Let me get this straight...
Alabama is somehow gaming the system by chosing not to play ‘powder puff’ teams at the beginning of the season, but rather matching up against a #8 non-conference opponent for their opening game?
And somehow the timing of now playing an unranked non-conf opponent affects the ‘voting’...whilst we are really looking at a ranking weighted heavily with a computer score?
I hope you can understand the strategy of teams like Alabama. They think they can win the big games....so, they schedule Big Games early! Those early victories are what boosts them in the computer score so early. The ease of late season victories over the ‘poweder puffs’ is not helpful to them...it erodes their strength of schedule. But, it offers them some rest and recovery time, before their rivalry game vs Auburn...and post season play if they are so lucky.
Alabama has beat 2 to ten teams this year. If they want to win all the marbles, they will likely have to get past 2 more...their path to a championship will have taken them through 4 top ten wins.
Some programs take decades to accumulate 4 top ten wins. Kansas State, for example would have to accumulate all of its wins from 2003-2012, in order to add up 4 top ten wins. And every one of those was in conference...they rarely venture out and play ‘non powder puff’ non-conf opponents.
I’m an Alabama fan...and I know we don’t completely control our own destiny...because we have a loss. Right now, everybody but Notre Dame fans should have a similar attitude - no bellyaching or complaints about rankings. If you want to control your destiny, just win. Otherwise, just watch.
For some strange reason, the human voters rate more recent losses as much more important than older losses. Case in point is Oregon vs Alabama. Both teams have one loss against very strong opponents, but since Oregon lost more recently, they are placed well below Alabama. Last week, right after Alabama lost, they were put into 5th. It make no sense at all.
So, yes, given this system, the SEC scheduling of weak non-conference opponents very late in the season could be looked at as “gaming” the human BCS voters.