SIR
Good to see someone complaining about the way college football is going and the way the committee is making their decisions. I hope more and more articles like this are written.
I agree with him that it is ridiculous that Marshall isn't ranked and maybe even just as scary is the level that SEC bias has reached.
Not trying to stir things up and I know I'm preaching to the choir, but it is a tiny bit encouraging to know that somebody with something of a voice is paying attention and calling people out. I apologize if this was already posted here.
In rankings that matter, group of 5 teams don't
(11-21-2014 01:40 PM)TheEastisPurple Wrote: [ -> ]SIR
Good to see someone complaining about the way college football is going and the way the committee is making their decisions. I hope more and more articles like this are written.
I agree with him that it is ridiculous that Marshall isn't ranked and maybe even just as scary is the level that SEC bias has reached.
Not trying to stir things up and I know I'm preaching to the choir, but it is a tiny bit encouraging to know that somebody with something of a voice is paying attention and calling people out. I apologize if this was already posted here.
In rankings that matter, group of 5 teams don't
Anyone know an email address for the CFP playoff committee or it's members?
It's the P5's Presidents and Commissioners jobs to gut the rest of the FBS for the fiscal betterment of those they represent.
But who represents the G5? One Air Force guy on a panel of 12? He either votes with the P5 crowd or he will be ostracized as soon as possbile.
Somebody gave away the store.
it's sad it took this long for the article to be written.....it's funny how a number on this board wrote that article years ago....
once again, too little....too late....
(11-21-2014 02:04 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone know an email address for the CFP playoff committee or it's members?
TheyDon'tGiveAPhuck@P5.com
This why it is imperative that any expanded 8-team playoff (its coming soon) have 5 slots guaranteed for each P5 champ and one playoff slot GUARANTEED for the best G5 champ. While I think the committee can do an adequate job of selecting the best G5 champ----they have already made it clear their anti-G5 bias is such that no G5 team will ever rise high enough to make the playoff. So, the decision of "is a G5 worthy of a playoff slot" must be removed from the selection committee's plate as they have proven to be too biased (to a fairly ridiculous degree) to have any reasonable chance of fairly addressing the issue of G5 "worthiness". The committee as formed, however, is likely adequate to handle the question of which G5 champ is best. Since all the G5 champs would suffer equally from the same committee anti-G5 bias, the bias should not be an issue for the committee within this limited scope of work.
It needs to be a playoff where all FBS champions are included. After that, they can add as many at large bids to give to P5 teams as they want. The G5 won't get any of them. But I could live with that if they took conference champs like basketball. 16 teams seems like an ideal number. 10 champs and 6 at larges.
(11-21-2014 06:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]This why it is imperative that any expanded 8-team playoff (its coming soon) have 5 slots guaranteed for each P5 champ and one playoff slot GUARANTEED for the best G5 champ. While I think the committee can do an adequate job of selecting the best G5 champ----they have already made it clear their anti-G5 bias is such that no G5 team will ever rise high enough to make the playoff. So, the decision of "is a G5 worthy of a playoff slot" must be removed from the selection committee's plate as they have proven to be too biased (to a fairly ridiculous degree) to have any reasonable chance of fairly addressing the issue of G5 "worthiness". The committee as formed, however, is likely adequate to handle the question of which G5 champ is best. Since all the G5 champs would suffer equally from the same committee anti-G5 bias, the bias should not be an issue for the committee within this limited scope of work.
Maybe, but it would probably boil down to which G5 champ beat the most P5 teams. And its not that simple.
(11-21-2014 06:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]This why it is imperative that any expanded 8-team playoff (its coming soon) have 5 slots guaranteed for each P5 champ and one playoff slot GUARANTEED for the best G5 champ. While I think the committee can do an adequate job of selecting the best G5 champ----they have already made it clear their anti-G5 bias is such that no G5 team will ever rise high enough to make the playoff. So, the decision of "is a G5 worthy of a playoff slot" must be removed from the selection committee's plate as they have proven to be too biased (to a fairly ridiculous degree) to have any reasonable chance of fairly addressing the issue of G5 "worthiness". The committee as formed, however, is likely adequate to handle the question of which G5 champ is best. Since all the G5 champs would suffer equally from the same committee anti-G5 bias, the bias should not be an issue for the committee within this limited scope of work.
if that were to happen, I then see them reverting to the previous version for the g5 ONLY so they can spend time on the p5 at-large bids....
if/when it does go 8, if the g5 doesn't have a spot, all hell will finally break loose and the courts will most definitely be involved....
what a cf this is......and it didn't have to be this way.....should've gone to 8 right out of the gate......figurehead morons they are.....just like the dipshites in d.c.
