Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The CFP "Eyeball Test": Return of MOV (with a vengeance)?
Author Message
Frog in the Kitchen Sink Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,836
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 152
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #21
RE: The CFP "Eyeball Test": Return of MOV (with a vengeance)?
(11-06-2015 10:09 AM)stever20 Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 10:00 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  dumb thread....the committee has said over and over that they are using a wide variety of factors...

They're not just using the "eye test"....people who keep guessing at what they're trying to base their rankings on don't get it

all of this analysis and splitting hairs is pointless at this point....I think the rankings are very fluid, and what happened one week may not carry over to the next week.

For example, I don't think Oklahoma State needs a lot of teams in front of them to lose to jump up in the rankings....beat TCU, and I bet they are in the top 6, if not the top 4

I don't think so. I don't think the committee has much respect at all for the big 12. So wins in the conference don't mean anywhere near as much as if it was in a different conference. I think part of the conference's problem frankly is Big 12 defenses are absolute garbage.

I think it is too early to conclude they are "not respecting". We need to see how they respond to the next month to determine that. If anything, you could argue they over-respected Baylor. Based on SOS and quality win metrics, they should probably be 10 or worse.

Staples had an interesting article on what to do with up tempo philosophies in general and the Big 12 in particular:

http://www.campusrush.com/big-12-college...91640.html
11-06-2015 10:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frog in the Kitchen Sink Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,836
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 152
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #22
RE: The CFP "Eyeball Test": Return of MOV (with a vengeance)?
(11-06-2015 10:15 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 10:09 AM)stever20 Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 10:00 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  dumb thread....the committee has said over and over that they are using a wide variety of factors...

They're not just using the "eye test"....people who keep guessing at what they're trying to base their rankings on don't get it

all of this analysis and splitting hairs is pointless at this point....I think the rankings are very fluid, and what happened one week may not carry over to the next week.

For example, I don't think Oklahoma State needs a lot of teams in front of them to lose to jump up in the rankings....beat TCU, and I bet they are in the top 6, if not the top 4

I don't think so. I don't think the committee has much respect at all for the big 12.


I do think the committee will penalize the Big XII for not having a championship game though. I think their champ will have to be undefeated to get in. An 11-1 TCU is going to get passed by a 12-1 conference championship winner every time

Depends on the details. Take last year where everyone points to the "13th game" as a deciding factor, but what if TCU was the official Big 12 champ with a win over Baylor and a loss somewhere else? Or what if Ohio State struggled to beat Wisconsin in the Big 10 championship game? Or even Oklahoma doesn't lose to OSU, removing a"quality win" from TCU and Baylor's resume. Or all of the above?

The devil is in the details. There are no absolutes. Each year is different.
11-06-2015 10:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #23
RE: The CFP "Eyeball Test": Return of MOV (with a vengeance)?
I think, as was mentioned in another thread, this is a committee of 12 people, and some of them value some metrics more than others, and they don't agree on which is most important. Maybe some of them favor strength of schedule, or whether you beat a bad team by 10 points or 50, or whether you have a video-game offense or a lights-out defense, or whether the name on the jersey is that of a traditional football power or a johnny-come-lately, or maybe some of them weight recent performance more heavily than early-season performance.

We don't really know, and I don't put much credence in Jeff Long's weekly attempts to spin the rankings.
11-06-2015 11:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frog in the Kitchen Sink Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,836
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 152
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #24
RE: The CFP "Eyeball Test": Return of MOV (with a vengeance)?
(11-06-2015 11:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  We don't really know, and I don't put much credence in Jeff Long's weekly attempts to spin the rankings.

Yeah, he has an impossible job. I almost wonder if it is worth the effort to explain them. Just putting the rankings out there might be a better idea, instead of trying to defend them.
11-06-2015 11:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #25
RE: The CFP "Eyeball Test": Return of MOV (with a vengeance)?
(11-06-2015 10:09 AM)stever20 Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 10:00 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  dumb thread....the committee has said over and over that they are using a wide variety of factors...

They're not just using the "eye test"....people who keep guessing at what they're trying to base their rankings on don't get it

all of this analysis and splitting hairs is pointless at this point....I think the rankings are very fluid, and what happened one week may not carry over to the next week.

