fault them for crafting a narrative that supports their decision, everybody would. Likewise, when there are multiple criteria available it does afford the opportunity to pick or choose. Where we differ is on the consistency of ranking criteria. Nobody says it is necessarily easy but, consistency in criteria from year to year would seem to be important, at least in my opinion.

If scheduling tougher is a primary criteria one year you do not dismiss it in another year. It is akin to trying to grab a formless shape(water, e.g.). My argument in the past is the committee one year says these are the important criteria, schools adjust scheduling to meet those criteria and the next year it is something different. Do not tell me one year to schedule tougher(i.e., weak SOS with a lot of wins) and then the next year tell me it is more about record alone than a combination of record and SOS. The process is not as bad now as it used to be with the NET and clearly defined quadrants to rank wins and losses. The biggest thing with NET, in my opinion, is you can beat a team early in the season, fully healthy and loaded which might qualify as a QUAD 1 and subsequent personnel changes (injury, dismissal, etc.) cause poor results and that QUAD 1 subsequently becomes something much lower. That is just the way it is because no system is foolproof.