The difference is, if bad calls are made earlier in the game, you never know what would have followed if the right call had be made because teams do different things in different situations. That's not present here. We know with certainty what the outcome of the game would have been without that call.

Like with every game, if we want to go through the whole game, there are plenty of calls on both sides that were wrong (for example, Sean Taylor never fully lost possession to Maurice Clarett, so Miami should have kept the ball as a result of shared possession). Rarely does one of those calls occur on the last play…

Having an opinion you don't like constitutes bitching? I think you're confused about what bitching is.

Nobody cares about what? Which loss is more devastating to a team's fans?

Who's bitching? Comparing which losses are most devastating to a team's fans.

The hurt their fans felt probably doesn't equal those of Miami fans after the '02 title game. Alabama lost legitimately, and it's not like they were winning at the time of that play. The game was tied and going to OT. Even if they hadn't lost, they had two tough games to go to win the title.

You mean the same Lamar Odom who played with Kobe during his prime?

Shaq was the one riding another player's coattails in 2006. Anyone who says otherwise is either being disingenuous or didn't want basketball that season.

Wade got his team out of the first round his rookie year, when his No. 2 was Lamar Odom, the same No. 2 that Kobe had.

Of course. I'm just saying that the committee has worked out well. The selections have been better than they would have been if determined by the polls.

There's at least a chance. It seems to work for college basketball.

Media and coaches voting was a popularity system that did fail. A committee is likely to be much better. That's why they changed it.

Your're advocating for a system that fails to look at wins/losses and instead looks only at flawed conference title determinations. Why say "bummer" when you can remove the "bummer" by advocating for a much better system, like one that involves a committee examines all factors.

The one with the better division record is not the one who wins the division or has a shot at the conference title. That's the problem with including only conference champions.

Right, Alabama beat UGA to win the conference, but there can be no question that the SEC team with the most impressive season and therefore best argument for inclusion in a playoff was not Alabama.

An example: 2012 SEC

Right, so lets purposely include a team inferior to other teams in its conference because it happened to luckily get an easier draw in its conference schedule. That's so much better than a committee.

Agree except that they're not figuring out who the best teams are, they're figuring out which teams had the best season.

Conference winner longer means what it used to mean. With 14 team conferences, it now often means the team with the easiest conference schedule as opposed to the best team.

Still significantly better than coaches — who are self-interested and who don't pay attention to teams other than their own and their opponents— ranking teams.