http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...f-criteria

Quote:While Alvarez said he doesn't place much stock in margin of victory, he does pay close attention to a statistic on relative offensive and defensive performance.

"In other words, let's say a team scores 50 points four games in a row, but the teams they're playing give up an average of 45," Alvarez said. "And then you've got someone who's played a very difficult schedule and they're averaging 21 points a game, but the teams they're playing only give up an average of 10 points. There's a huge difference there.

Quote:Each committee member has been deemed a point person for a conference, and Alvarez was assigned the MAC and Big 12. In order to help with the evaluation process, the committee members have access to coaches' copies of all game tape, which shows every play twice and breaks the plays down by offense, defense and special teams. Committee members were also given iPads, which will have all of the games downloaded, and they have access to condensed versions of televised games that they can watch in an hour.

Quote:"There's so many questions to answer with some of the teams. You haven't seen them play against the competition they play in their conference to really evaluate them. In another five or six weeks, we'll have those answers and be able to compare statistics team by team."

Alvarez also said he pays attention to The Associated Press and USA Today Top 25 polls.

"I look at them, sure," he said. "Are they meaningful? No, but I'm aware."

We get a teasing from the committee chairman as well.

Quote:Committee chairman Jeff Long doesn't maintain a top 25, nor does he pay attention to the polls. He says he's seen games from all 10 conferences and has watched all or part of more than 70 games already.

"I'm simply looking, evaluating and processing," Long said. "I purposely haven't paid a lot of attention to the polls that are out there. I know they're there. You can't watch a game and not know who some of the top people are, where they're ranked, but I'm purposely not looking at a top 25 and have not put a top 25 down at all in my practice."

So there you go folks, a few quotes from the piece. I would suggest reading the rest. That first week of committee rankings is going to be a very crazy time for us.

Well there it is in black and white:

"Each committee member has been deemed a point person for a conference, and Alvarez was assigned the MAC and Big 12."

They assign a Big Ten guy to be a point guy for The Big 12. There goes any chance a less than undefeated Big 12 champ had of making the play-offs. Alvarez assignment: Give us the reasons to keep The Big 12 and MAC out.

This thing is going to boil down to how can we get two SEC teams in the years we don't have two Big Ten teams in. The college playoffs are going to make The BCS look almost charitable.

Might as well bend over if you are a fan of college football outside The SEC or Big Ten.
CJ

(09-27-2014 10:27 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Well there it is in black and white:

"Each committee member has been deemed a point person for a conference, and Alvarez was assigned the MAC and Big 12."

They assign a Big Ten guy to be a point guy for The Big 12. There goes any chance a less than undefeated Big 12 champ had of making the play-offs. Alvarez assignment: Give us the reasons to keep The Big 12 and MAC out.

This thing is going to boil down to how can we get two SEC teams in the years we don't have two Big Ten teams in. The college playoffs are going to make The BCS look almost charitable.

Might as well bend over if you are a fan of college football outside The SEC or Big Ten.
CJ

It might be a little early to make such prognostications. Who is the point person for the SEC? Who is the point person for the Big Ten?

Also, that is pretty insulting to assume that Alvarez would act in such an unprofessional manner. Perhaps you would but Alvarez is highly respected. You really think if the MAC and Big 12 had a problem with him that he would end up as the point person for BOTH of them?

There are 13 committee members and somehow he ends up as point person for two conferences when there are only 10 conferences? Do the math. Perhaps you shouldn't make such negative assumptions. You don't know the guy.

(09-27-2014 10:27 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Well there it is in black and white:

"Each committee member has been deemed a point person for a conference, and Alvarez was assigned the MAC and Big 12."

They assign a Big Ten guy to be a point guy for The Big 12. There goes any chance a less than undefeated Big 12 champ had of making the play-offs. Alvarez assignment: Give us the reasons to keep The Big 12 and MAC out.

This thing is going to boil down to how can we get two SEC teams in the years we don't have two Big Ten teams in. The college playoffs are going to make The BCS look almost charitable.

Might as well bend over if you are a fan of college football outside The SEC or Big Ten.
CJ

Not sure I follow this line of thought. They have point persons for every league that are from outside the league.

I really like how they are providing game film to the committee. These guys aren't watching Sportscentee highlights. They will be more versed than the AP and coaches poll. They will probably see more film than anyone in the country.

(09-27-2014 10:27 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Well there it is in black and white:

"Each committee member has been deemed a point person for a conference, and Alvarez was assigned the MAC and Big 12."

They assign a Big Ten guy to be a point guy for The Big 12. There goes any chance a less than undefeated Big 12 champ had of making the play-offs. Alvarez assignment: Give us the reasons to keep The Big 12 and MAC out.

