(10-09-2014 10:42 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  It is not a new system. You are using a poll to decide, Which is no different than before. The people who cling to the "new system" part, are almost always those who felt wrong by the old system, for better or for worse. The change in the BCS system after 2005 (when SOS was de-emphasized after being the most important factor) was a bigger change to the system than the new system here, with the exception of choosing four teams instead of two (which is not a change to "how" teams are selected). It is frankly no different than when the Harris Poll replaced the AP poll in the BCS system. That is the part people are not getting.

The system is not new. The only "new" part, is that because it is now important who gets spots three and four, whereas that was not important before, it could change those votes (teams that used to get a fourth place vote, like an undefeated Boise or something, may not get it now because of how it affects the playoffs). But that is not about the new system to assign teams.

So yes, the name is different, but Einstein's quote is very relevant here.

So, how are the other polls tabulated? Who votes weekly? Have each of those voters watched every game of the teams in contention? Is there anything new about these voters comparatively to past voters? Is the criteria the same?

I guess we will just agree to disagree. I am not feeling slighted. I am being honest and saying I don't know. If you are absolutely certain you do, congratulations.

(10-09-2014 10:46 AM)WEARE Wrote:  So, how are the other polls tabulated? Who votes weekly? Have each of those voters watched every game of the teams in contention? Is there anything new about these voters comparatively to past voters? Is the criteria the same?

For starters, a majority of those on the committee used to be voters in one of the other polls. Also you are making assumptions on how much homework they are doing. You are being extremely optimistic, if not naïve.

(10-09-2014 11:04 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 10:46 AM)WEARE Wrote:  So, how are the other polls tabulated? Who votes weekly? Have each of those voters watched every game of the teams in contention? Is there anything new about these voters comparatively to past voters? Is the criteria the same?

For starters, a majority of those on the committee used to be voters in one of the other polls. Also you are making assumptions on how much homework they are doing. You are being extremely optimistic, if not naïve.

Possibly, but it is not what has been stated. Each member has said they will watch the games of the teams in contention. They have been provided iPads loaded with the coaches version of the games (commercials and other irrelevant material removed). I may be naive for believing they will do what has been said; I may not. Once again, it's an unknown.

(10-09-2014 11:04 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 10:46 AM)WEARE Wrote:  So, how are the other polls tabulated? Who votes weekly? Have each of those voters watched every game of the teams in contention? Is there anything new about these voters comparatively to past voters? Is the criteria the same?

For starters, a majority of those on the committee used to be voters in one of the other polls. Also you are making assumptions on how much homework they are doing. You are being extremely optimistic, if not naïve.

What you are missing is that the CFP poll isn't a bubble poll like the Coaches where they just move everyone up one slot if they win.

The CFP poll is a deliberate ranking every week of where they think schools belong. There will be a lot of correlation with the top of the media polls but the bottom half is going to look a lot different and Marshall/ECU reside in the bottom half of the polls.

If Marshall clearly grades out better they aren't going to place them behind ECU because they may still be a couple of spots behind them in the media polls when 3 weeks roll around.

(10-09-2014 10:40 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 10:30 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 09:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 09:13 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  To answer your questions:

1) No Pirate fan has ticked me off. I do think some of the Pirate responses unified over getting the Access Bowl over Marshall has to do with the fact that Marshall is a rival of ECU. Marshall is also a rival of Ohio and Ohio has played both Marshall and ECU in the last 7 football games dating back to last year so obviously I would have some interest in the debate.

2) The Marshall-ECU debate is a platform for talking about how the CFP committee will be selecting teams. I have been reading statements in the media the past year and the selection process isn't based at all around the polls. The comments X, Y, Z is ranked higher in the polls is NOT a factor.

Further I have been following CFB a long, long time and I have seen many years where an undefeated school gets off to a slow start in the polls the first half of the season only to gather steam toward the end as it wraps up its undefeated season.

I have also seen ECU pull off a nice P5 win because they play 3 or 4 of them every year only to come up with a couple of losses in conference play. I'm not sure if ECU will sustain its momentum. Its a way premature celebration by ECU fans to think its a done deal they are in a CFP bowl.

3) As Condi has indicated its very difficult to compare teams because not many of them play each other. The SOS arguements thrown about between Marshall and ECU are pretty theoretical and 6 games through the season are subject to multiple revisions before the season is out anyways.

4) Most fans on here don't understand how placement for Access Bowls work. They know the Top rated G5 champion gets that autobid and that is about it. They don't also know the CFP has to rank and place 12 schools and there is room for an additional G5 champ if the conditions warrant it.

The number of losses a school has is important. My research has shown that over the last 8 years there has been at least 1 G5 champ with 1 loss or fewer and about the same amount with 2 losses. There is no way your getting into a CFP bowl with more than 2 losses and even then you'll need a conference championship and most likely a quality win.

That is why I'm trying to explain that ECU's 1 loss is a bigger issue for them than Marshall's weak non-conference schedule. Marshall's schedule would be an issue if they were being compared to another undefeated team for an autobid but they are not. Further, ECU's margin of error is slimmer and they have no championship game so they max out with an 11-1 record. Marshall can go 13-0 and from the looks of their MOV they are cruising toward that.

The primary factor in the autobid is not going to be polls or SOS its going to be record. SOS and quality wins only come into play when two schools are tied in record then the school with the quality win should get the nod.

I don't recall reading that anywhere. Is that something that the selection committee has said, or something pronounced in the blogosphere? Could you please cite a reference?

