0% surprised that 4 is Auburn.  Most overrated team ever.  Every year, they're fatally flawed in at least a couple ways, yet the media puts them on the same level as 'Bama, OSU, etc., then they crap the bed.  Also not surprised that the perception of LSU -- especially in SEC country -- is that they're been far more accomplished than they actually have been.

Candidly, like others, I'm a bit surprised in Wiscy's level of success and SoS.  Then again, I think Wiscy is probably the best example of a team that would be, on average, 3-5 spots higher if it were in the SEC.

Agreed.  And like the other poster below, I think draft picks are virtually worthless in evaluating how good teams were.

Yeah...  the letter is racist AF.  Don't care about the guy's background, where he's been, etc.  Pretty horrible.

Based on how many acorns are in my yard I need a bunch of those blind squirrels to pay me a visit. Cannot recall a year when the trees have dropped so many acorns.

Same.  Thought I must be imagining it.  Any tips for getting them up would be greatly appreciated.

I'm about 99% certain the exact opposite would happen.  In addition to the prevailing SEC is unbeatable/Pac-12 is shite narrative, when has the Committee penalized anyone for playing FCS teams?

Strongly agreed.  To your "SEC level" example, if you hear something enough times, you become more likely to believe it.  Even if you're a skeptic.  Especially so when there's some degree of truth to an overly exaggerated saying (on average, I think the SEC probably has been the best conference of the last 5 years, but nowhere to the degree that's claimed).  Hell, there's a reason marketing is a massive industry.

I think one of two things could improve the Committee's process a lot: (1) take out the subjectivity, in whole or in part (e.g., conference champions only, expand to 6 teams, etc.); or (2) make it much, much, much more transparent.  This whole "black-box" approach is a recipe for conspiracy theories when involving a subject matter rife with motives and biases, even if the Committee isn't allowing those to affect its decisions.  Make the Committee show its work. 

That's fair.  And my beef is more with the process than it is specific results.  I want a transparent, unchanging process involving apples-to-apples comparisons, leading to predictable results.  Regardless of what I might think about the CFP selections thus far -- of which I almost unanimously agree with -- the Committee has failed by impressive lengths in taking even the most basic steps to legitimize its process.

On the Iowa City piece, fair enough.  And I don't have any beef with last year's top-4 (note: I have a lot of beef with 5-6). 

But if so-called bad losses are now a resume killer, then UGA's horrific loss to SC at home should be a borderline nail in the coffin.  Any 1-loss team (without a similarly horrible loss) and even some 2-loss teams (e.g., if Wiscy cruises through the whole season, but loses to OSU twice in close games) should get in over UGA, according to the Committee's logic.  When the rankings come out, UGA should be below a bunch of teams.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see any of those things happening.

Interesting.  If anything, unless your CBs are dramatically better than the WRs, I'd say it's easier to destroy Cover 0 with slants than Cover 3.  Against Cover 3, at least you have to find a window (especially with Tua being a relatively shorter guy) and make sure there isn't a zone defender coming across your face, whether he's sinking into his zone or coming off in a hybrid coverage.

But yeah, if an offense is good enough, they'll get theirs -- regardless of coverage.

"The polls dont matter" is one of the biggest myths football fans perpetuate

Agreed.  It's like giving someone 98% of the answers to a test, blasting them with a 24/7 media blitz saying why those are the correct answers, then assuming the "cheat sheet" played no role in that person returning something damn near equivalent to the answers he/she was provided. 

Add in the existing biases/interests of the Committee members, and their chairperson's inability to tell the truth/remain consistent to any meaningful degree, and...  suffice it to say, people have a whole lot more faith in humanity than I do.

No.

Don’t know what was redacted.  But yeah, I’d much rather have Fields.  And I’d be pissed if my NFL team spent more than a 2/3 round pick for Fromm.

The problem is it's really, really, really difficult to go undefeated.  The vast majority of CFP teams haven't been undefeated.  Once you start comparing 1-loss teams (or even 2-loss teams, such as last year's UGA) -- which, again, constitute the vast majority of teams in the CFP -- it'd be nice to have objective, unchanging criteria to compare.  If you don't have those criteria (we don't), the potential for bias, abuse, etc. is obvious.

Interesting.  I wonder if his stated reasons for redshirting are accurate, or, rather, he's just saying that so he can finish the semester/year before entering the transfer portal and being labelled a traitor.  If he really intends to stay, this is an interesting decision, to say the least.

Agreed.  Definitely should pull for Michigan this weekend.

