17 hours ago, Walter said:

Coaches watch results and pay closer attention than you think. Don't be fooled by the "I live under a rock and only worry about my team" lines. They're very much aware of what is going on around them.

If you believe a head coach (with or without a vote), gets done with his 8+ hour team commitment on a Saturday, goes home and watches non-stop DVRed college football then my money would be on you being wrong. At least from the coaches I've known they would not say that is true. Even if that is true, their viewpoint on college football is nothing more than peripheral (i.e. checking scores) and slanted towards their own conference as they don't have enough hours in the day. Point being, I am not sure how that makes them more qualified. Any ranking system is flawed.

Polls aren't that complicated. Each week if you win you move up a few slots, you lose, you move down. You feel the pulse the week of the games and maybe there is a little wrangling in the positions as more points are awarded being in the moment.

The "committee" at least tries to look at it from a power ranking standpoint, and for the most part I think gets things right. We can compare/contrast scores until we are blue in the face.

The best version of a committee is to have a group of Vegas insiders say who the top 4 teams are. The problem with this system is that it would ignore the full season and look at who is best that week. Polls now are set up to celebrate who has had the best season, not who the 4 best teams are. The Playoff Committee is somewhere in between that, which is as fair as anything else that exists.

10 hours ago, bugatti said:

If you believe a head coach (with or without a vote), gets done with his 8+ hour team commitment on a Saturday, goes home and watches non-stop DVRed college football then my money would be on you being wrong. At least from the coaches I've known they would not say that is true. Even if that is true, their viewpoint on college football is nothing more than peripheral (i.e. checking scores) and slanted towards their own conference as they don't have enough hours in the day. Point being, I am not sure how that makes them more qualified. Any ranking system is flawed.

Polls aren't that complicated. Each week if you win you move up a few slots, you lose, you move down. You feel the pulse the week of the games and maybe there is a little wrangling in the positions as more points are awarded being in the moment.

The "committee" at least tries to look at it from a power ranking standpoint, and for the most part I think gets things right. We can compare/contrast scores until we are blue in the face.

You pretty much repeated what I said... "coaches watch results" (checking scores) and also have the awareness of what is going on around them in the rankings and within their own conference to understand where and how they stack up against others. 

I wasn't implying they watch multiple hours of film on teams that have nothing to do with their schedule every week end. 

I would disagree that the committee tries to look at it from a power rankings standpoint. They no doubt have plenty of rea$on$ to include certain teams over others when it comes to the CFP and have bias towards their conference. Surely you aren't naive enough to think there's not more factors that go in to where they rank certain teams other than what matters most: results and wins/losses.