The playoff committee seems to be taking its lead from the ESPN Power Poll (a group of 13 voters on ESPN's payroll) when it comes to ranking G5 schools.

Week 10
ESPN Power Poll: East Carolina 22
Playoff Committee: East Carolina 23

Week 11
ESPN Power Poll: None
Playoff Committee: None

FWIW, Marshall (15 votes) and Colo St (11) are #26 and #27 in the ESPN Power Poll this week.

As ESPN is the man behind the curtain I would not be surprised one bit.

And what would you change about it? I thought ECU was ranked fairly at #23, and unranked this week. I might have put Marshall in at #25, but with that schedule, I don't really blame them for not having them up there.

that was 1 coincidence and a very common one that is similar with plenty of polls

Week 10
ESPN Power Poll: Ole miss 10 auburn 7
committee: ole miss #4 auburn 3

(11-05-2014 08:56 AM)NothingButKnight Wrote:  And what would you change about it? I thought ECU was ranked fairly at #23, and unranked this week. I might have put Marshall in at #25, but with that schedule, I don't really blame them for not having them up there.

What you want to change is the lack of transparency. If, for example, Colorado State, UCF, and Marshall are all just below the Top 25 where do they fall? None of the Universities in the Non-Cartel 5 should have to be left in the dark about the Committee's preferences for the access bowl slot.

(11-05-2014 09:20 AM)BlueRaiderBoy Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 08:56 AM)NothingButKnight Wrote:  And what would you change about it? I thought ECU was ranked fairly at #23, and unranked this week. I might have put Marshall in at #25, but with that schedule, I don't really blame them for not having them up there.

What you want to change is the lack of transparency. If, for example, Colorado State, UCF, and Marshall are all just below the Top 25 where do they fall? None of the Universities in the Non-Cartel 5 should have to be left in the dark about the Committee's preferences for the access bowl slot.

Hancock said in an interview this week that the committee would gladly go deeper than the top 25, to show the G5 schools in the running for the access spot, if there was a push for it, but so far, no demand. MWC's Thompson said he wasn't interested in it.

(11-05-2014 09:26 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Hancock said in an interview this week that the committee would gladly rank the G5 schools separately, if there was a push for it, but so far, no demand. MWC's Thompson said he wasn't interested in it.

I would hope not. Anything and everything which adds more separation should be avoided, in my opinion.

If I was in Conference USA I would be very worried right now. An undefeated Marshall team is getting no love from the playoff committee. This means that they look at Conference USA and do not have faith that any of the teams in that league have enough credibility to be considered quality wins. THink about that for a minute, how often will a Conference USA team get to 8-0 in the future? The committee is essentially saying that Marshall needs wins against the P5 to matter and that the teams in COnference USA don't really count in terms of moving the respect needle.

ECU would still be ranked if they had beaten Temple. The committee in my opinion, is not doing any thing out of the ordinary by not have any G5 schools ranked at the moment. If you want to be ranked, you have to beat quality programs. Why is this so surprising?

(11-05-2014 09:59 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 09:26 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Hancock said in an interview this week that the committee would gladly rank the G5 schools separately, if there was a push for it, but so far, no demand. MWC's Thompson said he wasn't interested in it.

I would hope not. Anything and everything which adds more separation should be avoided, in my opinion.

Disagree completely. I think it's a good opportunity for all if us to be in the discussion instead of no one even knowing that we exist. We have a story to tell in 5 conferences going after one spot. It would increase visibility and get more eyeballs on G5 games.

As of now all we hear is that Marshall's undefeated and their schedule is chit. That's all the public knows.

(11-05-2014 09:26 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Hancock said in an interview this week that the committee would gladly rank the G5 schools separately, if there was a push for it, but so far, no demand. MWC's Thompson said he wasn't interested in it.

It's a better approach for the long-term. We still have month left to go in the season, and we've seen historically that rankings tend work themselves out by the end. Also, I'm sure Thompson and, for that matter, Aresco, want to publicly position themselves that the MWC, AAC and the rest of the G5 are still part of the overall college football structure in the same "equal" way as the schools in the P5 (even though we all know in practicality that it's not the reality). The G5 conferences shouldn't want to give any excuse to bless a separate G5 ranking outside of the overall top 25 (as that's further evidence from the G5 conferences themselves that they're not at the same level, which can be used against them in the future if/when we get to bigger opportunities like an 8-team playoff). Now, if there isn't a G5 team in the top 25 when the final rankings come out, then sure, the committee might need to take a separate G5 ballot, but no one needs to cross that proverbial bridge until we get there.

(11-05-2014 10:23 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 09:26 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Hancock said in an interview this week that the committee would gladly rank the G5 schools separately, if there was a push for it, but so far, no demand. MWC's Thompson said he wasn't interested in it.