Related, it isn't what happens if OSU goes undefeated that's the question.  The odds of us going undefeated probably aren't high.  Nor are the odds that more than 1-2 teams will do so.  

The question is what happens if OSU is sitting at 1 loss, as are 1-2 other SEC teams and/or ND.  Prior to last year, I thought a Power 5 conference championship would always put a team ahead when records are the same.  Now, I fear it will devolve into a discussion of how great SEC schedules are, how impressive it is to lose a close game to 'Bama and/or UGA, etc.  

^ This.  I'd worry about beating Wiscy -- twice -- before talking about getting left out as an undefeated team.  

Wasn't Russell Wilson a grad transfer to Wiscy?  The "portal" seems like a new thing -- or, at least, new to the spot light.  But I don't think grad transfers are.

Not sure how you're inferring that.  I don't think conferences should matter much -- if at all.  Better teams should be ranked higher, regardless of conference affiliation.  I just don't think that happens right now.

So serious question: has Patterson gotten worse since he arrived at UM?  I remember him being good last year -- if not in the top tier of B1G QBs.  This year, in the limited times that I've watched him, he's just terrible.

I mean, it's kind of ridiculous, but you're right.  The AFC-N is just terrible this year.  8 wins might get you a championship.  Baltimore has to be the odds-on favorite, but Cleveland is probably No. 2.  Far crazier things have happened.

That said, Browns have a pretty rough gauntlet the next 4-5 games.  Better play a lot better than they have been to get through it.

Agreed.  The message going into the game was that Georgia was going to absolutely shell ND.  Then the game is a close one.  Everybody pivots to the line that it was a hard fought battle between two great teams, ND barely moves in the polls, etc.

Fair enough.  Though I have less confidence that the results of the LSU-UF game will be fairly reflected in the polls.  If UF gets blown out (I think they will), my prediction is that it’ll be painted as LSU being a top 1-2 team.  In reality, like you, I think Florida is a top 25 team — but not a top 5-10 one.

On a related note, LSU has made CFB more interesting this year.  I mean, I think they’re overrated solely based on their conference affiliation.  But it’s kind of fun watching a team that’s the polar opposite of what we expect from LSU — ie, one of the best offenses in the country, with a D that’s mostly hot garbage.  Def didn’t see Ed Orgeron, of all people, being the one to unlock the potential of LSU’s O.

Well, Vanderbilt is at 84 in the current Sagarin rankings.  One spot ahead of Troy.  So yeah, they’re pretty shitty. I don’t think that further hair splitting is necessary.  FWIW, Indiana is in the 60s.

As for Oregon State, wasn’t that the first game?  How would anyone even know they’re the worst team in CFB?  It was the first game...

To your second point, TBH, I don’t think it’s a conscious decision by the voters to stack the deck in the SEC’s favor.  I think it’s the result of being bombarded with media 24/7, all of which has a heavy tilt in the SEC’s favor.  This makes wins (or losses) against average-to-bad teams look far more impressive than they actually are.

For instance, you say that the upcoming LSU-Florida game will be interesting.  Why?  I’ve watched Florida a handful of times.  They weren’t good before their starting QB went down.  They certainly aren’t now.  I think the fact that the nation will see a win against Florida as a “big win” is strictly the result of hype over substance.  If LSU is actually a top-5 team, they should win by multiple TDS.

As for Michigan, I agree they were a flawed team last week.  But they were in the frigging top 10.  Don’t put them in the top 10 if they aren’t good.  And don’t diminish the quality of a win by saying “actually, nobody thought they were good” after Wisconsin beats them like a drum.

If LSU is as good as everyone thinks (I think they’re a good team, FWIW), they should beat Florida’s ass.  And I think it’s BS that it’ll be hailed as some incredible accomplishment, when anyone with eyes and Google can see Florida is pretty mediocre.  But when Michigan gets their ass beat (who, similarly, everyone could see is pretty mediocre) the message is “well, actually, they weren’t very good.”

Sure, UM is pathetic now.  Last week, they were a top-10 team.  Wiscy absolutely blew the doors off of them. It should be one of the most impressive wins by any team this year.  Instead, we’re fed the same “they weren’t actually good anyway” line.

There is no objective reason why Wiscy shouldn’t be higher.  And these minor disparities in rankings are how you stack the deck in favor of certain conferences/teams.  Over time, wins against similar teams have drastically different value depending on the conference in which those teams reside.

That’s one way to spin giving up almost 40 points to one of the worst D-I teams in football so that it sounds impressive.