+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: The committee sucks (/thread-715017.html)
The committee sucks - EvilVodka - 11-25-2014 07:55 PM
Sorry, but it's the truth...I beg someone to tell me how these geniuses are any better than any other poll. Hell, the Coaches poll might be better. At least they're supposed to know football....
The committee is a fail IMO
Why not just use the BCS poll again to determine the top 4?
Better yet, let's just go ahead and go to 8
Top 5 Conference Champs
Top 3 At-Large
RE: The committee sucks - Dasville - 11-25-2014 07:58 PM
Jeff Long openly said there were at least two different camps on the committe, each with their own agendas
RE: The committee sucks - Wedge - 11-25-2014 07:59 PM
Bias of the committee versus bias of AP poll voters:
When you have only 12 voters instead of 60, the bias of each individual voter skews the poll 5 times as much.
RE: The committee sucks - Dasville - 11-25-2014 08:02 PM
(11-25-2014 07:59 PM)Wedge Wrote: Bias of the committee versus bias of AP poll voters:
When you have only 12 voters instead of 60, the bias of each individual voter screws the poll 5 times as much.
FIFY
RE: The committee sucks - EvilVodka - 11-25-2014 08:09 PM
(11-25-2014 07:59 PM)Wedge Wrote: Bias of the committee versus bias of AP poll voters:
When you have only 12 voters instead of 60, the bias of each individual voter skews the poll 5 times as much.
Great point
The problem with the BCS was there was only two slots. The BCS poll itself was a combo of human and computer rankings. It was actually a decent average of rankings...
Now we've got 12 idiots
RE: The committee sucks - Hokie Mark - 11-25-2014 08:31 PM
(11-25-2014 08:09 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:(11-25-2014 07:59 PM)Wedge Wrote: Bias of the committee versus bias of AP poll voters:
When you have only 12 voters instead of 60, the bias of each individual voter skews the poll 5 times as much.
Great point
The problem with the BCS was there was only two slots. The BCS poll itself was a combo of human and computer rankings. It was actually a decent average of rankings...
Now we've got 12 idiots
![[Image: monklogo.gif]](http://www.smart.co.uk/dreams/monklogo.gif)
![[Image: 12angrymen.gif]](http://namtab.com/robkelly/12angrymen.gif)
RE: The committee sucks - RUScarlets - 11-25-2014 08:55 PM
Long looked a little flustered on the CFP show interview with Ike Reese today. I can't imagine what he's going to be in for later on. Clearly this thing is going to have to be reworked and they need more transparency. I thought the guys on the show did a good job breaking it down. I thought Herbstreit was fair about OSU. They need Wisconsin in that Championship and they need some big margins of victory these next couple of weeks.
RE: The committee sucks - bullitt_60 - 11-25-2014 08:56 PM
Can someone plug the computer back in?
RE: The committee sucks - Frog in the Kitchen Sink - 11-25-2014 09:10 PM
I think you guys are way off. These guys actually consider the data, watch condensed game film without eSPN bias, and have to defend their positions to each other. They can take into account teams that struggle but still win, teams that luck into wins, key injuries that impact. They have shown an ability to go a different direction from the polls, eschewing convention (like always keeping a team #1 until they lose), and looking at the big picture. It's a huge improvement. There is definitely room for improvement (perhaps a bigger committee to give more perspectives, more clear and explicit criteria, so that it seems less random to outsiders. But I really like this system (despite the fact TCU seems to have been on the short end of the stick).
RE: The committee sucks - bullet - 11-25-2014 09:11 PM
(11-25-2014 07:58 PM)Dasville Wrote: Jeff Long openly said there were at least two different camps on the committe, each with their own agendas
The SEC and the Big 10 groups?
RE: The committee sucks - bullet - 11-25-2014 09:12 PM
(11-25-2014 07:59 PM)Wedge Wrote: Bias of the committee versus bias of AP poll voters:
When you have only 12 voters instead of 60, the bias of each individual voter skews the poll 5 times as much.
The difference is that they have to defend it in front of 11 others instead of just sending in an anonymous ballot.
RE: The committee sucks - bullet - 11-25-2014 09:13 PM
(11-25-2014 09:11 PM)bullet Wrote:(11-25-2014 07:58 PM)Dasville Wrote: Jeff Long openly said there were at least two different camps on the committe, each with their own agendas
The SEC and the Big 10 groups?
Actually, its probably the "eyeball" group and the group that actually looks at who won, who lost and who they played.
