I think what helps in my particular case is all of those exegetical papers I had to write at my evangelical seminary for so many years. The difference there, of course, is that I had to cover the material within prescribed page limits, which was nearly impossible. We once had a paper on a particular word (and it's semantic meaning) in Ephesians 2, and I had to cover ALL SIX MAJOR PROPOSED interpretations of it (succinctly but fully), and come to my own conclusions on "the most probable is X because" and then defend the position, all while footnoting virtually every sentence with multiple references. Even then, my paper usually had a lot of red markings on it, heh heh, because the grader was some intern trying to earn his/her PhD, and they were always far better read on the subject than it was possible for me to be in a compressed time frame.
As to how this relates to college football, it is important to me for two standards to be met:
1) historical accuracy
2) factual accuracy
I don't mind if someone disagrees with me regarding the CONCLUSION of something so long as we agree upon the facts in evidence. But if we are logical thinkers then most of the time, of course, the facts in evidence will lead us to the same conclusion if we'll set aside our emotional attachment to certain outcomes. Many times I have held an opinion about something (not just CFB but for the sake of this post let's limit it) and then gotten out my Excel documents and Word sheets and papers strewn all over the place running data and taken a very close look at it and then concluded the exact opposite of what I once held to be correct. I had an emotional investment in Georgia Tech winning the 1990 national championship - CU's Fifth Down, my grandfather being recruited to play there back in the late 20s in the Bill Alexander era, the fact Tech is geographically in the south, they were the only unbeaten - and my emotion influenced my conclusion. Having looked closely at the situation, it's very difficult for me to say that Tech was even among the three best teams in the nation that year, and their record in the years before and after that (while not available in 1990 obviously) proves it conclusively. Tech's ascent was very similar to BYU's in 1984 and for the same reason, although to be fair Tech did play a much tougher schedule than BYU did. But it was a fluke year all the way around for them, and Tech basically won because people were upset about the Fifth Down controversy. In retrospect with some watching of games as well as statistical analysis, Colorado was so much better than Tech that the game would likely have been a mauling, and I think Notre Dame and Miami and Washington (at a minimum) would have beaten Tech as well. I don't begrudge them the national title under the circumstances, but they weren't "that" good of a team.
To give one more example (and be done with it), we have to consider what a football coach would be like if you flipped situations. It is ENTIRELY possible that someone like Matt Campbell is actually a better coach than Lincoln Riley or Ryan Day or even (for that matter) Dan Mullen. Not to take anything away from those men but put them in Ames and put Campbell with Blue Blood advantages and what would happen? (Note: I am NOT saying Campbell is better - I'm saying we have to be open to the idea he MIGHT be and consider parallels etc). And I'm just using a name at the moment. This is why I think Don James is a much better coach than a lot of people realize while I'm still willing to say Tom Osborne is at least a little bit overrated, and I think John McKay was substantially overrated, which wouldn't set well (I know) with Coach Bryant, but McKay won his titles in an 8-team conference where he had all the advantages when the game was the most slanted it's ever been. Coach Bryant substantiated his greatness at Maryland AND at Kentucky AND at ATM, where he wasn't the biggest fish in the pond; McKay never did that, which isn't to say he couldn't have, but the fact is for all his advantages, go look at the fact McKay followed three straight top ten seasons with consecutive 6-4-1 years; he followed his first national title with four straight 7-win seasons. Again, this despite coaching in the easiest to recruit school in a non-competitive conference. I'm not saying McKay wasn't a good coach, but he wasn't in the same universe as Bryant, Saban, Meyer, or some others.
Anyway, I have a job interview online in five minutes to I'll see y'all later.