For example, I don't think Oklahoma State needs a lot of teams in front of them to lose to jump up in the rankings....beat TCU, and I bet they are in the top 6, if not the top 4

I don't think so. I don't think the committee has much respect at all for the big 12. So wins in the conference don't mean anywhere near as much as if it was in a different conference. I think part of the conference's problem frankly is Big 12 defenses are absolute garbage.

And most of the SEC and Big 10 offenses are absolute garbage. But Osborne and Alvarez are on the committee and old school.
11-06-2015 05:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #26
RE: The CFP "Eyeball Test": Return of MOV (with a vengeance)?
(11-06-2015 10:00 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  dumb thread....the committee has said over and over that they are using a wide variety of factors...

They're not just using the "eye test"....

The OP never said the CFP was just using the eye test. 07-coffee3
11-06-2015 06:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 46,227
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #27
RE: The CFP "Eyeball Test": Return of MOV (with a vengeance)?
(11-06-2015 05:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 10:09 AM)stever20 Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 10:00 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  dumb thread....the committee has said over and over that they are using a wide variety of factors...

They're not just using the "eye test"....people who keep guessing at what they're trying to base their rankings on don't get it

all of this analysis and splitting hairs is pointless at this point....I think the rankings are very fluid, and what happened one week may not carry over to the next week.

For example, I don't think Oklahoma State needs a lot of teams in front of them to lose to jump up in the rankings....beat TCU, and I bet they are in the top 6, if not the top 4

I don't think so. I don't think the committee has much respect at all for the big 12. So wins in the conference don't mean anywhere near as much as if it was in a different conference. I think part of the conference's problem frankly is Big 12 defenses are absolute garbage.

And most of the SEC and Big 10 offenses are absolute garbage. But Osborne and Alvarez are on the committee and old school.
yep. And I wouldn't call Ty Willingham exactly new school either.
11-06-2015 06:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,892
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #28
RE: The CFP "Eyeball Test": Return of MOV (with a vengeance)?
(11-06-2015 10:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 09:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 07:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 07:14 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I think it's a good point. I do think MOV should be included, but I'd like to see them put their hat on some sort of analytic instead of just the eye test. Be it a MOV heavy computer ranking like Sagarin predictor or ESPN FPI or a "game control" stat, use that and refer to it when explaining the rankings. The "eye test" is too subject to arbitrary analysis. I also think it is too subject to recency bias. Use an analytic for how dominating teams are that takes away some of the subjectivity.

I agree that a recency error is much more likely with the Eyeball standard too. A team wins a game impressively NOW and we forget about the close escape they had two months ago. Good point.

Alternatively, one could argue that we should be biased towards recent games, on the basis that it's a good thing if teams get better over time, and that this is relevant information for who makes the playoffs.

There is a whopping difference between EOV and MOV and it is EOV that should be considered not MOV. EOV (Ease of Victory) is a distinction that anyone who actually watches a game can determine. EOV is the level of control that one team exhibits over another during the competition. With EOV you aren't counting garbage points, or docking a really strong squad whose coach actually plays his subs in the second half of a game to both protect his starters and to earn his bench some game experience.

I would disagree about the ease of determining EOV. Baylor last night is a good example. On one hand, they led the whole game, and had a huge lead, 31-10, early in the 4th quarter. On the other, they almost let that lead slip away. Overall, I say it was a close game. That's what the scoreboard says.

All 60 minutes in a game count.

Baylor last night is a lousy example. In fact they prove my point about having to watch the entire game. At no point was Baylor's defense ever in control of the game. Kansas State ineptitude offensively kept them from exploiting first half opportunities. Kansas State was IMO the first real test Baylor has faced. I'm not sold at all. They have no defense. Their defense consists of relying upon a few turnovers by the opposition (or drive ending penalties) to permit their offense the opportunity to create distance. That is half a football team. Whether the scheme belongs to Auburn, Ole Miss, T.C.U., Texas A&M or Baylor it will never consistently win football games without a defense. That's why Bullet is full of it for criticizing offenses like the ones belonging to Alabama, L.S.U., Ohio State, Michigan State, etc. Florida State had a better defense when they beat Auburn for the N.C. but that was a lousy year for college football as a whole. The Auburn team that beat Oregon hadn't gone full Malzahn yet. We had a spark in our offense but enough of a defense to stop the Ducks.

