(05-22-2016 06:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-22-2016 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2016 12:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-21-2016 09:09 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-21-2016 08:50 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  Absolutely agree with you ... but the corruption is even worse than you state. The selection committee will do what it can to work AGAINST the "non names" within the Power 5 too. There's no way a non-traditional football power gets chosen over a similarly successful traditional football power. So, the Wake Forest's, Syracuse's, Northwestern's, Louisville's, Washington State's, Iowa State's, Mississippi State's, etc etc etc will be snubbed if they can be snubbed, every single time.

The ONLY way to limit the chance for this corruption is to provide greater access by expanding the slots for the playoff. It becomes harder to take away what has been achieved on the field, when there are more playoff slots to fill. There will still be bias, and corruption, but it'll be contained to a greater degree than it can be now.

And TCU and Baylor were snubbed too. The true powers that be are a very small group of guys indeed.
Cheers!

The human polls have always been the most unbiased and most inclusive. Even the BCS system allowed non-BCS teams to rise as high as #4. The problem is less the 4 team field than it is the corrupt selection committee. We have traded a system with thousands of independent opinions that were impossible to control and replaced it with a dozen opinions that are much easier to rig and much easier to control. I knew from the beginning that the selection committee would be the worst possible outcome for the G5. When the membership was announced--Inwas even more certain. The committee has proven it's biased and corrupt nature every year---probably doing it with complete belief that they aren't biased--but just know better than all others (despite having been proven wrong over and over again).

Er, OK, so exactly which of the 8 selections the CFP committee has made the past two years indicates that is "corrupt"?

Hint: If you combine the final pre-bowl AP and Coaches polls in both 2014 and 2015, you get the exact same playoff teams both years as were chosen by the CFP. In fact, in 2015 you also get the identical seedings within the top 4, and in 2014 you get the same seedings as well, except had the polls prevailed Oregon and FSU would have swapped positions at #2 and #3, which would have had no impact because they still would have played each other in the Rose Bowl.

My description of the corrupt and biased nature of the selection committee is centered their treatment of G5's. Just because it hasn't caused an issue with the playoffs for the G5 yet, doesn't mean a bias doesn't exist. There is broad and clear disconnect in how the human polls and the selection committee rank G5s with respect to P5's.

I think the selection committee is actually accurate in how it determines the top G5. It seems to be more than capable of reasonably comparing G5 to G5 and P5 to P5. Its issue is comparing G5 vs P5. Its natural bias (even it if its accidental and not purposeful) eliminates the ability of any unbiased individual taking the committee seriously on this issue. In fact, the difference is so glaring (and provably wrong by game results), its clear that bias is there by design---otherwise any reasonable person would have made an effort to correct the bias (which is why one is forced to conclude it is, in fact, corrupt).

My feeling is the correction will never happen in this format. The correction will occur when the playoff eventually expands to 8---with all 5 P5's getting an autobid and the top G5 getting an autobid. As I said, I think we can actually trust the committee to select the top G5, we just cant trust it to ever select a G5 over a P5 unless it is MANDATED.

Lets say 2 G5 schools goes undefeated like when Boise State faced TCU in the Fiesta Bowl? They could put both undefeated teams to face each other in the first round. I do not think they want their P5 schools lose to G5 schools in the first round like that right away. Could lose a top team that way.

Lets say Houston and Boise State both went undefeated last year? They both defeated some top 25 teams as well. How would they figure that out on who goes where?

That would've been a really interesting one, Quo.

Memphis undefeated. Ole Miss two loss SEC champs (beats Arkansas in that OT game, instead of losing). Pac 12 champ Stanford with two losses. Then let's say that Oklahoma loses to Oklahoma St, instead of beating them.

Yikes!

