Help me understand something. Why did Aresco and the rest of the G4 commissioners agree to the makeup of the CFP committee? This is half the problem. The committee is overloaded with "P so called 5" representatives. The Pac, Big10, Big 12, SEC, and ACC all have an AD on the committee. I don't see an AAC AD on the committee. Why? And why was this agreed to? Of course they are going to have major biases. I am looking at the 13 member committee and the only ones not tied to a "P so called 5" conference are Jeff Bower and Herb Deromedi. Steve Weiberg and Chris Howard might be considered neutral. The other 9 are reps of "P so called 5" conferences. I see the SEC with 2 reps, the ACC with 2 reps and others with ties to P so called 5 conferences. This is inherently unfair. Why on earth would anyone agree to this garbage. No wonder why the committee kept UCF down. The AAC has zero reps and other conferences have 2 or 3. This is extremely bogus and I wonder why this was not fought from the get go. If it wasn't then Aresco failed in that aspect. This has been the overall makeup of the committee from the start of it.
A better way to do this would have been 1 rep from each 10 conferences and 3 neutral reps if you need a 13 member committee.
(01-03-2018 10:36 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ]Help me understand something. Why did Aresco and the rest of the G4 commissioners agree to the makeup of the CFP committee? This is half the problem. The committee is overloaded with "P so called 5" representatives. The Pac, Big10, Big 12, SEC, and ACC all have an AD on the committee. I don't see an AAC AD on the committee. Why? And why was this agreed to? Of course they are going to have major biases. I am looking at the 13 member committee and the only ones not tied to a "P so called 5" conference are Jeff Bower and Herb Deromedi. Steve Weiberg and Chris Howard might be considered neutral. The other 9 are reps of "P so called 5" conferences. I see the SEC with 2 reps, the ACC with 2 reps and others with ties to P so called 5 conferences. This is inherently unfair. Why on earth would anyone agree to this garbage. No wonder why the committee kept UCF down. The AAC has zero reps and other conferences have 2 or 3. This is extremely bogus and I wonder why this was not fought from the get go. If it wasn't then Aresco failed in that aspect. This has been the overall makeup of the committee from the start of it.
A better way to do this would have been 1 rep from each 10 conferences and 3 neutral reps if you need a 13 member committee.
Do you really think they had much choice?
We have also never had an AAC Rep on the Basketball Committee.
And it cost us. SMU in 2014 and Temple in 2015.
Pure BS.
(01-03-2018 10:38 AM)ultraviolet Wrote: [ -> ] (01-03-2018 10:36 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ]Help me understand something. Why did Aresco and the rest of the G4 commissioners agree to the makeup of the CFP committee? This is half the problem. The committee is overloaded with "P so called 5" representatives. The Pac, Big10, Big 12, SEC, and ACC all have an AD on the committee. I don't see an AAC AD on the committee. Why? And why was this agreed to? Of course they are going to have major biases. I am looking at the 13 member committee and the only ones not tied to a "P so called 5" conference are Jeff Bower and Herb Deromedi. Steve Weiberg and Chris Howard might be considered neutral. The other 9 are reps of "P so called 5" conferences. I see the SEC with 2 reps, the ACC with 2 reps and others with ties to P so called 5 conferences. This is inherently unfair. Why on earth would anyone agree to this garbage. No wonder why the committee kept UCF down. The AAC has zero reps and other conferences have 2 or 3. This is extremely bogus and I wonder why this was not fought from the get go. If it wasn't then Aresco failed in that aspect. This has been the overall makeup of the committee from the start of it.
A better way to do this would have been 1 rep from each 10 conferences and 3 neutral reps if you need a 13 member committee.
Do you really think they had much choice?
Yes, I do. There are 10 conferences. If 5 vote against something, then it won't pass.
(01-03-2018 10:43 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ] (01-03-2018 10:38 AM)ultraviolet Wrote: [ -> ] (01-03-2018 10:36 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ]Help me understand something. Why did Aresco and the rest of the G4 commissioners agree to the makeup of the CFP committee? This is half the problem. The committee is overloaded with "P so called 5" representatives. The Pac, Big10, Big 12, SEC, and ACC all have an AD on the committee. I don't see an AAC AD on the committee. Why? And why was this agreed to? Of course they are going to have major biases. I am looking at the 13 member committee and the only ones not tied to a "P so called 5" conference are Jeff Bower and Herb Deromedi. Steve Weiberg and Chris Howard might be considered neutral. The other 9 are reps of "P so called 5" conferences. I see the SEC with 2 reps, the ACC with 2 reps and others with ties to P so called 5 conferences. This is inherently unfair. Why on earth would anyone agree to this garbage. No wonder why the committee kept UCF down. The AAC has zero reps and other conferences have 2 or 3. This is extremely bogus and I wonder why this was not fought from the get go. If it wasn't then Aresco failed in that aspect. This has been the overall makeup of the committee from the start of it.