None of these high school ball flinging offenses will ever win a natty minus a stout defense and so far none of them have indicated to me that they have one.

I think Ease of Victory is really what most mean when they say somebody passes the eye test. Baylor will never have Ease of Victory until they prove they can consistently stop someone decent.
(This post was last modified: 11-06-2015 07:18 PM by JRsec.)
11-06-2015 06:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #29
RE: The CFP "Eyeball Test": Return of MOV (with a vengeance)?
(11-06-2015 09:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 07:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 07:14 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I think it's a good point. I do think MOV should be included, but I'd like to see them put their hat on some sort of analytic instead of just the eye test. Be it a MOV heavy computer ranking like Sagarin predictor or ESPN FPI or a "game control" stat, use that and refer to it when explaining the rankings. The "eye test" is too subject to arbitrary analysis. I also think it is too subject to recency bias. Use an analytic for how dominating teams are that takes away some of the subjectivity.

I agree that a recency error is much more likely with the Eyeball standard too. A team wins a game impressively NOW and we forget about the close escape they had two months ago. Good point.

Alternatively, one could argue that we should be biased towards recent games, on the basis that it's a good thing if teams get better over time, and that this is relevant information for who makes the playoffs.

There is a whopping difference between EOV and MOV and it is EOV that should be considered not MOV. EOV (Ease of Victory) is a distinction that anyone who actually watches a game can determine. EOV is the level of control that one team exhibits over another during the competition. With EOV you aren't counting garbage points, or docking a really strong squad whose coach actually plays his subs in the second half of a game to both protect his starters and to earn his bench some game experience. Frequently during sub play a large margin amassed in the first half of a game actually gets whittled down to a much smaller but still distinctive win total. Great schools and great coaches shouldn't be penalized by these kinds of moves.

The committee should be required to watch the complete games of the top 12 schools on their ranking. Then without just looking at the point spread they would know if Team A controlled the game the first two quarters and gave their bench some meaningful time, or did they keep their first string in to the last play and continue to throw deep with 2:00 minutes left of the clock going for that 70th point.

To me Ease of Victory is much more revealing of the overall strength of a team than Margin of Victory. But you will never know that if you don't watch the whole game. So far this year Clemson is the school with the greatest Ease of Victory margin. They have really distanced themselves in the majority of their games without continuing to pour it on a hapless victim. L.S.U. is building in that category while Alabama is playing down in some cases and dominating in others. Both Notre Dame and Alabama have had tighter matches than first glance would indicate.

It's difficult to say about Baylor. Until last night they had really played nobody. And then last night in a 7 point win over Kansas State they were playing a sub at QB, albeit one that looked as seasoned as most folks #1. These last few weeks will tell the tale on Baylor and T.C.U..

You make some really good points. However I for one doubt the committee puts in the man hours some believe they do, and they don't have the ability to know the EOV in every game for the teams in the mix, I don't believe, because that is more work than their work shows they do. To me at least.
11-07-2015 09:38 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #30
RE: The CFP "Eyeball Test": Return of MOV (with a vengeance)?
(11-06-2015 09:30 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I think ease of victory is akin to ESPN's "game control" metric. I like that too, as scores can be deceiving both big and small.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/playoffPicture

I'd like to see the committee hang their hats on that sort of thing more. Changing the subject slightly, but speaking of hanging their hat, I was annoyed with the "wins over .500+ teams" arguments Long was making in defense of their rankings. First off, not all .500+ teams are created equal, and second off, it seemed like he applied that defense arbitrarily. That is not a good metric to use, IMO. Too flawed.

Everything has been arbitrary with the committee. The best was last year when Alabama was one and ole miss (or miss st) was 4. They beat Alabama and jumped to number one. Why? Because they handily beat the number one team in Alabama. When asked why ole miss only dropped to four? Because they had a close loss to the number one team in ole miss.

Now you try and figure that one out?
11-07-2015 09:40 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #31
RE: The CFP "Eyeball Test": Return of MOV (with a vengeance)?
(11-06-2015 10:00 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  dumb thread....the committee has said over and over that they are using a wide variety of factors...

They're not just using the "eye test"....people who keep guessing at what they're trying to base their rankings on don't get it

all of this analysis and splitting hairs is pointless at this point....I think the rankings are very fluid, and what happened one week may not carry over to the next week.

