too. You can't say that RPI is important one year and then 3 years later SOS or road wins are more important.

Just my 2 cents though

Well even if we get that set of defined criteria...there's still more than one number, and someone is going to naturally set one set of criteria as more important than others. How you choose to use the numbers is naturally subjective.

And while I do agree that we need to settle down and define that criteria, the fact that the criteria is changing isn't necessarily bad. After all, we keep looking for ways to improve the method, so we do have to allow change. But along the same lines, if we define a specific set of criteria and a specific way of determining how to use that criteria, then what do we need a selection committee for? The list of teams who qualify would just pop out.

Why can't it be both?

It seems everything about the "eye test" excuse is designed to work in favor of the BCS big boys, and against the midmajors. They really don't like seeing midmajors knocking off their BCS friends and making their way to the final four year after year. And they especially don't like seeing that piece of the pie taken way from the big boys.

Well if I do grant you that the NCAA wants the mid-majors out of the way, ok. But the NCAA has no clout with the selection committee. The NCAA can't barge in and mandate the selection committee take certain teams or anything. I think the NCAA and selection committee are two separate entities when it comes to this process.

 

[cpacmel]

It's certainly possible but I don't think it's fair to assume that they don't treat each other as equals. I'd like to think they're professionals until proven otherwise.

TAS, have you ever been on a committee? If you have, you know that there are stronger members and "weaker" members. Sure in a perfect world all things are equal, but anyone that has even sat in a jury box knows this isn't the case.

Well even if we get that set of defined criteria...there's still more than one number, and someone is going to naturally set one set of criteria as more important than others. How you choose to use the numbers is naturally subjective.

It doesn't have to be like that. Decide what is important and make it uniform. Let everyone know what those things are.

But along the same lines, if we define a specific set of criteria and a specific way of determining how to use that criteria, then what do we need a selection committee for? The list of teams who qualify would just pop out.

And what would be wrong with this? It would certainly take bias out of it.

 

[Bravesfan]

I agree cpac - doubt they go 13-5. Bfan, right...

But maybe you miss my point. Let's not pick apart negatively at UNI going 13-5.

My point was more about a 9-9 B10 team being 64 in the RPI being a lock... over someone being 35 with a decent conference record.

You gotta grasp the concept of the "heat-seeking" missile.

This will change tomorrow. With an updated RPI and an updated Projected RPI. And then - the teams STILL have to play the games.

So I am chuckling at anyone saying 9 teams from the B10 are in when they are likely throwing out someone with a decent in-conference record from a top 10 rated conference (based on RPI - hey that includes the Pac12, A10, CUSA, MtnWest AND the MVC).

Throw out UNI for name sake. Someone is gonna be #35 with a decent in-conference record in one of those conferences battling a possibly #64 team (like maybe Purdue) from the B10 that finishes 9th at 9-9.

That's all I'm trying to say.

Got it. I agree.

Somewhere, Barry Hinson knows this nonsense all too well!

 

[Bravesfan]

all the talking heads and even the Selection Committee Chairman when he's on TV 24/7 in March -- change their criteria to suit whatever appeals to them
and their needs to get the more "lucrative teams" into the dance....(interpreted - BCS schools)

Here's how the history of the selection criteria has evolved...

-we all remember when the rule was just win your conference or be a runnerup in a major conference - this is why BU was left out a few times in the late 50's and early 60's

-then came conference tournaments and they used those to keep all but one team from any smaller conference out -
so............just like they did to Bradley in 1982 - if you lose your conference tourney - you are out...

-then they went with the rankings as long as they could jimmy the rankings to keep smaller schools out

-then when the expanded tourney meant a whole lot more teams getting in - in order to get more runnerups from the big conferences in they added the criteria of looking at who you played and what their schedule was like - which morphed into a SOS...that way - obviously - all the BCS conference teams played way more BCS opponents than the mid-majors did..

-then when they even wanted to justify a 7-9 BCS conference team, they juggled numbers and came up with the RPI...

-then when several mid-majors (Butler, Bradley, etc..) started getting RPI's in the 30's, they had the gall to claim we somehow "broke the code" and figured a cheating method to beat the RPI!!
SO -- they wanted to abandon the very formula, the RPI, that was THEIR invention to try to keep the mid-majors out...and wanted a new system...
So they used an obscure, subjective call on how they played down the stretch or in "key games" thus Missouri State & Barry Hinson got screwed a few times...

-then came the "eye test", which they devised because it requires no explanation or defense - they simply decide who they want and claim their eye's can see it and justify it -

-now I wonder what will be the catch phrase this season -- back to the rankings??? -- some new formula?? -- the sniff test?? It'll be interesting after so many mid-majors have made idio*ts out of those gurus...

