I still can't believe that you are having such a hard time grasping this concept. The winner isn't always the best team.
Perfect example and I will use a game that means something to you.
PUNT BAMA PUNT. If anyone believes that Auburn was better than Bama that day they are fooling themselves. Two great freak plays saved the day for Auburn. Bama had been punching them in the mouth all day. Sometimes, a team gets lucky and catches a few breaks. It happens.
And I say LSU caught a huge break on the pass takeaway. Bama would most likely have scored a TD and won the game. But, that is just the breaks.
Interesting, but you will need to add a significant amount of games that are won by a last second field goal or touchdown, or any special teams play like blocked punts, field goals, punts or kickoffs returned for touchdowns, pick sixes, picked up fumbles returned for touchdowns, interceptions preventing touchdowns, ill timed penalties, etc. I would almost say that all wins occur because one team exploited the other teams weaknesses be it for the whole game or for certain specific plays, so to say that the best team did not win may be an inaccurate description.
An example, team A racks up 5oo yards in total offense and has the ball for 45 minutes of the game. Team B has 100 yards of total offense and the ball 15 minutes of the game, team B wins the game 42-0. Who was the better team? Team A fumbled the ball 4 times inside their own 20, team B recovers and scores each time. Team A runs the ball or uses short passes to march down the field 6 times, but can not score because they can't get the crucial first down, try a field goal on one occassion and it gets blocked and Team B returns it for a touchdown. It's getting late in the game and Team A starts off looking like they may actually get down the field and score because team B is in "prevent" defense. Team A throws a pass into the flats and Team B gets it for a pick six and wins the game 42-0. Who was the better team the one that could march up and down the field but not score or the one that exploited the other teams weaknesses and put points on the board and did not need to have whole field drives to win?
In other words the better team is determined on the field not by talking heads or computer models, because as we all know if you listen to the garbage coming out of the gubment you can make the number say anything to support your case. Until there is a head to head competition and subjectivity taken out of College football, we will never know who the best team is in my opinion.