A better way to do this would have been 1 rep from each 10 conferences and 3 neutral reps if you need a 13 member committee.
Do you really think they had much choice?
Yes, I do. There are 10 conferences. If 5 vote against something, then it won't pass.
I think the Cartel votes are worth more.
the original committee had the old big east commish, he was supposed to be "our" rep, even tho he spoke down on everyone in the league not named uconn
when he stepped down they repaced him with a usm coach...
(01-03-2018 10:43 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ] (01-03-2018 10:38 AM)ultraviolet Wrote: [ -> ] (01-03-2018 10:36 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ]Help me understand something. Why did Aresco and the rest of the G4 commissioners agree to the makeup of the CFP committee? This is half the problem. The committee is overloaded with "P so called 5" representatives. The Pac, Big10, Big 12, SEC, and ACC all have an AD on the committee. I don't see an AAC AD on the committee. Why? And why was this agreed to? Of course they are going to have major biases. I am looking at the 13 member committee and the only ones not tied to a "P so called 5" conference are Jeff Bower and Herb Deromedi. Steve Weiberg and Chris Howard might be considered neutral. The other 9 are reps of "P so called 5" conferences. I see the SEC with 2 reps, the ACC with 2 reps and others with ties to P so called 5 conferences. This is inherently unfair. Why on earth would anyone agree to this garbage. No wonder why the committee kept UCF down. The AAC has zero reps and other conferences have 2 or 3. This is extremely bogus and I wonder why this was not fought from the get go. If it wasn't then Aresco failed in that aspect. This has been the overall makeup of the committee from the start of it.
A better way to do this would have been 1 rep from each 10 conferences and 3 neutral reps if you need a 13 member committee.
Do you really think they had much choice?
Yes, I do. There are 10 conferences. If 5 vote against something, then it won't pass.
I'd be curious what the mechanics of approving this were. Was it conferences? Was it individual schools? Did the independants like ND and BYU have a vote? Was the composition of the committee agreed upon or was that done after everyone signed?
But to answer the OP... If we didn't sign, UCF and UH don't go to the Peach Bowl.
(01-03-2018 10:45 AM)HuskyU Wrote: [ -> ] (01-03-2018 10:43 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ] (01-03-2018 10:38 AM)ultraviolet Wrote: [ -> ] (01-03-2018 10:36 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ]Help me understand something. Why did Aresco and the rest of the G4 commissioners agree to the makeup of the CFP committee? This is half the problem. The committee is overloaded with "P so called 5" representatives. The Pac, Big10, Big 12, SEC, and ACC all have an AD on the committee. I don't see an AAC AD on the committee. Why? And why was this agreed to? Of course they are going to have major biases. I am looking at the 13 member committee and the only ones not tied to a "P so called 5" conference are Jeff Bower and Herb Deromedi. Steve Weiberg and Chris Howard might be considered neutral. The other 9 are reps of "P so called 5" conferences. I see the SEC with 2 reps, the ACC with 2 reps and others with ties to P so called 5 conferences. This is inherently unfair. Why on earth would anyone agree to this garbage. No wonder why the committee kept UCF down. The AAC has zero reps and other conferences have 2 or 3. This is extremely bogus and I wonder why this was not fought from the get go. If it wasn't then Aresco failed in that aspect. This has been the overall makeup of the committee from the start of it.
A better way to do this would have been 1 rep from each 10 conferences and 3 neutral reps if you need a 13 member committee.
Do you really think they had much choice?
Yes, I do. There are 10 conferences. If 5 vote against something, then it won't pass.
I think the Cartel votes are worth more.
In some things yes, such as legislative moves, but this shouldn't be one of them.
The question remains. Is this fair or is it unfair. Yes or no, is it fair. And if it is not fair, why would anyone agree to it. Even P so called 5 conferences, why would they agree to something that is inherently unfair, knowing that it is unfair. There are certain things called wrong and right, and this is wrong. Period, end of story.
(01-03-2018 10:41 AM)HuskyU Wrote: [ -> ]We have also never had an AAC Rep on the Basketball Committee.
And it cost us. SMU in 2014 and Temple in 2015.
Pure BS.
Would not have helped. Only wallflowers and pushovers are allowed on that committee. Trust me.
(01-03-2018 10:56 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ]The question remains. Is this fair or is it unfair. Yes or no, is it fair. And if it is not fair, why would anyone agree to it. Even P so called 5 conferences, why would they agree to something that is inherently unfair, knowing that it is unfair. There are certain things called wrong and right, and this is wrong. Period, end of story.
Money for the "G so called 5".
Bottom line is Payoff committee got it wrong
(01-03-2018 01:06 PM)goodknightfl Wrote: [ -> ]Bottom line is Payoff committee got it wrong
If Alabama wins, this will be the second time in recent history, that the "national champion" will have not won their division. Other time was Alabama in 2012.
Can someone explain how you could possibly be the National Champion, when you're not even the best team in your 6-7 team division?
