Bill, you have me totally confused.
Let's go point by point.
Do you agree with the following:
1) If the selection committee picks the top four there's no need for the committee?
In other words, if the committee selects the top four ranked teams (1-4), it's pretty much useless in the first place?
2) If the selection committee does NOT pick the top four there's no need for rankings?
Do you agree that if the committee does NOT pick the top four then the ratings are
generally useless?
Do you agree that:
3) Since we went to a playoff format:
a) four is the absolute maximum to preserve the integrity and meaning of the regular season
(Explanation: four is better than 8, 16, etc? Four maintains real meaning to regular season (no 7-6 playoff teams because they happened to win the Sun Belt Conference, for example)
b) four is the absolute maximum to allow for unusual circumstance without it necessarily being fatal to any contender
(Explanation: four teams permits the possibility of a stumble without a loss AUTOMATICALLY eliminating you)
c) we should simply have taken the Top Four BCS ranked teams
(Explanation: would c not have been better than a selection committtee? I have yet to hear anyone advocate a selection committee who is not named Tim Brando; I'm sure someone has but I haven't heard them).
It's simply a question. Maybe we cannot.
But could not MOST folks agree to the above even if they advocate something other than a four-team?