[b]Its right on the CFP website the emphasis on conference championships and Win/Loss records...[/b]

Quote:Selection Committee members will have a wealth of information including review of video, statistics and their own expertise to guide them in their deliberations. They will emphasize obvious factors like win-loss records, strength of schedule, conference championships won, head-to-head results and results against common opponents.

Marshall didn't play ECU Head-to-Head nor are the common opponents so that factor isn't relevant. Video and statistics favor Marshall because they've been bone crushing teams. Marshall has more going for it than ECU overall.

Quote:The committee will rank the top 25 teams in the country and assign teams to the semifinals and to the Cotton, Fiesta and Peach Bowls in years when they are not hosting semifinal games. The full voting protocol is attached to this release, but in summary the committee will identify small groups of teams that will then be evaluated against each other in a detailed and deliberative manner. The committee will then vote the teams into the rankings in a combined selection-and-seeding process.

Its not an open market place for the Fiesta, Cotton and Peach where after the G5 autobid the schools that sell the most tickets get in. If Marshall and ECU both finish in the Top 10-12 of these rankings expect to see them both in Access bowls.

http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/ab...e-rankings

No, it isn't on the CFP website. What they said, and what you quoted, is clearly not what you said. What you said is simply your opinion - nothing more, nothing less. There's nothing wrong with giving your opinion, either about what you believe will happen or what you believe should happen, but you don't speak for the committee.

Whatever criteria the committee uses, and those they say they used (not necessarily the same thing) will not bind them to use those same criteria in the future.

Again here is what they are saying:

Win/Loss Records
Conference Championships
Head-2-Head
Common Opponents
Strength of Schedule
Statistics
Video Performance

Marshall has the edge in all the criteria ACCEPT a marginally better SOS by ECU. ECU does not have a Top 40 SOS or a Top 60 SOS. It has a Top 115 SOS. SOS is just not enough of a factor in their favor if Marshall goes 13-0 and ECU 11-1.

SOS is only significant when all factors are considered equal and one school has played a Top 40 schedule with the other schedule Top 120. That is the way its always been if you look at the past of the BCS polls when there is a significant difference it does have a factor.

And Barry Alvarez is watching the MAC and NIU...so?

Though its a bit more interesting since our new AD just came from Wisconsin.

(10-09-2014 11:33 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 10:40 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 10:30 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 09:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 09:13 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  To answer your questions:

1) No Pirate fan has ticked me off. I do think some of the Pirate responses unified over getting the Access Bowl over Marshall has to do with the fact that Marshall is a rival of ECU. Marshall is also a rival of Ohio and Ohio has played both Marshall and ECU in the last 7 football games dating back to last year so obviously I would have some interest in the debate.

2) The Marshall-ECU debate is a platform for talking about how the CFP committee will be selecting teams. I have been reading statements in the media the past year and the selection process isn't based at all around the polls. The comments X, Y, Z is ranked higher in the polls is NOT a factor.

Further I have been following CFB a long, long time and I have seen many years where an undefeated school gets off to a slow start in the polls the first half of the season only to gather steam toward the end as it wraps up its undefeated season.

I have also seen ECU pull off a nice P5 win because they play 3 or 4 of them every year only to come up with a couple of losses in conference play. I'm not sure if ECU will sustain its momentum. Its a way premature celebration by ECU fans to think its a done deal they are in a CFP bowl.

3) As Condi has indicated its very difficult to compare teams because not many of them play each other. The SOS arguements thrown about between Marshall and ECU are pretty theoretical and 6 games through the season are subject to multiple revisions before the season is out anyways.

4) Most fans on here don't understand how placement for Access Bowls work. They know the Top rated G5 champion gets that autobid and that is about it. They don't also know the CFP has to rank and place 12 schools and there is room for an additional G5 champ if the conditions warrant it.

The number of losses a school has is important. My research has shown that over the last 8 years there has been at least 1 G5 champ with 1 loss or fewer and about the same amount with 2 losses. There is no way your getting into a CFP bowl with more than 2 losses and even then you'll need a conference championship and most likely a quality win.

That is why I'm trying to explain that ECU's 1 loss is a bigger issue for them than Marshall's weak non-conference schedule. Marshall's schedule would be an issue if they were being compared to another undefeated team for an autobid but they are not. Further, ECU's margin of error is slimmer and they have no championship game so they max out with an 11-1 record. Marshall can go 13-0 and from the looks of their MOV they are cruising toward that.

The primary factor in the autobid is not going to be polls or SOS its going to be record. SOS and quality wins only come into play when two schools are tied in record then the school with the quality win should get the nod.

I don't recall reading that anywhere. Is that something that the selection committee has said, or something pronounced in the blogosphere? Could you please cite a reference?

[b]Its right on the CFP website the emphasis on conference championships and Win/Loss records...[/b]

Quote:Selection Committee members will have a wealth of information including review of video, statistics and their own expertise to guide them in their deliberations. They will emphasize obvious factors like win-loss records, strength of schedule, conference championships won, head-to-head results and results against common opponents.

Marshall didn't play ECU Head-to-Head nor are the common opponents so that factor isn't relevant. Video and statistics favor Marshall because they've been bone crushing teams. Marshall has more going for it than ECU overall.

Quote:The committee will rank the top 25 teams in the country and assign teams to the semifinals and to the Cotton, Fiesta and Peach Bowls in years when they are not hosting semifinal games. The full voting protocol is attached to this release, but in summary the committee will identify small groups of teams that will then be evaluated against each other in a detailed and deliberative manner. The committee will then vote the teams into the rankings in a combined selection-and-seeding process.