For example, I don't think Oklahoma State needs a lot of teams in front of them to lose to jump up in the rankings....beat TCU, and I bet they are in the top 6, if not the top 4
It's not a "dumb thread" unless you are the only person who takes what the committee says seriously, then off more what they say the next week, or the previous week, to try and make sense out of it. They literally changed their minds as they went last year, almost like they came up with the lair first, then created a rationalization for "how" they got there afterward, with absolutely no regard for any logic or statements hey used the previous week.
11-07-2015 09:46 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 46,227
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #32
RE: The CFP "Eyeball Test": Return of MOV (with a vengeance)?
(11-06-2015 05:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 10:09 AM)stever20 Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 10:00 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  dumb thread....the committee has said over and over that they are using a wide variety of factors...

They're not just using the "eye test"....people who keep guessing at what they're trying to base their rankings on don't get it

all of this analysis and splitting hairs is pointless at this point....I think the rankings are very fluid, and what happened one week may not carry over to the next week.

For example, I don't think Oklahoma State needs a lot of teams in front of them to lose to jump up in the rankings....beat TCU, and I bet they are in the top 6, if not the top 4

I don't think so. I don't think the committee has much respect at all for the big 12. So wins in the conference don't mean anywhere near as much as if it was in a different conference. I think part of the conference's problem frankly is Big 12 defenses are absolute garbage.

And most of the SEC and Big 10 offenses are absolute garbage. But Osborne and Alvarez are on the committee and old school.

I heard something today that made me think about this. The average age for folks on the committee right now is 57.
11-07-2015 11:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,892
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #33
RE: The CFP "Eyeball Test": Return of MOV (with a vengeance)?
(11-07-2015 09:38 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 09:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 07:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-06-2015 07:14 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I think it's a good point. I do think MOV should be included, but I'd like to see them put their hat on some sort of analytic instead of just the eye test. Be it a MOV heavy computer ranking like Sagarin predictor or ESPN FPI or a "game control" stat, use that and refer to it when explaining the rankings. The "eye test" is too subject to arbitrary analysis. I also think it is too subject to recency bias. Use an analytic for how dominating teams are that takes away some of the subjectivity.

I agree that a recency error is much more likely with the Eyeball standard too. A team wins a game impressively NOW and we forget about the close escape they had two months ago. Good point.

Alternatively, one could argue that we should be biased towards recent games, on the basis that it's a good thing if teams get better over time, and that this is relevant information for who makes the playoffs.

There is a whopping difference between EOV and MOV and it is EOV that should be considered not MOV. EOV (Ease of Victory) is a distinction that anyone who actually watches a game can determine. EOV is the level of control that one team exhibits over another during the competition. With EOV you aren't counting garbage points, or docking a really strong squad whose coach actually plays his subs in the second half of a game to both protect his starters and to earn his bench some game experience. Frequently during sub play a large margin amassed in the first half of a game actually gets whittled down to a much smaller but still distinctive win total. Great schools and great coaches shouldn't be penalized by these kinds of moves.

The committee should be required to watch the complete games of the top 12 schools on their ranking. Then without just looking at the point spread they would know if Team A controlled the game the first two quarters and gave their bench some meaningful time, or did they keep their first string in to the last play and continue to throw deep with 2:00 minutes left of the clock going for that 70th point.

To me Ease of Victory is much more revealing of the overall strength of a team than Margin of Victory. But you will never know that if you don't watch the whole game. So far this year Clemson is the school with the greatest Ease of Victory margin. They have really distanced themselves in the majority of their games without continuing to pour it on a hapless victim. L.S.U. is building in that category while Alabama is playing down in some cases and dominating in others. Both Notre Dame and Alabama have had tighter matches than first glance would indicate.

It's difficult to say about Baylor. Until last night they had really played nobody. And then last night in a 7 point win over Kansas State they were playing a sub at QB, albeit one that looked as seasoned as most folks #1. These last few weeks will tell the tale on Baylor and T.C.U..

You make some really good points. However I for one doubt the committee puts in the man hours some believe they do, and they don't have the ability to know the EOV in every game for the teams in the mix, I don't believe, because that is more work than their work shows they do. To me at least.

