on equal footing at the start of each season. They aren't. You know that. Say you have to bet on a Week 2 game vs. Army and Georgia. They're both 1-0. You have to bet $10,000 on one of the teams straight up. Who do you pick? And how long do you think about it? You take Georgia and you think about it for less than a second. Why is that?

2. "Your examples of two Big XII teams typically include Oklahoma and/or Texas who are no longer in the BigXII and since “program momentum”, according to you should matter a lot, this argues against them including two Big XII teams."

Here are the Big 12 teams that would have made it in years past:
2014: Baylor, TCU, Kansas State
2015: Oklahoma, TCU, Baylor
2016: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
2017: Oklahoma, TCU
2018: Oklahoma
2019: Oklahoma, Baylor
2020: Iowa State, Oklahoma
2021: Oklahoma State, Baylor
2022: TCU, Kansas State
2023: Texas, Oklahoma
This doesn't include current Big 12 teams (Colorado, Cincinnati, BYU, etc.).

Texas only made the playoff last year. Oklahoma was in it quite a bit, but there was only one year they were the only Big 12 team. There are five years that two Big 12 teams got in, aside from Oklahoma. Take Oklahoma/Texas out, we would have had a different Big 12 Champ who would have gotten in. So, most years, the Big 12 is getting more than one team in.

3. You sound like you’re defending something like segregation. “Separate but equal” even though everyone knows it’s not equal. You should consider taking a step back and reading your arguments. It’s not equal and perhaps you’d be better served arguing it shouldn’t be equal rather than trying to convince people to not believe their lying eyes.

It is equal. Every team at the start of the year has the chance to go undefeated, win their conference, and get in. We're arguing about the teams that are impossible to objectively compare. How do you compare teams in different conferences? We know that the SEC is the best conference. That's based on "eye test," computer rankings, and past success. So how do you compare a team like Georgia, who is 8-2 in a hard conference, with Army? Assume they lose to Notre Dame this week. Who deserves a shot in the playoffs? Georgia has two losses, Army only has one. That one loss is to the #6 team in the country. But they also haven't beaten anyone good. Their best wins are East Carolina (6-4) and Lehigh (7-2). They haven't played another team with a winning record, and most teams have three wins or less. Georgia lost to #7 and #9. They've beaten #3, #11, and #17. Who should get in? Georgia. We know they're a good team based on their resume and recent success. Why do they get the benefit of the doubt? #6, #1, #3, #9. That's where they finished the past four seasons. That's why. Every team has that opportunity. Cincinnati finished at #8 in 2020. Guess where they started in 2021? #8. They had shown that they're good, so they get to start higher. That's how it works.

Give me a break with the segregation thing. Skin color has no bearing on who smart, talented, etc. someone is. Neither does a team's jerseys or mascot. Do you know what does? Recruiting rankings, resources, conference affiliation, and past success.

Say I've got a guy with an MBA from Harvard, years of experience leading successful companies, he's charismatic, etc., but his current company didn't have a great quarter. On the other hand, I've got some other dude I'm considering. He's got an MBA from the University of Phoenix Online. He's worked at other gas stations, but he's currently the best manager Maverick on State Street has ever had. He's kind of awkward. You get to pick one of these guys to lead your company. Who do you go with? Why? The Maverick employee is having a really good year, while the Harvard guy is struggling. Who do you take?

You go with the guy who has years of success. If the smaller guy wants to be with the big dogs, he's got to build consistent success. Cincinnati did that. Boise State has done that. So they got/have a seat at the table.