Its not an open market place for the Fiesta, Cotton and Peach where after the G5 autobid the schools that sell the most tickets get in. If Marshall and ECU both finish in the Top 10-12 of these rankings expect to see them both in Access bowls.

http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/ab...e-rankings

No, it isn't on the CFP website. What they said, and what you quoted, is clearly not what you said. What you said is simply your opinion - nothing more, nothing less. There's nothing wrong with giving your opinion, either about what you believe will happen or what you believe should happen, but you don't speak for the committee.

Whatever criteria the committee uses, and those they say they used (not necessarily the same thing) will not bind them to use those same criteria in the future.

Again here is what they are saying:

Win/Loss Records
Conference Championships
Head-2-Head
Common Opponents
Strength of Schedule
Statistics
Video Performance

Marshall has the edge in all the criteria ACCEPT a marginally better SOS by ECU. ECU does not have a Top 40 SOS or a Top 60 SOS. It has a Top 115 SOS. SOS is just not enough of a factor in their favor if Marshall goes 13-0 and ECU 11-1.

SOS is only significant when all factors are considered equal and one school has played a Top 40 schedule with the other schedule Top 120. That is the way its always been if you look at the past of the BCS polls when there is a significant difference it does have a factor.

I know exactly what they are saying. I can read it. It's right there in black and white. The committee is not saying what you are saying. All the rest of your comment is just your personal speculation. You seem to have listed the bolded criteria in the order you think they belong. The committee has made clear all along that there is no specific hierarchy of criteria. You are inferring something which nobody has implied, especially not the selection committee.

(10-09-2014 09:18 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 08:41 AM)WEARE Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 07:32 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 09:40 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Rice on East Carolina's chances of staying ahead of Marshall for the Access Bowl slot.

OK, I've got to finally ask: which Pirate(s) has ticked you off?

I ask because you've repeatedly stated that Marshall will somehow surpass ECU in the polls. If ECU loses, then you may be right. However, Marshall's SOS is so terrible that by season's end we could both finish without (another) loss and ECU would easily get the Access Bowl spot.

Marshall is likely just as good or even better than ECU; I'll grant you that. However, they don't play anybody of note. That will hurt them in the long run.

Of everything I have read, the polls will not be considered to decide the Access Bowl spot. Every single interview with the committee members has placed emphasis on that fact. That said, ECU has impressive wins and a stronger SOS, but if ECU is selected, it won't be because of their place in the polls. Conversely, Marshall passing ECU in the polls will not guarantee them the Access Bowl.

It is all a new system. While we have been given a criteria, we have no idea how much emphasis will be placed on the factors they mention. SOS, margin of victory, comparison between similar opponents, and championship winners have been stated as factors. When the actual announcement is made, ECU and Marshall may be very surprised.

Yes for god sakes wait until the first CFP poll comes out before you start beating your chest.

ECU fans started beating their chest after starting 3-1. Not even undefeated but 3-1 for a school that often gets a nice P5 win every year but finishes with 4-5 losses.

Ummm, the college playoff committee is filled up with a bunch of old coaches and current and past A.D.'s. So what exactly do you think that their poll is going to look like? Maybe I am wrong, but I think that it is going to look like the current coaches poll. And the rest of the nonsense that you posted is just nonsense.

(10-09-2014 11:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:33 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 10:40 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 10:30 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 09:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  I don't recall reading that anywhere. Is that something that the selection committee has said, or something pronounced in the blogosphere? Could you please cite a reference?

[b]Its right on the CFP website the emphasis on conference championships and Win/Loss records...[/b]

Quote:Selection Committee members will have a wealth of information including review of video, statistics and their own expertise to guide them in their deliberations. They will emphasize obvious factors like win-loss records, strength of schedule, conference championships won, head-to-head results and results against common opponents.

Marshall didn't play ECU Head-to-Head nor are the common opponents so that factor isn't relevant. Video and statistics favor Marshall because they've been bone crushing teams. Marshall has more going for it than ECU overall.

Quote:The committee will rank the top 25 teams in the country and assign teams to the semifinals and to the Cotton, Fiesta and Peach Bowls in years when they are not hosting semifinal games. The full voting protocol is attached to this release, but in summary the committee will identify small groups of teams that will then be evaluated against each other in a detailed and deliberative manner. The committee will then vote the teams into the rankings in a combined selection-and-seeding process.

Its not an open market place for the Fiesta, Cotton and Peach where after the G5 autobid the schools that sell the most tickets get in. If Marshall and ECU both finish in the Top 10-12 of these rankings expect to see them both in Access bowls.

http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/ab...e-rankings

No, it isn't on the CFP website. What they said, and what you quoted, is clearly not what you said. What you said is simply your opinion - nothing more, nothing less. There's nothing wrong with giving your opinion, either about what you believe will happen or what you believe should happen, but you don't speak for the committee.

Whatever criteria the committee uses, and those they say they used (not necessarily the same thing) will not bind them to use those same criteria in the future.

Again here is what they are saying:

Win/Loss Records
Conference Championships
Head-2-Head
Common Opponents
Strength of Schedule
Statistics
Video Performance

Marshall has the edge in all the criteria ACCEPT a marginally better SOS by ECU. ECU does not have a Top 40 SOS or a Top 60 SOS. It has a Top 115 SOS. SOS is just not enough of a factor in their favor if Marshall goes 13-0 and ECU 11-1.