It's a better approach for the long-term. We still have month left to go in the season, and we've seen historically that rankings tend work themselves out by the end. Also, I'm sure Thompson and, for that matter, Aresco, want to publicly position themselves that the MWC, AAC and the rest of the G5 are still part of the overall college football structure in the same "equal" way as the schools in the P5 (even though we all know in practicality that it's not the reality). The G5 conferences shouldn't want to give any excuse to bless a separate G5 ranking outside of the overall top 25 (as that's further evidence from the G5 conferences themselves that they're not at the same level, which can be used against them in the future if/when we get to bigger opportunities like an 8-team playoff). Now, if there isn't a G5 team in the top 25 when the final rankings come out, then sure, the committee might need to take a separate G5 ballot, but no one needs to cross that proverbial bridge until we get there.

So in the meantime we just continue to bend over and take it. The narrative now is that we are second class and should be forgotten. How is that any different? There FIVE conferences fighting for one spot while playing good football as opposed to 5 conferences fighting for 7 spots. Discussion creates interest and more eyeballs on TV. Apathy does nothing.

(11-05-2014 09:26 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 09:20 AM)BlueRaiderBoy Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 08:56 AM)NothingButKnight Wrote:  And what would you change about it? I thought ECU was ranked fairly at #23, and unranked this week. I might have put Marshall in at #25, but with that schedule, I don't really blame them for not having them up there.

What you want to change is the lack of transparency. If, for example, Colorado State, UCF, and Marshall are all just below the Top 25 where do they fall? None of the Universities in the Non-Cartel 5 should have to be left in the dark about the Committee's preferences for the access bowl slot.

Hancock said in an interview this week that the committee would gladly rank the G5 schools separately, if there was a push for it, but so far, no demand. MWC's Thompson said he wasn't interested in it.

no, no no! That would be bad

(11-05-2014 09:59 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 09:26 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Hancock said in an interview this week that the committee would gladly rank the G5 schools separately, if there was a push for it, but so far, no demand. MWC's Thompson said he wasn't interested in it.

I would hope not. Anything and everything which adds more separation should be avoided, in my opinion.

You're misunderstanding the context. He didn't mean don't include them in the CFP poll. Heck, ECU was in it last week.

He just meant if no G5 teams are in the top 25, the committee would be fine with showing the highest G5 teams in their rankings, so they could see how they stood for the access bowl slot.

Right now, we have no idea where any G5 teams stand for that spot.

I repeat. Hancock did not mean a completely separate poll. He simply meant going deeper into the rankings to show where the top G5 teams stood for the access bowl slot, when there was not one in the top 25.

(11-05-2014 09:26 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Hancock said in an interview this week that the committee would gladly rank the G5 schools separately, if there was a push for it, but so far, no demand. MWC's Thompson said he wasn't interested in it.

Separate but equal? That's the last thing we need.

Frank the Tank is absolutely right.

Here is the article I referenced:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ower-teams

Title of the article:

What we learned: CFP transparency lacking for non-power teams

Dodd edited the text from the original, where Hancock said they weren't opposed to going deeper into the poll, if there was a push for it. Now, it has been changed to cite Hancock as saying they are only ranking the top 25, and if there are no G5 teams, the access bowl slot will be announced after the season.

I rephrased my original post in #6 to make it more clear. You guys are getting upset over something that wasn't even discussed. Sorry for not being more clear:

"Hancock said in an interview this week that the committee would gladly go deeper than the top 25, to show the G5 schools in the running for the access spot, if there was a push for it, but so far, no demand. MWC's Thompson said he wasn't interested in it."

However, in Dodd's edited version, he now cites Hancock as saying they will only rank the top 25, so if no G5 team is in the top 25, we won't know where anyone stands for the access spot. This week is a good example.

Is it Marshall, Boise, CSU? Somebody else? Nobody knows. That was the ONLY issue.

(11-05-2014 11:12 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 09:26 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Hancock said in an interview this week that the committee would gladly rank the G5 schools separately, if there was a push for it, but so far, no demand. MWC's Thompson said he wasn't interested in it.

Separate but equal? That's the last thing we need.

Frank the Tank is absolutely right.

I know I'm in the minority but how is this bad as opposed to not talking about as at except to mention how Marshall's schedule is?

One more thing. I used the phrase "separate poll," b/c that is how Dodd originally phrased it. But he had context to explain what he actually meant, which was, just showing more teams than 25 to make the access bowl spot more visible.

(11-05-2014 08:56 AM)NothingButKnight Wrote:  And what would you change about it? I thought ECU was ranked fairly at #23, and unranked this week. I might have put Marshall in at #25, but with that schedule, I don't really blame them for not having them up there.

^^^^^^^YOU