Spot on tornado! The "eye test" is the most galling term I have ever heard in regards to the selection criteria. Whenever I hear that term being bantered about on the "Eastern Seaboard Program Network", I equate that to fingernails on a chalkboard! That is the absolutely most lazy way to determine the "best" (ie: BCS) teams that will make the tournament. I detest that "term", and any pundit who uses that should be fired immediately! :roll:

What new term will be used this year? Well, due to the fact that there is most likely the highest percentage of non-BCS teams that have cracked the top 25 in any given year in about two or three decades, I will predict that the "Dick Vitale top 25" will be used as the new criteria in determining which eighth place team from a BCS conference makes it into the tournament over Wichita St.!

 

[TheAsianSensation]

TAS, have you ever been on a committee? If you have, you know that there are stronger members and "weaker" members. Sure in a perfect world all things are equal, but anyone that has even sat in a jury box knows this isn't the case.

Ok fair enough, I just happen to trust the selection committee to have as little bias as possible.

It doesn't have to be like that. Decide what is important and make it uniform. Let everyone know what those things are.

And what would be wrong with this? It would certainly take bias out of it.

When you say "decide what is important"....can't that decision in itself be biased? Deciding SoS should have a certain importance ends up creating a bias against top conferences and mid-major conferences. Deciding conference record should be a priority creates a bias because of all the imbalanced conference schedules. Deciding winning percentage vs. RPI 50 is important creates a bias for teams who only play 1 or 2 such games a year because their percentage will be either 0% or 100%. You can never truly guarantee 100% bias-free ways to do this selection process, so I'd rather put the bias to good use by promoting the use of the eye test in a constructive way, by allowing debate, by allowing the nitty gritty sheet to be airtight and concise with all the facts needed, so that the committee members can look at it and weigh it against their personal opinions.

 

[Bravesfan]

Yea, this absolute bias against mid-majors completely showed with the selection of UAB and VCU, two ridiculous selections that made little sense at the time.



Yes, they change the criteria, but not to actively screw over mid-majors and make money. In fact, I'm glad they change the criteria every once in awhile, because it shows their willingness for progression and to find a better way to select teams. Now a few of the changes in itself are bad, but they're not making changes to actively screw over a whole section of teams. This much I believe.


No, what happened was around that time, news went public about the NCAA's version of the RPI that gave extra weight to road wins and home losses, and the mid majors suddenly were propped up by it. Once the power conference schools caught on to the new formula, it because tougher for the Bradleys of the world to consistently be in the top 50 or so. This whole phenomenon about the RPI being less irrelevant coincided with the RPI formula changes becoming public and everyone realizing the numbers were different than before. That it coincided with the mid major boom in 2006 may or may not have been coincidental.


The eye test was the smartest thing they ever done. Numbers are important, especially when they tell us something that we don't know or think, but the eye test has been the most critical thing they've ever done. They need a system of checks and balances against the numbers and by watching the teams, they get a much better sense of who they are and what they look like.

The eye test, when used wrongly, is a bad thing. The eye test the committee uses, however, IS correct. They see games from everywhere and anywhere, not just the big boys. And this is all documented. They have schedules and they see all sorts of teams.




T, you're much too cynical. You're probably right in that if the NCAA ever wanted to be actively biased against mid-majors, they could hide behind the system and do it. I, however, haven't seen any overwhelming evidence that they have.

And the selection committee itself is not biased, period. Incompetent, maybe, (well, probably). But I've seen their brackets for years and there is no real pattern of them being harsh towards mid majors. There have been isolated incidents, as I call them, but no pattern. And even if the NCAA is biased, the selection committee itself isn't. You really think an AD of a random small-conference team on the committee would actively be biased for the high majors? You're far too paranoid of the system today.



Now on a completely separate tangent, you list the following things and argue that these were biased against mid-majors:

Ok, so are you arguing that this rule was biased against mid-majors? Because that's what it sounds like, but if you step back, you'll realize this was MORE biased against the high-majors, because the top conferences only got one team in a year (although it's probably the case that Bradley was high-major back then)


Don't blame the selection committee for that - conference tournaments were the device of the individual conferences, each of who were greedy and sacrified tournament equity for a quick buck.



Ok, maybe they did, maybe they didn't, don't know enough about pre-RPI rankings to really know. Of course, everyone knows the polls have always been a sham.


You're acting like SoS is some meaningless number or something.





The bottom line is that you can always convince yourself you're getting screwed, but there's no actual consistent evidence that mid-majors are being actively persecuted against here. Even in 2006, when people cried foul about Missouri St missing and BCS teams making it....the committee made two horrific selections: Air Force and Utah St, from two different mid major conferences, two teams that absolutely should not have been in. I don't see anyone mention how the mid majors caught a break there. Just that MSU got screwed.

Are you sure you don't work for ESPN, TAS?