SOS is only significant when all factors are considered equal and one school has played a Top 40 schedule with the other schedule Top 120. That is the way its always been if you look at the past of the BCS polls when there is a significant difference it does have a factor.

I know exactly what they are saying. I can read it. It's right there in black and white. The committee is not saying what you are saying. All the rest of your comment is just your personal speculation. You seem to have listed the bolded criteria in the order you think they belong. The committee has made clear all along that there is no specific hierarchy of criteria. You are inferring something which nobody has implied, especially not the selection committee.

You and the other SOS apologists are saying that all that matters is ECU SOS is 107 and Marshall's is 160.

That is what you are implying when you debate me on this.

(10-09-2014 11:50 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 09:18 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 08:41 AM)WEARE Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 07:32 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(10-08-2014 09:40 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Rice on East Carolina's chances of staying ahead of Marshall for the Access Bowl slot.

OK, I've got to finally ask: which Pirate(s) has ticked you off?

I ask because you've repeatedly stated that Marshall will somehow surpass ECU in the polls. If ECU loses, then you may be right. However, Marshall's SOS is so terrible that by season's end we could both finish without (another) loss and ECU would easily get the Access Bowl spot.

Marshall is likely just as good or even better than ECU; I'll grant you that. However, they don't play anybody of note. That will hurt them in the long run.

Of everything I have read, the polls will not be considered to decide the Access Bowl spot. Every single interview with the committee members has placed emphasis on that fact. That said, ECU has impressive wins and a stronger SOS, but if ECU is selected, it won't be because of their place in the polls. Conversely, Marshall passing ECU in the polls will not guarantee them the Access Bowl.

It is all a new system. While we have been given a criteria, we have no idea how much emphasis will be placed on the factors they mention. SOS, margin of victory, comparison between similar opponents, and championship winners have been stated as factors. When the actual announcement is made, ECU and Marshall may be very surprised.

Yes for god sakes wait until the first CFP poll comes out before you start beating your chest.

ECU fans started beating their chest after starting 3-1. Not even undefeated but 3-1 for a school that often gets a nice P5 win every year but finishes with 4-5 losses.

Ummm, the college playoff committee is filled up with a bunch of old coaches and current and past A.D.'s. So what exactly do you think that their poll is going to look like? Maybe I am wrong, but I think that it is going to look like the current coaches poll. And the rest of the nonsense that you posted is just nonsense.

1. The CFP is not a bubble poll. Its an reiterative voting process where they vote each group of 6 teams starting from the top and vote for them again as the proceed down the poll. Marshall and ECU are likely going to be within a few spots and voted against each other directly as to where they belong in the poll.

2. Marshall is in a better position today for the autobid than ECU. I've explained how if they both win out Marshall will end up with 2 more wins. I've explained that statistically Marshall is better on both sides of the ball. I'm not predicting how the vote would go but its my opinion that if both ECU and Marshall win out, Marshall will get the nod.

3. Schools are ranked by the CFP and assigned to bowls. Access Bowls are access bowls for a reason, to give smaller conferences access. They do not exist for the betterment of P5 as a primary purpose. Schools will be assigned not bought to these games.

(10-09-2014 11:54 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:33 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 10:40 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 10:30 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  [b]Its right on the CFP website the emphasis on conference championships and Win/Loss records...[/b]


Marshall didn't play ECU Head-to-Head nor are the common opponents so that factor isn't relevant. Video and statistics favor Marshall because they've been bone crushing teams. Marshall has more going for it than ECU overall.


Its not an open market place for the Fiesta, Cotton and Peach where after the G5 autobid the schools that sell the most tickets get in. If Marshall and ECU both finish in the Top 10-12 of these rankings expect to see them both in Access bowls.

http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/ab...e-rankings

No, it isn't on the CFP website. What they said, and what you quoted, is clearly not what you said. What you said is simply your opinion - nothing more, nothing less. There's nothing wrong with giving your opinion, either about what you believe will happen or what you believe should happen, but you don't speak for the committee.

Whatever criteria the committee uses, and those they say they used (not necessarily the same thing) will not bind them to use those same criteria in the future.

Again here is what they are saying:

Win/Loss Records
Conference Championships
Head-2-Head
Common Opponents
Strength of Schedule
Statistics
Video Performance

Marshall has the edge in all the criteria ACCEPT a marginally better SOS by ECU. ECU does not have a Top 40 SOS or a Top 60 SOS. It has a Top 115 SOS. SOS is just not enough of a factor in their favor if Marshall goes 13-0 and ECU 11-1.

SOS is only significant when all factors are considered equal and one school has played a Top 40 schedule with the other schedule Top 120. That is the way its always been if you look at the past of the BCS polls when there is a significant difference it does have a factor.

I know exactly what they are saying. I can read it. It's right there in black and white. The committee is not saying what you are saying. All the rest of your comment is just your personal speculation. You seem to have listed the bolded criteria in the order you think they belong. The committee has made clear all along that there is no specific hierarchy of criteria. You are inferring something which nobody has implied, especially not the selection committee.

You and the other SOS apologists are saying that all that matters is ECU SOS is 107 and Marshall's is 160.

That is what you are implying when you debate me on this.

"SOS apologists"? Where do you get that from the question I asked you?

I'm not implying anything, nor am I debating you. I am not even disagreeing with your conclusion. I'm merely pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about, and are making up arguments out of thin air to support your position. What you are saying about the CFP simply is not true, no matter how many times you say it. If you can't understand that, there's really no point in talking further.