This thing is going to boil down to how can we get two SEC teams in the years we don't have two Big Ten teams in. The college playoffs are going to make The BCS look almost charitable.

Might as well bend over if you are a fan of college football outside The SEC or Big Ten.
CJ

How exactly is that? Every conference has a point person or two (I think it was two, but don't want to look it up) and none of them are people affiliated with that conference (that's considered a conflict of interest).

Quote:"In other words, let's say a team scores 50 points four games in a row, but the teams they're playing give up an average of 45," Alvarez said. "And then you've got someone who's played a very difficult schedule and they're averaging 21 points a game, but the teams they're playing only give up an average of 10 points. There's a huge difference there.

So now we can assume that if Baylor (one of the teams Barry is "following") scores 50 a game, Barry is going to discount it by saying that they're only playing teams with no defense? Maybe we should just go back to the BCS standings.

At least we know he's not talking about his own team when he says "someone who's played a very difficult schedule".

(09-27-2014 11:15 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

Quote:"In other words, let's say a team scores 50 points four games in a row, but the teams they're playing give up an average of 45," Alvarez said. "And then you've got someone who's played a very difficult schedule and they're averaging 21 points a game, but the teams they're playing only give up an average of 10 points. There's a huge difference there.

So now we can assume that if Baylor (one of the teams Barry is "following") scores 50 a game, Barry is going to discount it by saying that they're only playing teams with no defense? Maybe we should just go back to the BCS standings.

At least we know he's not talking about his own team when he says "someone who's played a very difficult schedule".

That is not what he said, you are attempting to simplify and negatively skew the comment. He is saying that if they score 50 points a game against teams that have 50 points scored against them regularly, then it wont be that big of a deal.

If they score 50 points against a team that usually only has like 17 points scored against them then that is a very big deal.

Nice try Wedge.

(09-27-2014 11:16 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 11:15 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

Quote:"In other words, let's say a team scores 50 points four games in a row, but the teams they're playing give up an average of 45," Alvarez said. "And then you've got someone who's played a very difficult schedule and they're averaging 21 points a game, but the teams they're playing only give up an average of 10 points. There's a huge difference there.

So now we can assume that if Baylor (one of the teams Barry is "following") scores 50 a game, Barry is going to discount it by saying that they're only playing teams with no defense? Maybe we should just go back to the BCS standings.

At least we know he's not talking about his own team when he says "someone who's played a very difficult schedule".

That is not what he said, you are attempting to simplify and negatively skew the comment. He is saying that if they score 50 points a game against teams that have 50 points scored against them regularly, then it wont be that big of a deal.

If they score 50 points against a team that usually only has like 17 points scored against them then that is a very big deal.

Nice try Wedge.

You know that's what he's saying. If Baylor has a bunch of 55-7 Big 12 wins, Barry goes into the committee meeting and says, "Nobody plays defense in that conference," and then he pumps up Ohio State's 21-20 win over Purdue by saying it's so tough to score in that league. Because, as he said, he doesn't place any stock in margin of victory.

Points per play are a lot better stat. If you've got a league with a lot of running teams, their defenses will give up fewer points. If Oregon's coach had Alabama's defense, he would give up a lot more points than Alabama simply because of the number of plays.

(09-27-2014 11:56 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 11:16 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 11:15 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

Quote:"In other words, let's say a team scores 50 points four games in a row, but the teams they're playing give up an average of 45," Alvarez said. "And then you've got someone who's played a very difficult schedule and they're averaging 21 points a game, but the teams they're playing only give up an average of 10 points. There's a huge difference there.

So now we can assume that if Baylor (one of the teams Barry is "following") scores 50 a game, Barry is going to discount it by saying that they're only playing teams with no defense? Maybe we should just go back to the BCS standings.

At least we know he's not talking about his own team when he says "someone who's played a very difficult schedule".

That is not what he said, you are attempting to simplify and negatively skew the comment. He is saying that if they score 50 points a game against teams that have 50 points scored against them regularly, then it wont be that big of a deal.

If they score 50 points against a team that usually only has like 17 points scored against them then that is a very big deal.

Nice try Wedge.

You know that's what he's saying. If Baylor has a bunch of 55-7 Big 12 wins, Barry goes into the committee meeting and says, "Nobody plays defense in that conference," and then he pumps up Ohio State's 21-20 win over Purdue by saying it's so tough to score in that league. Because, as he said, he doesn't place any stock in margin of victory.

I don't know that is what he is saying? Do you know what you are saying is true? Best case scenario with what you are putting forward and now with your response is that you are a hypocrite in this Wedge.

Your assumption is that he is automatically going to act in corrupt manner instead of reading his statement that whom you score a lot of points against matters more than simply scoring a lot of points.

You want to assume he is going to negatively hinder Baylor. Nice try. What he said is that....