(01-03-2018 01:34 PM)SublimeKnight Wrote: [ -> ] (01-03-2018 01:06 PM)goodknightfl Wrote: [ -> ]Bottom line is Payoff committee got it wrong
If Alabama wins, this will be the second time in recent history, that the "national champion" will have not won their division. Other time was Alabama in 2012.
Can someone explain how you could possibly be the National Champion, when you're not even the best team in your 6-7 team division?
Fake news. Fake Rankings. Fake Championship.
(01-03-2018 01:34 PM)SublimeKnight Wrote: [ -> ] (01-03-2018 01:06 PM)goodknightfl Wrote: [ -> ]Bottom line is Payoff committee got it wrong
If Alabama wins, this will be the second time in recent history, that the "national champion" will have not won their division. Other time was Alabama in 2012.
Can someone explain how you could possibly be the National Champion, when you're not even the best team in your 6-7 team division?
In the 2013-2014 season, UCONN MBB finished in a 3-way tie for 3rd in the AAC.
Would you prefer only regular season conference champions getting bids to the Big Dance?
(01-03-2018 01:45 PM)HuskyU Wrote: [ -> ] (01-03-2018 01:34 PM)SublimeKnight Wrote: [ -> ] (01-03-2018 01:06 PM)goodknightfl Wrote: [ -> ]Bottom line is Payoff committee got it wrong
If Alabama wins, this will be the second time in recent history, that the "national champion" will have not won their division. Other time was Alabama in 2012.
Can someone explain how you could possibly be the National Champion, when you're not even the best team in your 6-7 team division?
In the 2013-2014 season, UCONN MBB finished in a 3-way tie for 3rd in the AAC.
Would you prefer only regular season conference champions getting bids to the Big Dance?
IF there weren't even enough slots in the NCAA MBB tournament for every conference to have an AQ, then definitely YES. A conference champion should never be passed over for an at-large. The champion produced by that tournament is illegitimate when you do that.
The ONLY way this will ever be fair is for the "playoffs" to expand to 8 teams with the following guidelines for who gets in each year:
1. Conference champion from the so-called P5 conferences.
2. The top rated team from the so-called G5 conferences.
3. Two wildcards.
This is the only way to make sure EVERY team in Division 1 has a chance to compete for a national championship.
Unfortunately, if the "playoffs" ever expand to 8 teams, there will be no provision for the G5. This year told us everything we need to know about the reasons behind the "playoffs." It's all about making sure the big boys hoard even more of the money. If the "playoffs" had 8 teams this year, UCF still would not have come close to getting in.
(01-03-2018 10:59 AM)fanhood Wrote: [ -> ] (01-03-2018 10:41 AM)HuskyU Wrote: [ -> ]We have also never had an AAC Rep on the Basketball Committee.
And it cost us. SMU in 2014 and Temple in 2015.
Pure BS.
Would not have helped. Only wallflowers and pushovers are allowed on that committee. Trust me.
True words there.
(01-03-2018 02:02 PM)memphistiger89 Wrote: [ -> ]The ONLY way this will ever be fair is for the "playoffs" to expand to 8 teams with the following guidelines for who gets in each year:
1. Conference champion from the so-called P5 conferences.
2. The top rated team from the so-called G5 conferences.
3. Two wildcards.
This is the only way to make sure EVERY team in Division 1 has a chance to compete for a national championship.
Unfortunately, if the "playoffs" ever expand to 8 teams, there will be no provision for the G5. This year told us everything we need to know about the reasons behind the "playoffs." It's all about making sure the big boys hoard even more of the money. If the "playoffs" had 8 teams this year, UCF still would not have come close to getting in.
As you concluded, there is no intention to make selection "fair". The CFP is part of a systematic approach to keep all of the recognition & all of the revenue within the P5. The other major component is to refuse to schedule (some through conference rules) the AAC in H/H games so that they can always claim the AAC plays a weak schedule & is unworthy of consideration.
(01-03-2018 03:53 PM)Atlanta Wrote: [ -> ] (01-03-2018 02:02 PM)memphistiger89 Wrote: [ -> ]The ONLY way this will ever be fair is for the "playoffs" to expand to 8 teams with the following guidelines for who gets in each year:
1. Conference champion from the so-called P5 conferences.
2. The top rated team from the so-called G5 conferences.
3. Two wildcards.
This is the only way to make sure EVERY team in Division 1 has a chance to compete for a national championship.
Unfortunately, if the "playoffs" ever expand to 8 teams, there will be no provision for the G5. This year told us everything we need to know about the reasons behind the "playoffs." It's all about making sure the big boys hoard even more of the money. If the "playoffs" had 8 teams this year, UCF still would not have come close to getting in.
As you concluded, there is no intention to make selection "fair". The CFP is part of a systematic approach to keep all of the recognition & all of the revenue within the P5. The other major component is to refuse to schedule (some through conference rules) the AAC in H/H games so that they can always claim the AAC plays a weak schedule & is unworthy of consideration.
Sure sounds like racketeering to me.