RE: The committee sucks - bullet - 11-25-2014 09:15 PM
(11-25-2014 08:55 PM)RUScarlets Wrote: Long looked a little flustered on the CFP show interview with Ike Reese today. I can't imagine what he's going to be in for later on. Clearly this thing is going to have to be reworked and they need more transparency. I thought the guys on the show did a good job breaking it down. I thought Herbstreit was fair about OSU. They need Wisconsin in that Championship and they need some big margins of victory these next couple of weeks.
The first thing they need to do is start 2 weeks later to limit people getting set in their position before many key games are played.
RE: The committee sucks - bullet - 11-25-2014 09:15 PM
(11-25-2014 09:10 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote: I think you guys are way off. These guys actually consider the data, watch condensed game film without eSPN bias, and have to defend their positions to each other. They can take into account teams that struggle but still win, teams that luck into wins, key injuries that impact. They have shown an ability to go a different direction from the polls, eschewing convention (like always keeping a team #1 until they lose), and looking at the big picture. It's a huge improvement. There is definitely room for improvement (perhaps a bigger committee to give more perspectives, more clear and explicit criteria, so that it seems less random to outsiders. But I really like this system (despite the fact TCU seems to have been on the short end of the stick).
++ to this.
RE: The committee sucks - ken d - 11-25-2014 09:44 PM
(11-25-2014 08:55 PM)RUScarlets Wrote: Long looked a little flustered on the CFP show interview with Ike Reese today. I can't imagine what he's going to be in for later on. Clearly this thing is going to have to be reworked and they need more transparency. I thought the guys on the show did a good job breaking it down. I thought Herbstreit was fair about OSU. They need Wisconsin in that Championship and they need some big margins of victory these next couple of weeks.
I couldn't find the CFP show on TV. Did they change the time?
RE: The committee sucks - ken d - 11-25-2014 09:54 PM
(11-25-2014 07:55 PM)EvilVodka Wrote: Sorry, but it's the truth...I beg someone to tell me how these geniuses are any better than any other poll. Hell, the Coaches poll might be better. At least they're supposed to know football....
The committee is a fail IMO
Why not just use the BCS poll again to determine the top 4?
Better yet, let's just go ahead and go to 8
Top 5 Conference Champs
Top 3 At-Large
Maybe if the coaches who have a vote actually cast their vote themselves, and did so after actually watching somebody besides their own team play. But neither of those things are true. At least the AP voters watch some games themselves. That being said, the AP poll is fatally flawed, as is every other poll, including the one conducted by the CFP selection committee.
We still have a beauty contest to pick our champions. Just like always.
RE: The committee sucks - Wedge - 11-25-2014 09:57 PM
(11-25-2014 09:11 PM)bullet Wrote:(11-25-2014 07:58 PM)Dasville Wrote: Jeff Long openly said there were at least two different camps on the committe, each with their own agendas
The SEC and the Big 10 groups?
The camp that wants 3 SEC teams in the playoff and the camp that only wants 2.
RE: The committee sucks - EvilVodka - 11-25-2014 10:44 PM
It's not a good system...Jeff Long looked on guard and defensive this week....instead of his usual smile.
On paper somewhere, this was a good idea...but the BCS rankings were never the real problem with the old system, it was that there were only two slots.
With four slots, the problem has been magnified...the committee looks very whimsical in its approach. Game control, and other random measuring sticks...
Frankly, what qualifies these guys more than the AP?? At least with the AP and Coaches polls, there is a bigger sampling size
I suppose this bodes well for an 8 team playoff, because I think they would go forward with that before they admit the committee was a bad idea.
I give it three years.....one cycle of the semifinal games through the setup of 6 major bowls. then we'll have an 8 team playoff
RE: The committee sucks - RUScarlets - 11-25-2014 10:50 PM
ESPN wants the 8 teams. The Presidents and Bowl people want to preserve their baby. So they need to find that happy medium. Obviously doing a round 1 before the bowls is going to cheapen the non-playoff bowl games even more. Doing it after reduces the Bowls to QF's and adds another travel weekend. These are major obstacles to the sponsors and Presidents that will not be resolved anytime soon.
We are going to be stuck with system for some time. Don't bank on them tearing it up every 4 years. They will tweak things in the selection process to lessen ambiguity, but there is only so much you can do when debating the difference between 4/5. Or 4-8 like this year.
RE: The committee sucks - Wedge - 11-25-2014 10:55 PM
(11-25-2014 10:44 PM)EvilVodka Wrote: On paper somewhere, this was a good idea...
Somebody sold the P5 commissioners on the committee idea. But whatever they were thinking then, it's apparent now that a committee is going to look even more shaky than the BCS system when it comes to trying to decide which one-loss teams are in and which are out.
Essentially, they are crossing their fingers and hoping that the games shake out so that there are only three one-loss teams left plus undefeated FSU, and then they can congratulate themselves and blab about how well their process worked.