Theyre gonna do 4 more prior to Selection Sunday and Id recommend getting in on it

It was a bunch of guys who have sat in on the actual process and I think thats where most of the value was. They were able to tell what the committee has access to, how they bring teams up and then how they determine who is in and who is out. They talked about road wins being bigger for the committee than what most people would think. They talked about recency being big. They talked about paying attention to whats happening within the quadrants. So a win @Clemson as a Q2 would be really big as it hits all 3 buckets.

I dont put as much stock in their comments about VT (or any other team) specifically as theyre not the ones who are making the decisions and many times would contradict themselves. For instance, they brought up UNC (the first bubble team they voted to speak about) and then tore them down as bums who couldnt beat anyone of note. And then they brought up Michigan and talked about their resilience dealing with their schedule...not a single person brought up UNC beat Michigan by 20+ points

Theyre subject to bias, but so is the committee, so what will be the committee's bias? Who knows, but it would be a shame to have a bias against a team with metrics in the top 25 in the country and telling them theyre not one of the best 36 at-large teams.