(10-09-2014 12:06 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:54 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:33 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 10:40 AM)ken d Wrote:  No, it isn't on the CFP website. What they said, and what you quoted, is clearly not what you said. What you said is simply your opinion - nothing more, nothing less. There's nothing wrong with giving your opinion, either about what you believe will happen or what you believe should happen, but you don't speak for the committee.

Whatever criteria the committee uses, and those they say they used (not necessarily the same thing) will not bind them to use those same criteria in the future.

Again here is what they are saying:

Win/Loss Records
Conference Championships
Head-2-Head
Common Opponents
Strength of Schedule
Statistics
Video Performance

Marshall has the edge in all the criteria ACCEPT a marginally better SOS by ECU. ECU does not have a Top 40 SOS or a Top 60 SOS. It has a Top 115 SOS. SOS is just not enough of a factor in their favor if Marshall goes 13-0 and ECU 11-1.

SOS is only significant when all factors are considered equal and one school has played a Top 40 schedule with the other schedule Top 120. That is the way its always been if you look at the past of the BCS polls when there is a significant difference it does have a factor.

I know exactly what they are saying. I can read it. It's right there in black and white. The committee is not saying what you are saying. All the rest of your comment is just your personal speculation. You seem to have listed the bolded criteria in the order you think they belong. The committee has made clear all along that there is no specific hierarchy of criteria. You are inferring something which nobody has implied, especially not the selection committee.

You and the other SOS apologists are saying that all that matters is ECU SOS is 107 and Marshall's is 160.

That is what you are implying when you debate me on this.

"SOS apologists"? Where do you get that from the question I asked you?

I'm not implying anything, nor am I debating you. I am not even disagreeing with your conclusion. I'm merely pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about, and are making up arguments out of thin air to support your position. What you are saying about the CFP simply is not true, no matter how many times you say it. If you can't understand that, there's really no point in talking further.

I'm basing my conversations on this matter on the criteria on the CFP website and always have from the beginning. You are angry because I'm able to interpret what is being said on the CFP website and you can not. That is your problem.

Obviously we've heard from Stever and some others on here about how even a 10-2 ECU team would have the autobid over a 13-0 Marshall due to AAC superior schedule. I looked into it and that assumption is not supported by the facts. If it was I would agree with the ECU fans.

(10-09-2014 12:02 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:50 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 09:18 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 08:41 AM)WEARE Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 07:32 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  OK, I've got to finally ask: which Pirate(s) has ticked you off?

I ask because you've repeatedly stated that Marshall will somehow surpass ECU in the polls. If ECU loses, then you may be right. However, Marshall's SOS is so terrible that by season's end we could both finish without (another) loss and ECU would easily get the Access Bowl spot.

Marshall is likely just as good or even better than ECU; I'll grant you that. However, they don't play anybody of note. That will hurt them in the long run.

Of everything I have read, the polls will not be considered to decide the Access Bowl spot. Every single interview with the committee members has placed emphasis on that fact. That said, ECU has impressive wins and a stronger SOS, but if ECU is selected, it won't be because of their place in the polls. Conversely, Marshall passing ECU in the polls will not guarantee them the Access Bowl.

It is all a new system. While we have been given a criteria, we have no idea how much emphasis will be placed on the factors they mention. SOS, margin of victory, comparison between similar opponents, and championship winners have been stated as factors. When the actual announcement is made, ECU and Marshall may be very surprised.

Yes for god sakes wait until the first CFP poll comes out before you start beating your chest.

ECU fans started beating their chest after starting 3-1. Not even undefeated but 3-1 for a school that often gets a nice P5 win every year but finishes with 4-5 losses.

Ummm, the college playoff committee is filled up with a bunch of old coaches and current and past A.D.'s. So what exactly do you think that their poll is going to look like? Maybe I am wrong, but I think that it is going to look like the current coaches poll. And the rest of the nonsense that you posted is just nonsense.

1. The CFP is not a bubble poll. Its an reiterative voting process where they vote each group of 6 teams starting from the top and vote for them again as the proceed down the poll. Marshall and ECU are likely going to be within a few spots and voted against each other directly as to where they belong in the poll.

2. Marshall is in a better position today for the autobid than ECU. I've explained how if they both win out Marshall will end up with 2 more wins. I've explained that statistically Marshall is better on both sides of the ball. I'm not predicting how the vote would go but its my opinion that if both ECU and Marshall win out, Marshall will get the nod.

3. Schools are ranked by the CFP and assigned to bowls. Access Bowls are access bowls for a reason, to give smaller conferences access. They do not exist for the betterment of P5 as a primary purpose. Schools will be assigned not bought to these games.

Sigh.

If the poll that comes out from the CFP is substantially different than the coaches poll, then color me surprised. You need to stop substituting your opinion as fact.

Fact: Marshall has been receiving votes since the preseason.

Fact: Marshall is still not in the polls even though we are half way through the season.

Fact: There is no guarantee that even if Marshall wins on Saturday that the will enter the polls, because P5 teams around them might jump them due to playing more difficult schedules.

Fact: Statistics are a product of who you are playing. If you play weaker teams you generally have better stats.

Fact: No one knows who is going to get the autobid. Marshall and ECU could lose this weekend; which would then open up the autobid to teams like Temple and Colorado State.

