Here's my take. The biggest issue isn't "the teams with high totals of wins" get in, it's that they were more deserving of a playoff birth then the teams with higher SOS. Case in point, the argument that Bama "deserved" to be in over teams with soft schedules like SMU, IU, SMU, and maybe even ND. The problem IMO isn't the mentality that the teams with 10 or 11 wins "deserved" to be there, but rather the teams with higher SOS "deserved to be left out.
SEC bias exists and has, regardless of whether we feel that they got screwed or not by having the first 3 out. Here's the issue. There will and has always been that bias and the SEC has always benefitted from it. Unfortunately, this season Bama lost 2 games that simply couldn't give them the benefit of the doubt and suddenly the shift becomes "deserving" teams shouldn't be in and it should be about the 12 best teams not being represented. The problem with saying "best" should replace those deemed deserving is that through out the course of the season the "deserving" teams proved they deserved a chance and those "best teams" that got snubbed led by Bama showed they may have been a better team, but based on the way they crapped themselves by allowing Vandy to drop 40 on them and only getting a FG against Oklahoma, definitely proved the point that while maybe being "better" they were not deserving and didn't belong there.
I have absolutely 0 issues with the the committee selecting the 12 teams they did and felt they got it right. What I have issue with is the fact that went to a 12 team format in which 4 teams received byes. I feel it would have been better to just go with a 16 team format. I don't think that round 1's games sucked because certain teams "didn't belong", but rather the fact that my 5 year old could have actually seeded it like a tournament should be seeded.
Seeding was the issue not the teams. While I don't feel SOS should have been the deciding factor in terms of who got in or left out there was absolutely no logical explanation as to why/how Boise State and Arizona State were worthy of byes. You give the 4 best teams in the field the higher seeds and the byes you don't have a first round in which the winner of 3 of the 4 games simply outclassed or over matched the opposition.
In short seeding was the problem that led to the perceived bad first round games and blowouts rather then the committee got it wrong. But totally agree with Hadensly in the fact that there's only 3-4 teams that have the ability to win it all and the rest of the playoffs is about bringing more hype to the end of the season and giving it a bigger stage.
