How do you rate them now that their task is completed? Naive I know, but I was expecting a bit more transparency. Long basically said nothing each week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd say the committee's most important job was generating the appearance of a process that used their criteria in a fair and impartial way.
I don't think they did that--they were very erratic, which fuels talk of secret agendas and discontent.
Maybe with a committee of 12-13 and a weekly televised rankings report, their job was impossible.
But the fact is that they don't look like they're applying criteria fairly and impartially--at best they were flying by the seat of their pants, at worst (insert conspiracy theory).

F-

F. What Mr. bragg said--I have no sense they are employing any kind of a consistent criteria.

Having a "P5" and only four spots in the playoffs was the real problem. Whether they increase the amount of spots in the playoff or cut the P5 to a P4, it should be no better than the BCS as far as controversy.

They did their job of assuring the P4 with conferences championships got in the playoffs.

B~
#1 big 12 messed up by not submitting a Champion.
#2 Even I can admit Ohio State has been very impressive as of late
#3 Baylors OOC was 128/128.. Dead last.
#4 TCU had to be placed behind Baylor

Alabama/Oregon are clear #1/#2
You couldn't leave Florida state out when they play ACC and scheduled Florida, ND and Oklahoma State.

(12-07-2014 08:34 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  They did their job of assuring the P4 with conferences championships got in the playoffs.

Ouch....but in a way whether intentional or not they made their point...the message has been sent...

C-

D, and this is the problem with any playoff system that involves less than 15% of the participants in the system. 3.125% postseason playoff participation is inherently designed to cause controversy.

(12-07-2014 08:46 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  D, and this is the problem with any playoff system that involves less than 15% of the participants in the system. 3.125% postseason playoff participation is inherently designed to cause controversy.

A system flaw shouldn't be taken out on the committee..should have been 8 teams...or 6 with #1/#2 getting byes

I admit it. I was wrong. Before the season I questioned if the committee would be able to do a fair job. Judging by today's results, given the circumstances, I don't believe they could have done a better job. The best conferences from across the country playing each other for the title. It can't get much better than that.
CJ

(12-07-2014 08:21 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I'd say the committee's most important job was generating the appearance of a process that used their criteria in a fair and impartial way.
I don't think they did that--they were very erratic, which fuels talk of secret agendas and discontent.
Maybe with a committee of 12-13 and a weekly televised rankings report, their job was impossible.
But the fact is that they don't look like they're applying criteria fairly and impartially--at best they were flying by the seat of their pants, at worst (insert conspiracy theory).

I think the fact that they were doing a rating as of the season ended that day was huge. Resume's change. The end ratings- I do not think you can really argue with.

Also really glad about the other games... whereas before a team like a Ole Miss wouldn't have gone to a BCS game- that is different this year.

(12-07-2014 09:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 08:21 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I'd say the committee's most important job was generating the appearance of a process that used their criteria in a fair and impartial way.
I don't think they did that--they were very erratic, which fuels talk of secret agendas and discontent.
Maybe with a committee of 12-13 and a weekly televised rankings report, their job was impossible.
But the fact is that they don't look like they're applying criteria fairly and impartially--at best they were flying by the seat of their pants, at worst (insert conspiracy theory).

I think the fact that they were doing a rating as of the season ended that day was huge. Resume's change. The end ratings- I do not think you can really argue with.

I don't really have a problem with the results, either. (Of course, I woudn't have had a problem with any of OSU, TCU or Bayor getting the fourth spot.) I'm surprised that we don't have Alabama-FSU and Oregon-OSU--that's where you want your human element to override your cold hard numbers.

Quote:Also really glad about the other games... whereas before a team like a Ole Miss wouldn't have gone to a BCS game- that is different this year.

What fascinates me is that, after all the sound and fury, the committee has the same semifinalists and the same Access Bowl teams as Massey's BCS simulation. But again, I don't think the committee's real job was to get the right answer. It was to create confidence that their judgement was sound.

(12-07-2014 09:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 08:21 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I'd say the committee's most important job was generating the appearance of a process that used their criteria in a fair and impartial way.
I don't think they did that--they were very erratic, which fuels talk of secret agendas and discontent.
Maybe with a committee of 12-13 and a weekly televised rankings report, their job was impossible.
But the fact is that they don't look like they're applying criteria fairly and impartially--at best they were flying by the seat of their pants, at worst (insert conspiracy theory).

I think the fact that they were doing a rating as of the season ended that day was huge. Resume's change. The end ratings- I do not think you can really argue with.

I don't really have a problem with the results, either. (Of course, I woudn't have had a problem with any of OSU, TCU or Bayor getting the fourth spot.) I'm surprised that we don't have Alabama-FSU and Oregon-OSU--that's where you want your human element to override your cold hard numbers.

Quote:Also really glad about the other games... whereas before a team like a Ole Miss wouldn't have gone to a BCS game- that is different this year.

What fascinates me is that, after all the sound and fury, the committee has the same semifinalists and the same Access Bowl teams as Massey's BCS simulation. But again, I don't think the committee's real job was to get the right answer. It was to create confidence that their judgement was sound.

I'm not surprised at all about it not being Alabama/FSU and Oregon/Ohio St. I think a MAJOR factor in this was having it a pure 1/4 and 2/3 bracket. Alabama was a clear cut #1 to me. And Ohio St was a clear cut #4 to me. I just think a huge part in everything is that the other leagues outside the Big Ten and Pac 12 made it crystal clear that it wasn't going to be gerrymandered for tradition.

I give them an X = Vince McMahanis

(12-07-2014 09:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  But again, I don't think the committee's real job was to get the right answer. It was to create confidence that their judgement was sound.

Their job, like that of a referee or umpire, is to do both of those things.

What would you think of a baseball umpire whose strike zone is all over the place and whose body language gives everyone the impression that he's just guessing whether each pitch is a ball or a strike?

I think in the long run they got the four teams correct. The process of getting there was ugly and befuddled. I do think they made a mistake in not going to an eight team playoff system. In my opinion I believe Alabama, Oregon, Florida State, Ohio State, TCU and Baylor all deserve to be there, but there in lies the problem. With five power conferences and only four slots for the playoffs someone was going to be left out, and there's no room for good teams from the G5. Just my humble opinion.

(12-07-2014 08:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  F-

You think more highly of them than I do.

(12-07-2014 09:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  But again, I don't think the committee's real job was to get the right answer. It was to create confidence that their judgement was sound.

Their job, like that of a referee or umpire, is to do both of those things.

What would you think of a baseball umpire whose strike zone is all over the place and whose body language gives everyone the impression that he's just guessing whether each pitch is a ball or a strike?

That they work for ACC.