Most of you just don't get it. You're so incredibly hung up on SOS, best win, worst loss, who they played, yada yada yada… data and resume. The committee doesn't give a damn about that stuff. It's like trying to decide who's the best heavyweight fighter based on their reach, footwork, hand speed, height, who they fought, etc., instead of looking at them, watching them fight, and then recognizing which of them is the baddest MF in gloves that you'd never bet against. Mike Tyson looked wrong in every way and hadn't beaten many fighters of note by the time he won the title, but everyone who knew ANYTHING about boxing knew he was unbeatable at that point and the best in the world. You could watch the guy work out in the gym and know what he was. I remember seeing him in his 4th or 5th pro fight against some nobody and my dad & I both saying he was the next world champ. We knew what we'd just seen. Cus knew, before Mike ever turned pro, what he was just by watching him, because he understood boxing. He had no resume to speak of, yet everyone who watched him knew.
It's the same in football. If you know anything about the game, you can tell what a team is regardless of who they play. They've been talking about this on ESPNU off & on for the past two weeks: Packer, Luginbill, Neuheisel, Zarzour, and all the rest - that if you understand what makes a team good, you can know who's bad, good or great, and which teams will beat which others just by watching them play, regardless of the opponent. You're noticing execution, attention to detail, speed, physicality, precision, etc., etc.
If you put the LA Rams in a GO5 conference and they only played the 104th toughest schedule in CFB and never played a ranked team, could you not still watch them play and quickly realize they were the best team in the country? If not, you understand football about as much as I understand 15th Century Mongolian poetry.
The committee doesn't put that much stock in resumes. They aren't impressed by prettiest resume. They look way beyond that and focus on how teams actually play and how good they are. They're focused on who would beat whom. Nobody in here would bet against Bama against any team in the country right now. Almost none of us would bet against Clemson against anyone besides Bama. When you get to ND, Michigan, LSU (and maybe UGA and Oklahoma) then you can reasonably argue for or against any of them versus each other, but not many of us would bet against any of them against any team outside that group. Screw resumes and FCS opponents and quality of wins and SOS and all the rest. Watch the damn teams and you'll know who'd likely win any game.
