jave36
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2011
- Messages
- 26,641
- Likes
- 31,733
It's been obvious for decades that rankings and polls and committees prioritize bad losses over everything else. Barely beating Bama at home doesn't trump a horrific loss to SC in their minds, and if you're surprised by that, you just need to look at history. Couple that with losing Hooker, and it was super obvious that this is what they were going to do.That's ridiculous. We're talking about the same overall record. And that "cardinal rule" is nowhere on the committee's list of criteria. If it were, there'd probably be less bitching. The fact of the matter is that UT beats Bama in every metric the committee listed, and yet here we are...
I won't lose sleep over it. As mentioned earlier, I'm enjoying seeing the groundswell of media narrative to potential recruits that UT is better than Bama and Bama is just a coddled dinosaur that has to get by on reputation.
But it's pretty lame to completely ignore the committee's self-published criteria for some unwritten "cardinal rule" that the committee then comes out and denies using, while admitting they use, and again deny using.
If you trust any group of humans to behave exactly like they say they will, you REALLY need to look at history more.
And on top of it, the committee rankings don't really matter beyond the top 4. Who cares what a bunch of bureaucrats think? The bowls will choose who they want.