(05-22-2016 06:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-22-2016 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-22-2016 12:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-21-2016 09:09 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-21-2016 08:50 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  Absolutely agree with you ... but the corruption is even worse than you state. The selection committee will do what it can to work AGAINST the "non names" within the Power 5 too. There's no way a non-traditional football power gets chosen over a similarly successful traditional football power. So, the Wake Forest's, Syracuse's, Northwestern's, Louisville's, Washington State's, Iowa State's, Mississippi State's, etc etc etc will be snubbed if they can be snubbed, every single time.

The ONLY way to limit the chance for this corruption is to provide greater access by expanding the slots for the playoff. It becomes harder to take away what has been achieved on the field, when there are more playoff slots to fill. There will still be bias, and corruption, but it'll be contained to a greater degree than it can be now.

And TCU and Baylor were snubbed too. The true powers that be are a very small group of guys indeed.
Cheers!

The human polls have always been the most unbiased and most inclusive. Even the BCS system allowed non-BCS teams to rise as high as #4. The problem is less the 4 team field than it is the corrupt selection committee. We have traded a system with thousands of independent opinions that were impossible to control and replaced it with a dozen opinions that are much easier to rig and much easier to control. I knew from the beginning that the selection committee would be the worst possible outcome for the G5. When the membership was announced--Inwas even more certain. The committee has proven it's biased and corrupt nature every year---probably doing it with complete belief that they aren't biased--but just know better than all others (despite having been proven wrong over and over again).

Er, OK, so exactly which of the 8 selections the CFP committee has made the past two years indicates that is "corrupt"?

Hint: If you combine the final pre-bowl AP and Coaches polls in both 2014 and 2015, you get the exact same playoff teams both years as were chosen by the CFP. In fact, in 2015 you also get the identical seedings within the top 4, and in 2014 you get the same seedings as well, except had the polls prevailed Oregon and FSU would have swapped positions at #2 and #3, which would have had no impact because they still would have played each other in the Rose Bowl.

My description of the corrupt and biased nature of the selection committee is centered their treatment of G5's. Just because it hasn't caused an issue with the playoffs for the G5 yet, doesn't mean a bias doesn't exist. There is broad and clear disconnect in how the human polls and the selection committee rank G5s with respect to P5's.

I think the selection committee is actually accurate in how it determines the top G5. It seems to be more than capable of reasonably comparing G5 to G5 and P5 to P5. Its issue is comparing G5 vs P5. Its natural bias (even it if its accidental and not purposeful) eliminates the ability of any unbiased individual taking the committee seriously on this issue. In fact, the difference is so glaring (and provably wrong by game results), its clear that bias is there by design---otherwise any reasonable person would have made an effort to correct the bias (which is why one is forced to conclude it is, in fact, corrupt).

This is seriously silly. Let's look at both years, 2014 and 2015. We'll look at the CFP pre-bowl rankings of the best G5 teams and compare to a combined AP and Coaches poll:

2014:

CFP: .................. Boise 20
AP + Coaches: .... Boise 21

So in 2014, the CFP and pollsters both agreed that (a) there was just one G5 worthy of being ranked, (b) that team was Boise, and © they differed on their ranking by just ONE spot, with the CFP actually having the G5 team ranked higher than the pollsters. Yeah, lots of anti-G5 bias by the CFP there, LOL.

2015:

CFP: .................... Houston 18, Navy 22, Temple 24
AP + Coaches:....... Houston 15, Navy 22, Temple 24

Sheesh! They are nearly identical again. Both have just three ranked G5 teams, both have the same ranked G5 teams, and for two of the three their rankings are identical! The only difference is the CFP has Houston at 18 while the voters have them 15, a trivial difference in a system where the top four make the playoffs.

Over the two years, the CFP had the top G5 team +1 and -3 different from the pollsters, an average of -1, one position lower, 18 to 19. That's nothing.

So for the two years we have data, the CFP and pollsters are about as close to 100% agreement about the pre-bowl merit of G5, and yet you extol the pollsters but call the CFP hopelessly anti-G5 and corrupt?