Kidding aside, I have to respectively disagree with you on several points, especially the eye test. I cannot accept something as vague as just watching how a team looks when they're playing as a criteria for the selection committee. If the "eye test" was used in the pros, teams like Denver and last year's Seattle team would have no business anywhere near the playoffs. But they got in based on winning their divisions.

I agree that you have to "checks and balances" against the numbers. But that's already built into the discussion when it comes to determining seeds, and who the last few teams will be chosen. I don't think how a team looks on the floor is a fair criteria, because teams like Wisconsin would lose the eye test every year since they run a defensive minded system.

And regarding the mids, sure I'm not saying we need to allow ten more mid-majors into the tournament. I'm only talking about the three or four that should be given a chance, like the MSU's, the Creighton's and the Wichita Sts of the world, all who have been unfairly left out at least once or twice over the last five or six years (along with a few others in other conferences).

 

[TheAsianSensation]

Are you sure you don't work for ESPN, TAS?

Kidding aside, I have to respectively disagree with you on several points, especially the eye test. I cannot accept something as vague as just watching how a team looks when they're playing as a criteria for the selection committee. If the "eye test" was used in the pros, teams like Denver and last year's Seattle team would have no business anywhere near the playoffs. But they got in based on winning their divisions.

I agree that you have to "checks and balances" against the numbers. But that's already built into the discussion when it comes to determining seeds, and who the last few teams will be chosen. I don't think how a team looks on the floor is a fair criteria, because teams like Wisconsin would lose the eye test every year since they run a defensive minded system.

And regarding the mids, sure I'm not saying we need to allow ten more mid-majors into the tournament. I'm only talking about the three or four that should be given a chance, like the MSU's, the Creighton's and the Wichita Sts of the world, all who have been unfairly left out at least once or twice over the last five or six years (along with a few others in other conferences).

Well I think I have a different definition of eye test. When I say eye test, I'm thinking about how a team looks on the floor and how competitive they are compared to the other team. I'm not thinking that a style of play is part of the eye test. I wouldn't reward a team full of NBA prospects to wow me with dunks and I wouldn't allow a Wisky to be dismissed for being more defensive. When I talk about eye test, I look for something that tells us about how competitive the game was, beyond the final score. Did a team lose to Duke by a single point and looked really good? Did a team lose by 15 points but was down just 2 with 1 minute left before fouling? Did a team look a lot better with a particular player playing, but is no longer on the team because of injury? Did a team look completely non-competitive in a game against a fellow bubble team, but reduced a 30 point deficit to 15 with garbage time points? These are the things I'm thinking about with the eye test, not style. Things that aren't available on the nitty gritty.

And I agree that the mid-majors have taken a slight hit as of late, but I think that's borne out of incompetence, not bias.

I have to say although everyone disagrees, that this is a really fun discussion for me.

 

[Bravesfan]

Yeah, it looks like you are mostly in the minority on this discussion TAS. But I do understand a little more now of what the eye test consists of, and I agree those seem like good things to look for.

One thing I forgot to mention on my last post is that while we agree that a few mids have been getting passed over recently, I also agree that a few of the wrong ones have been admitted to the tournament, UAB being the most glaring example, though VCU did have a case.

I do remember 2006 where Air Force and Utah St. where selected. I seem to remember the committee chairman that year (Newton I think was his last name) specifically explaining to the CBS crew immediately following the selection show that Air Force was chosen because they finished in first place in the #8 conference that year. I think Utah St. may have been chosen for similar reasons. And I do remember that neither team had any really quality (ie: top 50) wins that year.

Now I fully understand that teams are supposed to earn bids, not conferences. But I don't know if I completely disagreed with these two selections. Though one of these teams probably kept #21 RPI MSU out of the tournament, the committee still could have chosen MSU over a 7th place team out of a BCS conference, and kept AF and USt in the bracket as well. MSU aside though, my guess is that Air Force and Utah St. got rewarded, not so much for quality wins, but for playing in conferences that did not contain too many sub 200 RPI teams. And I think that should count for something. Even though they did not win their respective conference tournaments and did not have top 50 wins, the fact that they both earned such great win/loss records over teams that were no pushovers could very well be included in the list of variables that are looked for in the eye test. And I think many on the committee that year probably thought that they both passed the eye test as they confortably beat many of the teams that they should have beaten. Or perhaps the RPI of those two teams that year counted for more than it has in recent years. Regardless though, I do think finishing in first place in one of the top 10 conferences should strongly be looked upon as a major criteria in getting chosen for the tournament even if the number of quality wins is lacking.

 

[MacabreMob]

The "Eye Test" is such bull-hockey. Period.

You wanna know about the "Eye Test", then sniff this...

2006

Kansas vs Texas in the B12 Conf Tourney Championship

Kansas wins impressively 80-68.

