"But better to be decided in a game than by a vote of people who are "loyal" to their conference and try to vote in a way that "ups" their side either now or in future years."
You're assuming that everything would be decided on the field. What if the 'best' team loses? It happens frequently in college football.
"But good refs know they should not determine the outcome of the game, and the playoff could get good refs."
Good polls could get 'good' voters too.
Dang, 45 minutes until game time and all I can find is threads about al-Zarqawi being arrested for the 28th time.
Under my logic, they aren't the best. (I know, I know, on any given Saturday,,,) but when you agree to decide it "on the field" then you also agree to accept what happens on the field and quite whining. I will, what about you?
Good polls could get 'good' voters too.
I suppose in an imaginary world. But I would bet good impartial refs (backed up with TV replays) could be found in the real world. Sit in the back of the room while a bunch of coaches from different schools try to pick an all league team. It makes Congress look good. There is nothing that can be done to "poll" a team when you are asking the people who know how hard coaches and players have worked for the honor. Everyone has a soft spot for teams they worked with, grew up with, lived near, went to school at.. and these prejudices make it very difficult to set one team over another by balloting. But on the field, everyone has to accept the truth.
I believe this year USC would be picked nat champ even with a loss say to Cal, (I know they did not lose that one, but they could have, right?) But would that make Auburn or OU the new number one to the voters who have picked USC number one for two years in a row?