Quote:Voting Protocol

-Each committee member will create a list of the 25 teams he or she believes to be the best in the country, in no particular order. Teams listed by three or more members will remain under consideration.

-Each member will list the best six teams, in no particular order. The six teams receiving the most votes will comprise the pool for the first seeding ballot.

-In the first seeding ballot, each member will rank those six teams, one through six, with one being the best. The three teams receiving the fewest points will become the top three seeds. The three teams that were not seeded will be held over for the next seeding ballot.

-Each member will list the six best remaining teams, in no particular order. The three teams receiving the most votes will be added to the three teams held over to comprise the next seeding ballot.

-Steps No. 3 and 4 will be repeated until 25 teams have been seeded.

http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/ab...e-rankings

The CFP poll is not a bubble poll. They compare each group of schools against each other and not just fill holes in the rankings.

#1 to #6
#4 to #9
#7 to #12
#10 to #15
#13 to #18
#16 to #21
#19 to #24
#22 to #25

There is going to be an advantage for a G5 that is undefeated and Top 10 statistically on both sides of the ball when stacked up against 2 loss P5s that are mediocre statistically in each grouping as they move up the middle part of the poll.

We may see a situation where Marshall starts in the Top 10 but ECU grades out around #18 because at best they'll be 7-1 going into the first CFP ranking. Marshall at 8-0 will have a huge advantage.

(10-09-2014 11:20 AM)WEARE Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:04 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 10:46 AM)WEARE Wrote:  So, how are the other polls tabulated? Who votes weekly? Have each of those voters watched every game of the teams in contention? Is there anything new about these voters comparatively to past voters? Is the criteria the same?

For starters, a majority of those on the committee used to be voters in one of the other polls. Also you are making assumptions on how much homework they are doing. You are being extremely optimistic, if not naïve.

Possibly, but it is not what has been stated. Each member has said they will watch the games of the teams in contention. They have been provided iPads loaded with the coaches version of the games (commercials and other irrelevant material removed). I may be naive for believing they will do what has been said; I may not. Once again, it's an unknown.

Dude, the coach's polls and AP voters "say" the same things. The Harris poll voters made a big thing about those talking points, then ended up with the same results. This is what you are ignoring, while relying on soundbites. when history shows that every human poll has the same results, and we have a new system with... a new human poll, expecting any other result is insane. Despite the soundbites (which are damn near repeated from Harris poll voters).

(10-09-2014 11:20 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:04 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 10:46 AM)WEARE Wrote:  So, how are the other polls tabulated? Who votes weekly? Have each of those voters watched every game of the teams in contention? Is there anything new about these voters comparatively to past voters? Is the criteria the same?

For starters, a majority of those on the committee used to be voters in one of the other polls. Also you are making assumptions on how much homework they are doing. You are being extremely optimistic, if not naïve.

What you are missing is that the CFP poll isn't a bubble poll like the Coaches where they just move everyone up one slot if they win.

The CFP poll is a deliberate ranking every week of where they think schools belong. There will be a lot of correlation with the top of the media polls but the bottom half is going to look a lot different and Marshall/ECU reside in the bottom half of the polls.

If Marshall clearly grades out better they aren't going to place them behind ECU because they may still be a couple of spots behind them in the media polls when 3 weeks roll around.

I am not "missing it." You are "assuming it." Don't make assumptions based on hearsay and expect everyone else to but it. Especially since most of you can't seem to comprehend that "most" of the comments you keep attributing to committee members, are actually not from the members at all. They are from the people who set it up.

(10-09-2014 12:26 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

Quote:Voting Protocol

-Each committee member will create a list of the 25 teams he or she believes to be the best in the country, in no particular order. Teams listed by three or more members will remain under consideration.

-Each member will list the best six teams, in no particular order. The six teams receiving the most votes will comprise the pool for the first seeding ballot.

-In the first seeding ballot, each member will rank those six teams, one through six, with one being the best. The three teams receiving the fewest points will become the top three seeds. The three teams that were not seeded will be held over for the next seeding ballot.

-Each member will list the six best remaining teams, in no particular order. The three teams receiving the most votes will be added to the three teams held over to comprise the next seeding ballot.

-Steps No. 3 and 4 will be repeated until 25 teams have been seeded.

http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/ab...e-rankings

The CFP poll is not a bubble poll. They compare each group of schools against each other and not just fill holes in the rankings.

#1 to #6
#4 to #9
#7 to #12
#10 to #15
#13 to #18
#16 to #21
#19 to #24
#22 to #25

There is going to be an advantage for a G5 that is undefeated and Top 10 statistically on both sides of the ball when stacked up against 2 loss P5s that are mediocre statistically in each grouping as they move up the middle part of the poll.

We may see a situation where Marshall starts in the Top 10 but ECU grades out around #18 because at best they'll be 7-1 going into the first CFP ranking. Marshall at 8-0 will have a huge advantage.

Again you keep stating your opinion as fact. We don't know how this will pan out, but the coaches poll kind of points the way to what is likely to happen. People always state that the Coaches don't pay attention to other teams, so they shouldn't be allowed to vote. This is how closely that the coaches must pay attention: Marshall has been receiving votes since the preseason and they are still not ranked midway through the season. That tells you right there that the coaches have looked and continue to look at Marshall's schedule. So schedule must play a role in how they rank people, because Marshall is undefeated just like 9 other teams. The other 9 teams are ranked. Marshall is not.