I didn't say it was what they did. I said it is what they should do.
11-07-2015 01:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #34
RE: The CFP "Eyeball Test": Return of MOV (with a vengeance)?
Right. I am just saying I do not believe they put in enough hours to remotely even do that, so it is a non-starter.
11-08-2015 12:07 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,892
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #35
RE: The CFP "Eyeball Test": Return of MOV (with a vengeance)?
(11-08-2015 12:07 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Right. I am just saying I do not believe they put in enough hours to remotely even do that, so it is a non-starter.

They are what they are, a justification for the network to get what it wants to maximize advertising revenue. My grandfather always said that anytime somebody lines up a committee of people with publicly known names somebody is about to get screwed. You only need a reputable committee when you know what you are about to do is disreputable. Otherwise your actions would stand on their own merit.
(This post was last modified: 11-08-2015 01:04 AM by JRsec.)
11-08-2015 01:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #36
RE: The CFP "Eyeball Test": Return of MOV (with a vengeance)?
(11-08-2015 01:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-08-2015 12:07 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Right. I am just saying I do not believe they put in enough hours to remotely even do that, so it is a non-starter.

They are what they are, a justification for the network to get what it wants to maximize advertising revenue.

No committee member could possibly devote the time that you want them to devote. They aren't getting paid a million bucks to do this, after all. It's just college football playoffs, not a matter of life and death.
11-08-2015 06:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,892
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #37
RE: The CFP "Eyeball Test": Return of MOV (with a vengeance)?
(11-08-2015 06:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(11-08-2015 01:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(11-08-2015 12:07 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Right. I am just saying I do not believe they put in enough hours to remotely even do that, so it is a non-starter.

They are what they are, a justification for the network to get what it wants to maximize advertising revenue.

No committee member could possibly devote the time that you want them to devote. They aren't getting paid a million bucks to do this, after all. It's just college football playoffs, not a matter of life and death.

Well Quo that kind of proves my point. "They are what they are." But face it, sports is the great distraction to keep the citizens from thinking about the life and death matters. So, I guess they should spend a little more time at least giving them the illusion of order and fairness if they want to keep them distracted. The Missouri boycott is the first major crack in that illusion. The powder keg that has been brewing in the state of Missouri is stepping through that crack to disrupt the illusion of normalcy.

This happens every place where the primary purpose of the media is distraction. Reality always breaks through it to garner the attention of the public. Hopefully this issue will be resolved quickly. But hey, we are talking about negative interest rates seriously, manipulating commodities to try to keep fresh money in a way overbought and under achieving market, are watching the collapse of the regional "health care" centers, are ignoring the erosion of the middle class purchasing power, and are sweeping the resulting social problems under the rug. Somehow I don't think the CFP committee members are sacrificing their precious time to resolving the real issues so maybe they should spend a bit more time getting the CFP in order. Societies that lose the legitimacy of their distractions have always suffered. Spartacus sure as hell disrupted the arena didn't he!
11-08-2015 11:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #38
RE: The CFP "Eyeball Test": Return of MOV (with a vengeance)?
I'm pretty sure there is more to the Committee than just the 12 members and Chairman. They will each have their own staff of people that puts together all the information they are tasked with gathering for their "Designated Conference". We have all seen their set up in the board room. They monitors are there. I am sure they all get a chance to watch brief clips of the best and worst of each team in question and that is about all they do then they give their own personal opinions on the games that they actually did watch.

Hopefully they are watching games of the teams that they are designated to follow but who knows if that actually happens as we don't have that level of transparency, or anything even close to that.
11-08-2015 11:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #39
RE: The CFP "Eyeball Test": Return of MOV (with a vengeance)?
(11-08-2015 11:13 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I'm pretty sure there is more to the Committee than just the 12 members and Chairman. They will each have their own staff of people that puts together all the information they are tasked with gathering for their "Designated Conference". We have all seen their set up in the board room. They monitors are there.

I think that is what we all would assume would be the case, or would hope would be the case. I do not remotely think that is actually the case.
11-08-2015 02:08 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #40
RE: The CFP "Eyeball Test": Return of MOV (with a vengeance)?
So I guess then you agree with the part of the post that you decided to "clip" from the quote since the part you kept in was the part you disagree with? This practice of clipping quotes to fit the argument around here is just silly.
11-08-2015 02:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.