LSU. Ohio State.  Clemson.  Oklahoma.

Did the College Football Playoff Committee get it right?  The consensus by far is that the 13 member panel did.  More often than not, they do.

More often than not, the top four teams separate themselves once the regular season and the conference championships are played.  It seems so this year as well.

So, this year the committee chose the obvious because the obvious presented itself given the outcomes on the field of play.  But, in the weeks leading up to, and the one before the final weekend, the committee seeded the top 15 teams based on results, their own eye test, injuries, and an assumption here or there.

Would an old school BCS computer model have done the same?  Would Vegas choose the same?  We don’t know, but we wonder if both would have had nos. 4 through, say 12 ranked differently.

Two weeks ago THE was the “more complete team.”  Two weeks later “LSU has been playing better and getting healthier on D,” committee leader Rob Mullen said.  Seems like an eye test to us.

We wonder how Utah entered this weekend ranked #5 without a win over a single ranked team and one loss.  Baylor was in the same boat and ranked below them.  The difference?  Baylor lead Oklahoma 28-3 a month ago before surrendering 34-31.  Utah lost to USC 30-27.  USC was unranked.  Oklahoma is in the final four.  Eye test anyone?  Oregon’s win showed us that Utah was no where near the top 5.  If Baylor beat Oklahoma and Utah won would Baylor have jumped Utah?  If Oklahoma beat Baylor and Utah beat Oregon would Oklahoma have jumped Utah? Maybe.  Oregon finished ahead of Baylor, so we doubt the Bears would have.

We wonder how a three loss Wisconsin team (losers to Illinois and THE in the regular season, and THE in the conf championship) was and is ranked 8th while several two loss teams, most notably Alabama (ranked 13th after falling one spot without playing last weekend) are ranked well below.  Alabama lost by five to LSU and three on a boinked off of the upright field goal to Auburn.  Ah, the committee all but said “the loss of the QB (Tua T) hurt Bama a bit.”  Bama scored 41 v #1 LSU and 45 v #12 Auburn.  The O wasn’t Bama’s problem before nor after the injury.  The D was.  Eye test anyone?

We could go on, and on.  But the point is, why do we have humans deciding this?  Haven’t advanced metrics, models, AI, and computers passed up the human eye in determining who is who?  The BCS computer model was devised to do just that.  But humans decided that the computer model didn’t pass their eye test.  The very thing that model was designed to do- take away the eye test, got taken away by the eye test.

If you support a chip in the nose of the football to determine down and distance and fumble or not, why not a tech help for the committee?  If you yell at the screen watching umps miss balls for strikes and strikes for balls v. the superimposed zone on the screen why not a tech help to the committee?  We could go on and on.

The committee got the final four right because the teams separated perfectly on the final weekend.  If it came down differently and went to an eye test, would the outcome have been different?  And, would it have been correct?

Vegas would favor several lower ranked teams in the final 15, and in some cases by double digits, over several higher ranked teams.  The NFL would take Alabama’s starting 22 over any other roster in the NCAA, yet the committee sees them as the 13th best.

For now everyone is happy, except fans of THE.  Their eye test sees scarlet and gray as a clear no. 1 over purple and the yellow that LSU calls gold.

And, that makes the point.  The computer doesn’t see color.