Final Coaches Rankings in USA Today

Ha!

I seem to recall the reason they started doing the blind draw was because they asked Gallup for some input on how to assure the voting was as fair as possible. One of the recommendations was choose the voters this way.

One other recommendation was to not make any of the votes public. Gallup felt there was a higher degree of probability that voters would be influenced by public pressure and wouldn't vote accurately if they knew their vote would be made public.

 

Bama shouldn't be faulted or automatically dropped because they happened to play in the same conference as a team that was #1 in the country. You're basically arguing here that Bama would've been fine if they just played in the Big East. Or if you're worried about conference championship game appearances, the SEC East.

Fine enough about the schedule. But Bama dominated against theirs, gaining almost 3 more yards per play than their opponents. That's other-worldly good.

It's really splitting hairs, honestly. I would've been fine with either one. But these end-all 100% USDA-certified Grade-A arguments why Bama is undeserving? They aren't really all that stout.

 

Boise's also the only one in that group that took a drop because of one play. If the field goal against TCU is good, then today's discussion might REALLY have been something.

 

For all the people here who think Oklahoma State was the superior choice for No. 2 over Alabama, it's now obvious many others who follow the sport across the country didn't see it that way. In the coaches poll, 42 of 59 voters picked Alabama for the second spot, while 38 of 60 media members did so in the AP poll. That's a combined 67 percent, a clear-cut majority. That can't be chalked up to SEC bias. People were simply voting for what they thought were the two best teams without regard to the rematch aspect.

 

I believe this was a reference to Stanford vs. Oklahoma State. This wasn't about Alabama.

(And for what it's worth, Stanford was, to me, the third best team in the Pac 12 this year. Putting them third in the nation is a hell of a stretch.)

 

There is a SEC bias. It's well-earned.

The SEC is going to get every benefit of the doubt in voting. When this many SEC teams in a row have won national titles, that's to be expected.

 

Oh, you're right. Reading comprehension failure on my part.

 

Vince Young and Matt Leinart, who can both be considered at the onset of "journeyman" status in the NFL, were the starting QBs in the national championship game the last time a team from the SEC wasn't present.

As for the griping about 9-6, every SEC team to win the title in this time period did it with great defense, save 2010 Auburn, who at least had solid individual talent on that side of the ball.

It is the world we live in.

 

True, but that leads down the road of whether the other schools are ever going to pony up and A) pay the players market rate; and B) set no standards whatsoever and let the illiterates and criminals into school. Oregon and USC appear to be doing this, and the results show, but I don't know who else is going to fully embrace that route.

 

That much is true. I think people evaluated Oklahoma State as a team -- and while they looked at the explosive offense, they also saw a defense that allowed 26 points per game. But in the end, I think most people couldn't reconcile the loss to Iowa State.

 

Based on who was just hired: Ohio State...

 

I would assume so, yeah. The big wonder is whether Michigan will follow. It has been proven that Michigan's "student-athlete" stuff is a fraud, but I do wonder how they will take to cheering for criminals.