Quote:Rice estimated she watches about 14 or 15 games every week -- live on TV on Saturdays and recorded games on Sundays -- and the coaches' cut-ups throughout the week. She is the point person on the committee for Conference USA and the Big Ten. When Stanford has a home game, she will watch other games on her iPad at the stadium.

"The hardest part of our job is it's hard to get good comparisons because there's not that much head-to-head," Rice said. "If you're watching the NFL, for instance, an entire division will play another entire division. So you know, I remember last year the AFC South played the NFC West. It would have had really good comparisons of who beat whom, and that makes it easier to compare. [College football doesn't] have anything like that. Since there isn't that much head-to-head, you need a substitute for head-to-head competition. One of the things I want to know is, if a team is scoring a lot of points, are they scoring a lot of points against weak defenses? Against strong defenses? How does that compare to other teams you might be trying to rank against them?"

Ten undefeated college football teams remain this season, but the storylines so far have been upsets, a wild race in the Pac-12 and the strength of the SEC West. Some have wondered whether two teams from the SEC might make the first playoff. Without referencing any teams or conferences, Rice said conference championships will matter and "should matter," but she added that there's no pressure to have four conference title winners in the first playoff.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...-committee

Rice on East Carolina's chances of staying ahead of Marshall for the Access Bowl slot.

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

Still mad about our '95 Liberty Bowl win when she was Provost of Stanford University.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/31/sports...-bowl.html

So the political juggernaut of the Playoff Committee is tracking the political juggernaut of college football conferences? Fitting.

He explains Condi very well...

(10-08-2014 10:42 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So the political juggernaut of the Playoff Committee is tracking the political juggernaut of college football conferences? Fitting.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that," eh, Condi?

(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.

(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. Overall win/loss record, 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.

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.

(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.

(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?

(10-09-2014 08:41 AM)WEARE Wrote:  Of everything I have read, the polls will not be considered to decide the Access Bowl spot.

You do realize that the committee will be releasing their own poll, which will determine who gets said slot right? And while we await their first poll, to date nearly every human college football poll ever created, by year's end, has the near exact same results, with the top 4 nearly always being the same four teams (not always in the same order but the same teams) and nearly every comparable measurable usually being the same. Thus, there is no reason to believe their poll will be any different than the human polls we see now, and thus they likely will track the same way as human polls have in the past. Namely, because this is another human poll, made largely of people who used to vote in the coach's poll at one time or another.

So yes the (human) polls may not have a direct impact like when they were part of the BCS poll. But until proven otherwise, they offer a great predictor of what is to come, and history of poll movement offers a great indicator of what will happen going forward.

(10-09-2014 08:41 AM)WEARE Wrote:  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. Overall win/loss record, 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.

this.

(10-09-2014 09:44 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 08:41 AM)WEARE Wrote:  Of everything I have read, the polls will not be considered to decide the Access Bowl spot.

You do realize that the committee will be releasing their own poll, which will determine who gets said slot right? And while we await their first poll, to date nearly every human college football poll ever created, by year's end, has the near exact same results, with the top 4 nearly always being the same four teams (not always in the same order but the same teams) and nearly every comparable measurable usually being the same. Thus, there is no reason to believe their poll will be any different than the human polls we see now, and thus they likely will track the same way as human polls have in the past. Namely, because this is another human poll, made largely of people who used to vote in the coach's poll at one time or another.

So yes the (human) polls may not have a direct impact like when they were part of the BCS poll. But until proven otherwise, they offer a great predictor of what is to come, and history of poll movement offers a great indicator of what will happen going forward.

That is more true when you are considering the Top 4. There is usually a pretty good consensus on who belongs and who doesn't which can be obvious (undefeated P5s and 1 loss P5s with big wins).

For this G5 autobid thing......its an arguement to who is the brightest Chimpanzee. Polls don't mean very much when the best G5 isn't in the Top 15.

