Honest Thoughts on the Final Rankings

Here’s my thing with the committee. I said before I didn’t think Georgia would/should be in after having the opportunity to beat Alabama when they should have and squandering it. But after seeing the rankings and hearing the why, here’s my issue.

They claim that the difference between OU and UGA came with the conference championship (though we’ve seen them put Alabama in without a conference or division championship just last year) and that was the deciding factor in a close decision, one in which they admitted was of the opinion that Georgia was the better team. So with the conference title being the decider, why was Georgia not also behind Ohio State with a better record and conference title? Saying Georgia is above them (with a conference title) but not Oklahoma (with a conference title) but a better team than both is hypocrisy. It’s either the deciding factor in the way you use it or it’s not. If that’s your criteria, Georgia by non-conference title and record should be 6 (and I’m a Georgia fan). All this showed was the committee knew who should be in based on who’s best, but couldn’t pull the trigger because they didn’t have the stones to face the backlash and clamors for expansion that would come from getting the “best” four in.

Do I think they got it right, yes and no. Based simply on Georgia’s lack of finishing and losses, OU is in based on the criteria the committee says they rank on (which is not necessarily the best four as we see). But putting Georgia in-between is self destructive of that very reasoning and shows that they wanted to do what was right, but status-quo (and possibly the backlash faced last year) is the reason they didn’t.

Thoughts?