Quote:"In other words, let's say a team scores 50 points four games in a row, but the teams they're playing give up an average of 45," Alvarez said. "And then you've got someone who's played a very difficult schedule and they're averaging 21 points a game, but the teams they're playing only give up an average of 10 points. There's a huge difference there.

The 50 point statement is about scoring 50 points against teams that have an average of 45 points scored against them. That is only beating the norm by 5 points.

The other example is about averaging 21 points a game against opponents with a combined average of 10 points scored against them. That is a difference of 11 points.

If you cant do simple math Wedge, that is not my fault but don't call me a liar. Just admit that you cant f'n add and subtract single digit numbers.

So yes, I know what the hell I am saying because I know the difference between 5 and 11. Do you?

(09-27-2014 11:56 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 11:16 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 11:15 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

Quote:"In other words, let's say a team scores 50 points four games in a row, but the teams they're playing give up an average of 45," Alvarez said. "And then you've got someone who's played a very difficult schedule and they're averaging 21 points a game, but the teams they're playing only give up an average of 10 points. There's a huge difference there.

So now we can assume that if Baylor (one of the teams Barry is "following") scores 50 a game, Barry is going to discount it by saying that they're only playing teams with no defense? Maybe we should just go back to the BCS standings.

At least we know he's not talking about his own team when he says "someone who's played a very difficult schedule".

That is not what he said, you are attempting to simplify and negatively skew the comment. He is saying that if they score 50 points a game against teams that have 50 points scored against them regularly, then it wont be that big of a deal.

If they score 50 points against a team that usually only has like 17 points scored against them then that is a very big deal.

Nice try Wedge.

You know that's what he's saying. If Baylor has a bunch of 55-7 Big 12 wins, Barry goes into the committee meeting and says, "Nobody plays defense in that conference," and then he pumps up Ohio State's 21-20 win over Purdue by saying it's so tough to score in that league. Because, as he said, he doesn't place any stock in margin of victory.

I don't buy that for one second. These people want to be known for being as impartial as possible. Yes they will have biases that come through and yes they'll sometimes be wrong, but none of them want to be know as the member that pumps his own conference. Also it's important to note, there is one representative from each of the power 5 conferences and none of them are covering their own conference.

(09-27-2014 12:32 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 11:56 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 11:16 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 11:15 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

Quote:"In other words, let's say a team scores 50 points four games in a row, but the teams they're playing give up an average of 45," Alvarez said. "And then you've got someone who's played a very difficult schedule and they're averaging 21 points a game, but the teams they're playing only give up an average of 10 points. There's a huge difference there.

So now we can assume that if Baylor (one of the teams Barry is "following") scores 50 a game, Barry is going to discount it by saying that they're only playing teams with no defense? Maybe we should just go back to the BCS standings.

At least we know he's not talking about his own team when he says "someone who's played a very difficult schedule".

That is not what he said, you are attempting to simplify and negatively skew the comment. He is saying that if they score 50 points a game against teams that have 50 points scored against them regularly, then it wont be that big of a deal.

If they score 50 points against a team that usually only has like 17 points scored against them then that is a very big deal.

Nice try Wedge.

You know that's what he's saying. If Baylor has a bunch of 55-7 Big 12 wins, Barry goes into the committee meeting and says, "Nobody plays defense in that conference," and then he pumps up Ohio State's 21-20 win over Purdue by saying it's so tough to score in that league. Because, as he said, he doesn't place any stock in margin of victory.

I don't buy that for one second. These people want to be known for being as impartial as possible. Yes they will have biases that come through and yes they'll sometimes be wrong, but none of them want to be know as the member that pumps his own conference. Also it's important to note, there is one representative from each of the power 5 conferences and none of them are covering their own conference.

Totally agree. The committee will be above the fray.

(09-27-2014 12:32 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  These people want to be known for being as impartial as possible.

Pffft. Look at some of these committee members. Tom Osborne, for example, is on the committee. When he had a vote in the coaches' poll, he wanted to bury a coach he hated (Bill McCartney) so badly that he dropped Colorado down to 10th on his final coaches' poll ballot (they finished #1 in the AP poll) and got them dropped to #2 in the final coaches' poll. Go ahead, try to tell us that guys like that won't bring that same baggage to the playoff committee.

(09-27-2014 04:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 12:32 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  These people want to be known for being as impartial as possible.

Pffft. Look at some of these committee members. Tom Osborne, for example, is on the committee. When he had a vote in the coaches' poll, he wanted to bury a coach he hated (Bill McCartney) so badly that he dropped Colorado down to 10th on his final coaches' poll ballot (they finished #1 in the AP poll) and got them dropped to #2 in the final coaches' poll. Go ahead, try to tell us that guys like that won't bring that same baggage to the playoff committee.

