If you pay attention to college football (doesn’t everyone?), you know that the University of Alabama was awarded the fourth and final seed for the national championship along with the University of Michigan, the University of Washington, and the University of Texas.  Both Texas and Alabama had one regular season loss (Alabama lost to Texas) while both Michigan and Washington were undefeated.  All four schools won their respective conference championship.  The first team out, Florida State University, finished its season undefeated and beat Louisville to win its conference championship, but did not receive a bid for the national championship because the selection committee felt its overall performance was inferior to the those of the two one-loss teams.

This situation has created a controversy among fans of college football.  Basically, there were five (well, six) well-deserving teams and only four spots.  Someone was going to be left out, and fans were going to be upset.  Full disclosure:  I am a long-time Alabama fan and quite happy with these results, but I am not surprised at the reaction.

Even if you do not care at all about college football (I can help you with this, if interested) this offers a lesson in how we often make judgements about things when we disagree.  The selection committee has been accused of favoring Alabama’s football conference at the expense of the other conference.  The committee has been accused of disrespecting the work of the undefeated team.  Since this is sports, many believe financial considerations come into play because of the lucrative television contracts, the large fan bases, and the economic impact of national championships.

If we take the committee at their word, they made a difficult decision and used a set of criteria about which they had consensus.  Not everyone in the room agreed with the outcome, but they agreed to support the outcome.  Often this is how juries arrive at unanimous verdicts, how boards make difficult decisions, and how legislators compromise to pass laws.  Even church communities like ours must make decisions on consensus even though some members will disagree, perhaps strongly, with those decisions.  We all benefit if we give some deference or allowance to a decision-making process rather than asserting it is the product of dishonesty or corrupt influence.  In other words, less cynicism, and more faith. 

Can’t hurt, but in the meantime… Roll Tide Roll!

                         Father Gary