What they have proven above all else is that they have no business sense. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows how exciting it would be, and the SICK amounts of money to be made if we had a 16 team playoff. I just hope the jerkoffs currently ruining the game realize it before it's too late.
These derogatory terms they use to describe us should be banned. To me that is the biggest issue. To allow them to put us in a category is the biggest problem we have. First it was non-bcs. Now group of five. This is where the push back should start. And this pole is a giant piece of crap because it's bias is on full display. Might as well go back to letting a computer do it.
I think Marshall is a great team and probably worthy of the ranking, but the AD has to share the blame for the weak scheduling. Unfortunately, the same thing will happen next year as the 2015 out of conference schedule is equally weak (Purdue,Ohio,Norfolk St,Kent St). I am confident Marshall could beat most ACC and B1G schools, too bad we don't get to see it happen. There should be two P5 games a year on your schedule if you want the G5 access bowl slot.
Has the AD been asked about the scheduling strategy? Was the 2014 schedule created before or after the new playoff system was announced?
(11-22-2014 08:09 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote: [ -> ]I think Marshall is a great team and probably worthy of the ranking, but the AD has to share the blame for the weak scheduling. Unfortunately, the same thing will happen next year as the 2015 out of conference schedule is equally weak (Purdue,Ohio,Norfolk St,Kent St). I am confident Marshall could beat most ACC and B1G schools, too bad we don't get to see it happen. There should be two P5 games a year on your schedule if you want the G5 access bowl slot.
Has the AD been asked about the scheduling strategy? Was the 2014 schedule created before or after the new playoff system was announced?
As has been stated many times, Louisville backed out of this year's schedule due to ACC commitments, requiring a quick find for a replacement. Thus Rhode Island.
I see nothing wrong with next year's schedule. 1 BIG in Purdue...at home...and two fan friendly MAC games which are an important part of our tradition (Ohio is our primary rival). And one FCS game. I don't think we have anything to apologize for. In the last 10 years, we have scheduled and played (competitively in many cases) of the following Kansas State, Ohio State, Virginia Tech, Purdue, West Virginia, MIami, and others. We have nothing to apologize for and our AD is doing fine.
Our schedule is fine in the upcoming years. Before WKU, MTSU and eventually Charlotte joined, there was a serious lack of driveable away games. Our AD gave us away games we can get to in non-conference portion of schedule. And we will play at least 6 home games every future year.
Scheduling is not as easy as calling someone and a game appearing. And if you watched the game at Virginia Tech last year, you'll know why our program is extremely leery of ACC officials. We have long history with those clowns. If you do a 1-and-done, you get those clowns. A series at least will give us CUSA officials in one of the games.
(11-22-2014 08:36 AM)ThunderingHerdFan Wrote: [ -> ]Our schedule is fine in the upcoming years. Before WKU, MTSU and eventually Charlotte joined, there was a serious lack of driveable away games. Our AD gave us away games we can get to in non-conference portion of schedule. And we will play at least 6 home games every future year.
Scheduling is not as easy as calling someone and a game appearing. And if you watched the game at Virginia Tech last year, you'll know why our program is extremely leery of ACC officials. We have long history with those clowns. If you do a 1-and-done, you get those clowns. A series at least will give us CUSA officials in one of the games.
I hear you on the ACC officials. We would have beaten Ga Tech, had the ACC officials not made a ridiculous replay reversal. We had a pitch go forward and correctly ruled an incomplete pass on the field. Despite video evidence clearly showing the ball moving forward, the ACC replay officials overturned it and called it a fumble and gave the ball to GT.
Without question a situation where the officials did everything they could to help the ACC avoid an embarrassing loss.
(11-21-2014 02:04 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone know an email address for the CFP playoff committee or it's members?
I'm not sure on the specifics, but I'm pretty sure they all end with @sec.org