There is not even a guarantee that Marshall gets ranked this week even if they win. Take a look at the teams right outside of the rankings with Marshall in the coaches poll:

Marshall 98, Utah 80, LSU 75, Louisville 36, Wisconsin 36, USC 28... .

Marshall plays MTSU this week.
LSU plays 4-1 Kentucky
Utah plays 4-1 Oregon State
Louisville plays 3-2 Clemson
Wisconsin plays 3-3 Illinois
USC plays #10 Arizona

So Marshall not only has to win, but they need people to lose so they don't get passed by

(10-09-2014 12:41 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 12:26 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

Quote:Voting Protocol

-Each committee member will create a list of the 25 teams he or she believes to be the best in the country, in no particular order. Teams listed by three or more members will remain under consideration.

-Each member will list the best six teams, in no particular order. The six teams receiving the most votes will comprise the pool for the first seeding ballot.

-In the first seeding ballot, each member will rank those six teams, one through six, with one being the best. The three teams receiving the fewest points will become the top three seeds. The three teams that were not seeded will be held over for the next seeding ballot.

-Each member will list the six best remaining teams, in no particular order. The three teams receiving the most votes will be added to the three teams held over to comprise the next seeding ballot.

-Steps No. 3 and 4 will be repeated until 25 teams have been seeded.

http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/ab...e-rankings

The CFP poll is not a bubble poll. They compare each group of schools against each other and not just fill holes in the rankings.

#1 to #6
#4 to #9
#7 to #12
#10 to #15
#13 to #18
#16 to #21
#19 to #24
#22 to #25

There is going to be an advantage for a G5 that is undefeated and Top 10 statistically on both sides of the ball when stacked up against 2 loss P5s that are mediocre statistically in each grouping as they move up the middle part of the poll.

We may see a situation where Marshall starts in the Top 10 but ECU grades out around #18 because at best they'll be 7-1 going into the first CFP ranking. Marshall at 8-0 will have a huge advantage.

Again you keep stating your opinion as fact. We don't know how this will pan out, but the coaches poll kind of points the way to what is likely to happen. People always state that the Coaches don't pay attention to other teams, so they shouldn't be allowed to vote. This is how closely that the coaches must pay attention: Marshall has been receiving votes since the preseason and they are still not ranked midway through the season. That tells you right there that the coaches have looked and continue to look at Marshall's schedule. So schedule must play a role in how they rank people, because Marshall is undefeated just like 9 other teams. The other 9 teams are ranked. Marshall is not.

I'm not denying schedule doesn't play a role. What I'm denying that current poll standings are important as a litmus as to how these rankings will ultimately look, particularly when it comes to schools outside the Top 10 (Marshall, ECU I'm talking to you).

I'm sure there will be teams that are 5 spots or more away from the media polls with the method they are using to re-rank each ranked grouping. They are doing it this way to try and eliminate the bubble opinion.

These committee voters are expected to watch 20 games a week, sort through all the statistics available. They aren't a group of pundits that hammer the SEC is the best CFB conference on TV.

Take a look at Wichita State in basketball. They were selected by the basketball committee as a #1 seed after going 34-0. Won all of their games so no bad losses. If Marshall goes undefeated how many bad losses do you think they are going to have?

Seeding for the NCAAs doesn't lineup neatly with the media polls at all and I would expect the same will apply within the football committee.

(10-09-2014 12:41 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 12:26 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

Quote:Voting Protocol

-Each committee member will create a list of the 25 teams he or she believes to be the best in the country, in no particular order. Teams listed by three or more members will remain under consideration.

-Each member will list the best six teams, in no particular order. The six teams receiving the most votes will comprise the pool for the first seeding ballot.

-In the first seeding ballot, each member will rank those six teams, one through six, with one being the best. The three teams receiving the fewest points will become the top three seeds. The three teams that were not seeded will be held over for the next seeding ballot.

-Each member will list the six best remaining teams, in no particular order. The three teams receiving the most votes will be added to the three teams held over to comprise the next seeding ballot.

-Steps No. 3 and 4 will be repeated until 25 teams have been seeded.

http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/ab...e-rankings

The CFP poll is not a bubble poll. They compare each group of schools against each other and not just fill holes in the rankings.

#1 to #6
#4 to #9
#7 to #12
#10 to #15
#13 to #18
#16 to #21
#19 to #24
#22 to #25

There is going to be an advantage for a G5 that is undefeated and Top 10 statistically on both sides of the ball when stacked up against 2 loss P5s that are mediocre statistically in each grouping as they move up the middle part of the poll.

We may see a situation where Marshall starts in the Top 10 but ECU grades out around #18 because at best they'll be 7-1 going into the first CFP ranking. Marshall at 8-0 will have a huge advantage.

Again you keep stating your opinion as fact. We don't know how this will pan out, but the coaches poll kind of points the way to what is likely to happen. People always state that the Coaches don't pay attention to other teams, so they shouldn't be allowed to vote. This is how closely that the coaches must pay attention: Marshall has been receiving votes since the preseason and they are still not ranked midway through the season. That tells you right there that the coaches have looked and continue to look at Marshall's schedule. So schedule must play a role in how they rank people, because Marshall is undefeated just like 9 other teams. The other 9 teams are ranked. Marshall is not.

There is not even a guarantee that Marshall gets ranked this week even if they win. Take a look at the teams right outside of the rankings with Marshall in the coaches poll:

Marshall 98, Utah 80, LSU 75, Louisville 36, Wisconsin 36, USC 28... .