Osborne was a really bad choice. But all of these guys will have to justify their votes face to face with other people. That will moderate some of the bad behavior.

(09-27-2014 04:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 04:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 12:32 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  These people want to be known for being as impartial as possible.

Pffft. Look at some of these committee members. Tom Osborne, for example, is on the committee. When he had a vote in the coaches' poll, he wanted to bury a coach he hated (Bill McCartney) so badly that he dropped Colorado down to 10th on his final coaches' poll ballot (they finished #1 in the AP poll) and got them dropped to #2 in the final coaches' poll. Go ahead, try to tell us that guys like that won't bring that same baggage to the playoff committee.

Osborne was a really bad choice. But all of these guys will have to justify their votes face to face with other people. That will moderate some of the bad behavior.

Or make it worse, as the committee descends behind-closed-doors into a complete and total shouting match.

(09-27-2014 04:59 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 04:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 04:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 12:32 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  These people want to be known for being as impartial as possible.

Pffft. Look at some of these committee members. Tom Osborne, for example, is on the committee. When he had a vote in the coaches' poll, he wanted to bury a coach he hated (Bill McCartney) so badly that he dropped Colorado down to 10th on his final coaches' poll ballot (they finished #1 in the AP poll) and got them dropped to #2 in the final coaches' poll. Go ahead, try to tell us that guys like that won't bring that same baggage to the playoff committee.

Osborne was a really bad choice. But all of these guys will have to justify their votes face to face with other people. That will moderate some of the bad behavior.

Or make it worse, as the committee descends behind-closed-doors into a complete and total shouting match.

That has never happened with the basketball committee. They know they are under the microscope. The 4/5 decision will be controversial some years, but it won't be adversarial.

(09-27-2014 06:05 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 04:59 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 04:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 04:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 12:32 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  These people want to be known for being as impartial as possible.

Pffft. Look at some of these committee members. Tom Osborne, for example, is on the committee. When he had a vote in the coaches' poll, he wanted to bury a coach he hated (Bill McCartney) so badly that he dropped Colorado down to 10th on his final coaches' poll ballot (they finished #1 in the AP poll) and got them dropped to #2 in the final coaches' poll. Go ahead, try to tell us that guys like that won't bring that same baggage to the playoff committee.

Osborne was a really bad choice. But all of these guys will have to justify their votes face to face with other people. That will moderate some of the bad behavior.

Or make it worse, as the committee descends behind-closed-doors into a complete and total shouting match.

That has never happened with the basketball committee. They know they are under the microscope. The 4/5 decision will be controversial some years, but it won't be adversarial.

I don't know if it's likely, but you have some bigger egos in the room-----Scratch that. I thought there were more ex-head football coaches on the committee than there are, people who had succeeded based on a my-way-or-the-highway approach that doesn't work well in committees.

Withdrawn.

(09-27-2014 04:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 04:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 12:32 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  These people want to be known for being as impartial as possible.

Pffft. Look at some of these committee members. Tom Osborne, for example, is on the committee. When he had a vote in the coaches' poll, he wanted to bury a coach he hated (Bill McCartney) so badly that he dropped Colorado down to 10th on his final coaches' poll ballot (they finished #1 in the AP poll) and got them dropped to #2 in the final coaches' poll. Go ahead, try to tell us that guys like that won't bring that same baggage to the playoff committee.

Osborne was a really bad choice. But all of these guys will have to justify their votes face to face with other people. That will moderate some of the bad behavior.

I'm not sure Pat Haden was a good choice either. Coming down out of the press box to complain about the officiating isn't how a committee member is supposed to act. He's already been reprimanded by the other committee members for that, and they haven't even put out their first poll yet.

These are the folks on point:

Chair: Jeff Long - Arkansas AD, Ohio native,
Barry Alvarez - Pennsylvania native, Nebraska grad, Wisconsin football / AD
Lt. Gen. Michael Gould - Air Force Academy
Pat Haden - Director of athletics at USC, /color commentator for Notre Dame football.
Tom Jernstedt - An Oregon native and former University of Oregon athlete
Oliver Luck - Director of athletics at West Virginia, Ohio native
Archie Manning - From Drew, Miss., SEC legend
Tom Osborne - Former Nebraska Coach / AD
Dan Radakovich - Clemson AD / Pennsylvania native
Condoleezza Rice - Alabama native, Notre Dame / Stanford grad
Mike Tranghese - Former commissioner of defunct league
Steve Wieberg - Missouri resident
Tyrone Willingham - Former Stanford / Notre Dame coach, Mich State grad

Nothing about the members of that committee looks impartial to me. Looks to be heavy with those with Big Ten and SEC ties.
CJ