(10-09-2014 09:44 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 08:41 AM)WEARE Wrote:  Of everything I have read, the polls will not be considered to decide the Access Bowl spot.

You do realize that the committee will be releasing their own poll, which will determine who gets said slot right? And while we await their first poll, to date nearly every human college football poll ever created, by year's end, has the near exact same results, with the top 4 nearly always being the same four teams (not always in the same order but the same teams) and nearly every comparable measurable usually being the same. Thus, there is no reason to believe their poll will be any different than the human polls we see now, and thus they likely will track the same way as human polls have in the past. Namely, because this is another human poll, made largely of people who used to vote in the coach's poll at one time or another.

So yes the (human) polls may not have a direct impact like when they were part of the BCS poll. But until proven otherwise, they offer a great predictor of what is to come, and history of poll movement offers a great indicator of what will happen going forward.

Yes, I realize. You do understand that it would be a logical fallacy (appeal to tradition) to assume that this will be the same? When we are given the actual criteria and all quoted committee voters making the statement other polls don't matter, this is even more apparent. I am not saying it won't be ECU. I am saying to make an assumption because of another unrelated poll is not an intelligent approach.

(10-09-2014 10:15 AM)WEARE Wrote:  Yes, I realize. You do understand that it would be a logical fallacy (appeal to tradition) to assume that this will be the same? When we are given the actual criteria and all quoted committee voters making the statement other polls don't matter, this is even more apparent. I am not saying it won't be ECU. I am saying to make an assumption because of another unrelated poll is not an intelligent approach.

Why would it be a logical fallacy to predict that the new human poll will yield the same result as past human polls, when every human poll put together, no matter the makeup, has consistently yielded the same results. The fallacy - and I will use fallacy instead of the word that would be the real answer would be if this where a jeopardy answer - is to keep doing the same thing over and over, and expect a different result. Especially since so far the few committee members who have actually been quoted (many of the "quotes" you see where from the people setting up the committee in an attempt to prove it will be different) were lifted almost verbatim from the Harris Poll chair when it first came out, whose big invention was to also wait until half way thru the season to release a poll. Guess what? Same results as the AP and coach's poll.

(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?

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

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

(10-09-2014 10:23 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 10:15 AM)WEARE Wrote:  Yes, I realize. You do understand that it would be a logical fallacy (appeal to tradition) to assume that this will be the same? When we are given the actual criteria and all quoted committee voters making the statement other polls don't matter, this is even more apparent. I am not saying it won't be ECU. I am saying to make an assumption because of another unrelated poll is not an intelligent approach.

Why would it be a logical fallacy to predict that the new human poll will yield the same result as past human polls, when every human poll put together, no matter the makeup, has consistently yielded the same results. The fallacy - and I will use fallacy instead of the word that would be the real answer would be if this where a jeopardy answer - is to keep doing the same thing over and over, and expect a different result. Especially since so far the few committee members who have actually been quoted (many of the "quotes" you see where from the people setting up the committee in an attempt to prove it will be different) were lifted almost verbatim from the Harris Poll chair when it first came out, whose big invention was to also wait until half way thru the season to release a poll. Guess what? Same results as the AP and coach's poll.

Appeal to tradition is a fallacy of relevance. It is a fallacy. This is a new system. You can't base results of the past on the current factors. We know what they will consider as a criteria. We know they have stated other polls don't matter. We don't know what emphasis they will place on the criteria they will consider. It may very well end up looking like all the polls. It may very well look entirely different. I can't make it anymore clear. To claim other poll results are the end all be all because of tradition in a new system, is a fallacy. We just don't know.

To your other point regarding the quote from Einstien, we aren't doing the same thing. It's a new system. Anything can happen. They may even have criteria not mentioned.

(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.

It is not a new system. You are using a poll to decide, which is no different than before. The system has not really changed, just who programs it (which goes back to the point above about human polls). 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.