I watch the game and think to myself - my God... that Kansas team is going to the Final 4.

Bradley vs SIU in MVC Conf Tourney Championship

SIU drubbs Bradley 59-46.

I watch the game and think (hope) Bradley is IN the NCAA... many did not. MANY! (which drove me away from "the other board").

The "EYE TEST".

Bradley 77
Kansas 73

Yea - TAKE THAT!!!!

"Eye Test" :roll:

Kiss my arse "eye test".

 

[Bravesfan]

The "Eye Test" is such bull-hockey. Period.

You wanna know about the "Eye Test", then sniff this...

2006

Kansas vs Texas in the B12 Conf Tourney Championship

Kansas wins impressively 80-68.

I watch the game and think to myself - my God... that Kansas team is going to the Final 4.

Bradley vs SIU in MVC Conf Tourney Championship

SIU drubbs Bradley 59-46.

I watch the game and think (hope) Bradley is IN the NCAA... many did not. MANY! (which drove me away from "the other board").

The "EYE TEST".

Bradley 77
Kansas 73

Yea - TAKE THAT!!!!

"Eye Test" :roll:

Kiss my arse "eye test".

Great points MM!

 

[Old Coach]

This thread all but guaranteed the result of last night's game. I mentioned to friends yesterday that I was sure Illinois would lose, but thought the score would be lower (in the 40s).

 

[TheAsianSensation]

Yeah, it looks like you are mostly in the minority on this discussion TAS. But I do understand a little more now of what the eye test consists of, and I agree those seem like good things to look for.

One thing I forgot to mention on my last post is that while we agree that a few mids have been getting passed over recently, I also agree that a few of the wrong ones have been admitted to the tournament, UAB being the most glaring example, though VCU did have a case.

I do remember 2006 where Air Force and Utah St. where selected. I seem to remember the committee chairman that year (Newton I think was his last name) specifically explaining to the CBS crew immediately following the selection show that Air Force was chosen because they finished in first place in the #8 conference that year. I think Utah St. may have been chosen for similar reasons. And I do remember that neither team had any really quality (ie: top 50) wins that year.

Now I fully understand that teams are supposed to earn bids, not conferences. But I don't know if I completely disagreed with these two selections. Though one of these teams probably kept #21 RPI MSU out of the tournament, the committee still could have chosen MSU over a 7th place team out of a BCS conference, and kept AF and USt in the bracket as well. MSU aside though, my guess is that Air Force and Utah St. got rewarded, not so much for quality wins, but for playing in conferences that did not contain too many sub 200 RPI teams. And I think that should count for something. Even though they did not win their respective conference tournaments and did not have top 50 wins, the fact that they both earned such great win/loss records over teams that were no pushovers could very well be included in the list of variables that are looked for in the eye test. And I think many on the committee that year probably thought that they both passed the eye test as they confortably beat many of the teams that they should have beaten. Or perhaps the RPI of those two teams that year counted for more than it has in recent years. Regardless though, I do think finishing in first place in one of the top 10 conferences should strongly be looked upon as a major criteria in getting chosen for the tournament even if the number of quality wins is lacking.

Yeah, I don't think the committee values conference record (and conference schedule imbalances) properly these days.

Also, I think since the MVC's been screwed lately, people think the rest of the middies have been too, when it's actually been a mixed bag.

The "Eye Test" is such bull-hockey. Period.

You wanna know about the "Eye Test", then sniff this...

2006

Kansas vs Texas in the B12 Conf Tourney Championship

Kansas wins impressively 80-68.

I watch the game and think to myself - my God... that Kansas team is going to the Final 4.

Bradley vs SIU in MVC Conf Tourney Championship

SIU drubbs Bradley 59-46.

I watch the game and think (hope) Bradley is IN the NCAA... many did not. MANY! (which drove me away from "the other board").

The "EYE TEST".

Bradley 77
Kansas 73

Yea - TAKE THAT!!!!

"Eye Test"

Kiss my arse "eye test".

Well just like you don't let a single piece of data overwhelm a candidate's chances, you don't let a single eye test overwhelm the rest of the season.

Why does everyone always assume an eye test would be used improperly? Now when ESPN analysts use it, they're using it completely wrong. Don't listen to Vitale and friends go off on it. But I think the selection committee is much more qualified to use it.

 

[cpacmel]

TAS, you make a lot of good points. IMO, the committee always errs on side of the BCS'ers. Sure occasionally a Va Tech or Colorado will be left out, but it just seems to me that the deck is always stacked against the non-bcs. And when all things are close, they seem to resort back to some kind of eye test. In a perfect word the committee wouldn't be biased. More and more I see them more closely aligned with ESPN and other pundits.
Good discussion.

 

[Nacho]

What a great thread. Very good points made by all. Very entertaining :-D