Marshall plays MTSU this week.
LSU plays 4-1 Kentucky
Utah plays 4-1 Oregon State
Louisville plays 3-2 Clemson
Wisconsin plays 3-3 Illinois
USC plays #10 Arizona

So Marshall not only has to win, but they need people to lose so they don't get passed by

Where Marshall and ECU stand in the media polls this week is not relevant to how the CFP is going to vote on Oct 28th.

W/L record I can say for sure is very relevant and that loss by ECU will impact the discussion come Oct 28th.

(10-09-2014 12:15 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 12:06 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:54 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:33 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Again here is what they are saying:

Win/Loss Records
Conference Championships
Head-2-Head
Common Opponents
Strength of Schedule
Statistics
Video Performance

Marshall has the edge in all the criteria ACCEPT a marginally better SOS by ECU. ECU does not have a Top 40 SOS or a Top 60 SOS. It has a Top 115 SOS. SOS is just not enough of a factor in their favor if Marshall goes 13-0 and ECU 11-1.

SOS is only significant when all factors are considered equal and one school has played a Top 40 schedule with the other schedule Top 120. That is the way its always been if you look at the past of the BCS polls when there is a significant difference it does have a factor.

I know exactly what they are saying. I can read it. It's right there in black and white. The committee is not saying what you are saying. All the rest of your comment is just your personal speculation. You seem to have listed the bolded criteria in the order you think they belong. The committee has made clear all along that there is no specific hierarchy of criteria. You are inferring something which nobody has implied, especially not the selection committee.

You and the other SOS apologists are saying that all that matters is ECU SOS is 107 and Marshall's is 160.

That is what you are implying when you debate me on this.

"SOS apologists"? Where do you get that from the question I asked you?

I'm not implying anything, nor am I debating you. I am not even disagreeing with your conclusion. I'm merely pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about, and are making up arguments out of thin air to support your position. What you are saying about the CFP simply is not true, no matter how many times you say it. If you can't understand that, there's really no point in talking further.

I'm basing my conversations on this matter on the criteria on the CFP website and always have from the beginning. You are angry because I'm able to interpret what is being said on the CFP website and you can not. That is your problem.

Obviously we've heard from Stever and some others on here about how even a 10-2 ECU team would have the autobid over a 13-0 Marshall due to AAC superior schedule. I looked into it and that assumption is not supported by the facts. If it was I would agree with the ECU fans.

You sure do make a lot of assumptions. The first is that I am angry. Bemused, perhaps, at your ridiculous comments. But angry, no. The second is that you think you can "interpret" what is said on the CFP website, as if it is written in code, and as if it is written in stone. It is neither, and what you mistakenly call interpretation is mere speculation. Might you be guessing correctly? That's certainly possible. But it's all it is. As they say, even a blind squirrel will find an acorn sometimes.

You cite the opinion of one poster and say that his opinion is "an assumption not supported by the facts". Again, the words you use do not mean what you seem to think they mean. Opinions are not assumptions, and they cannot be supported by facts which do not yet exist. Let me repeat that: there are no facts yet to support anybody's opinion. What Stever said is merely his guess about what might happen in the future, as opposed to your guess about what might happen in the future.

From the conversation so far in this thread, I would have to guess that you are less than completely impartial on this question. I think you would like it better if Marshall were to win the prize. Personally, I don't have a dog in the fight, so I really don't care who gets the G5 slot in the Access Bowl sweepstakes, nor do I much care why the committee chooses to give it to them. Chances are I won't even watch the game at all.

But assume away, if it makes you feel any better.

(10-09-2014 01:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 12:15 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 12:06 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:54 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  I know exactly what they are saying. I can read it. It's right there in black and white. The committee is not saying what you are saying. All the rest of your comment is just your personal speculation. You seem to have listed the bolded criteria in the order you think they belong. The committee has made clear all along that there is no specific hierarchy of criteria. You are inferring something which nobody has implied, especially not the selection committee.

You and the other SOS apologists are saying that all that matters is ECU SOS is 107 and Marshall's is 160.

That is what you are implying when you debate me on this.

"SOS apologists"? Where do you get that from the question I asked you?

I'm not implying anything, nor am I debating you. I am not even disagreeing with your conclusion. I'm merely pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about, and are making up arguments out of thin air to support your position. What you are saying about the CFP simply is not true, no matter how many times you say it. If you can't understand that, there's really no point in talking further.

I'm basing my conversations on this matter on the criteria on the CFP website and always have from the beginning. You are angry because I'm able to interpret what is being said on the CFP website and you can not. That is your problem.

Obviously we've heard from Stever and some others on here about how even a 10-2 ECU team would have the autobid over a 13-0 Marshall due to AAC superior schedule. I looked into it and that assumption is not supported by the facts. If it was I would agree with the ECU fans.

You sure do make a lot of assumptions. The first is that I am angry. Bemused, perhaps, at your ridiculous comments. But angry, no. The second is that you think you can "interpret" what is said on the CFP website, as if it is written in code, and as if it is written in stone. It is neither, and what you mistakenly call interpretation is mere speculation. Might you be guessing correctly? That's certainly possible. But it's all it is. As they say, even a blind squirrel will find an acorn sometimes.

Then what you are implying is the selection committee is not going to using the voting process listed on their website as the voting process?

Let's say that's true. Then anything comes into question. They can put out a Top 25 that ranks the schools on research expenditures. Why not if anything can happen?

What is your interpretation of what you see written on the website as to the voting process by CFP? I've said enough on it and I want to hear from you because you are so intelligent.