• Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Gould, a former Air Force Academy superintendent
• USC athletic director Pat Haden
• Former NCAA executive vice president Tom Jernstedt
• West Virginia athletic director Oliver Luck
• Former NFL and Ole Miss quarterback Archie Manning
• Former Nebraska athletic director/coach Tom Osborne
• Clemson athletic director Dan Radakovich
• Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
• Former Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese
• Former USA Today reporter Steve Wieberg
• Former Stanford/Notre Dame/Washington coach Tyrone Willingham
So no direct G5 representation on the committee. The best they have is Mike Tranghese (peripheral at best) and Lt. Gen. Gould (who's retired).
Retired is good for this job. I'm more concerned about the non-retired members. They presumably have their hands full with their day jobs. (Would you want your school to have an AD who cut back to half-time during football season so that he could focus on the football committee?) How much time are they going to spend on this? Are they going to have thoroughly researched each contender by watching actual games, or are they going to go by "name" and "buzz" and their own biases like the coaches who vote in the coaches' poll. I suspect the latter. Feel free to disagree if you are less cynical.
Your complaint is kind of silly. This is a PLAYOFF selection committee. They can let the season complete before they have to spend a whole lot of time worrying about who to select. It's not like polls, where they attempt to rate teams every week...
At the end of the season, you only have a few teams to consider, and it will be fairly easy to evaluate their respective SOS. They don't have to evaluate the entirety of college football. There will be less than 10 teams to consider for the 4 team playoff. So it shouldn't take that much effort. All the data needed will be readily available...
• Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Gould, a former Air Force Academy superintendent
• USC athletic director Pat Haden
• Former NCAA executive vice president Tom Jernstedt
• West Virginia athletic director Oliver Luck
• Former NFL and Ole Miss quarterback Archie Manning
• Former Nebraska athletic director/coach Tom Osborne
• Clemson athletic director Dan Radakovich
• Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
• Former Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese
• Former USA Today reporter Steve Wieberg
• Former Stanford/Notre Dame/Washington coach Tyrone Willingham
So no direct G5 representation on the committee. The best they have is Mike Tranghese (peripheral at best) and Lt. Gen. Gould (who's retired).
Retired is good for this job. I'm more concerned about the non-retired members. They presumably have their hands full with their day jobs. (Would you want your school to have an AD who cut back to half-time during football season so that he could focus on the football committee?) How much time are they going to spend on this? Are they going to have thoroughly researched each contender by watching actual games, or are they going to go by "name" and "buzz" and their own biases like the coaches who vote in the coaches' poll. I suspect the latter. Feel free to disagree if you are less cynical.
Your complaint is kind of silly. This is a PLAYOFF selection committee. They can let the season complete before they have to spend a whole lot of time worrying about who to select. It's not like polls, where they attempt to rate teams every week...
At the end of the season, you only have a few teams to consider, and it will be fairly easy to evaluate their respective SOS. They don't have to evaluate the entirety of college football. There will be less than 10 teams to consider for the 4 team playoff. So it shouldn't take that much effort. All the data needed will be readily available...
So they're going to do this based on data (maybe the same data used by the silly computer ranking that had Notre Dame #1 after Bama beat them in the BCS game), and they're going to cram for it over two days instead of actually having followed the season and watched the teams' games. Sounds exactly like the basketball committee, and we could go on all day about their missteps. They make many lousy seeding decisions, and maybe they get the last couple of teams in right, maybe they don't....
But no worries, right? What could possibly go wrong when the close calls are for the 3rd and 4th best teams instead of the 67th and 68th teams in the field?
• Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Gould, a former Air Force Academy superintendent
• USC athletic director Pat Haden
• Former NCAA executive vice president Tom Jernstedt
• West Virginia athletic director Oliver Luck
• Former NFL and Ole Miss quarterback Archie Manning
• Former Nebraska athletic director/coach Tom Osborne
• Clemson athletic director Dan Radakovich
• Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
• Former Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese
• Former USA Today reporter Steve Wieberg
• Former Stanford/Notre Dame/Washington coach Tyrone Willingham
So no direct G5 representation on the committee. The best they have is Mike Tranghese (peripheral at best) and Lt. Gen. Gould (who's retired).
Retired is good for this job. I'm more concerned about the non-retired members. They presumably have their hands full with their day jobs. (Would you want your school to have an AD who cut back to half-time during football season so that he could focus on the football committee?) How much time are they going to spend on this? Are they going to have thoroughly researched each contender by watching actual games, or are they going to go by "name" and "buzz" and their own biases like the coaches who vote in the coaches' poll. I suspect the latter. Feel free to disagree if you are less cynical.
Your complaint is kind of silly. This is a PLAYOFF selection committee. They can let the season complete before they have to spend a whole lot of time worrying about who to select. It's not like polls, where they attempt to rate teams every week...
At the end of the season, you only have a few teams to consider, and it will be fairly easy to evaluate their respective SOS. They don't have to evaluate the entirety of college football. There will be less than 10 teams to consider for the 4 team playoff. So it shouldn't take that much effort. All the data needed will be readily available...
The selection committee will also seed all the at-large spots in the Access Bowls, including the G5 spot. In some years, they'll have to select the matchups for as many as 10 of the 12 spots (like 2014), but in others, they'll only have to seed as few as 6 (like 2016).
• Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Gould, a former Air Force Academy superintendent
• USC athletic director Pat Haden
• Former NCAA executive vice president Tom Jernstedt
• West Virginia athletic director Oliver Luck
• Former NFL and Ole Miss quarterback Archie Manning
• Former Nebraska athletic director/coach Tom Osborne
• Clemson athletic director Dan Radakovich
• Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
• Former Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese
• Former USA Today reporter Steve Wieberg
• Former Stanford/Notre Dame/Washington coach Tyrone Willingham
So no direct G5 representation on the committee. The best they have is Mike Tranghese (peripheral at best) and Lt. Gen. Gould (who's retired).
Retired is good for this job. I'm more concerned about the non-retired members. They presumably have their hands full with their day jobs. (Would you want your school to have an AD who cut back to half-time during football season so that he could focus on the football committee?) How much time are they going to spend on this? Are they going to have thoroughly researched each contender by watching actual games, or are they going to go by "name" and "buzz" and their own biases like the coaches who vote in the coaches' poll. I suspect the latter. Feel free to disagree if you are less cynical.
Your complaint is kind of silly. This is a PLAYOFF selection committee. They can let the season complete before they have to spend a whole lot of time worrying about who to select. It's not like polls, where they attempt to rate teams every week...
At the end of the season, you only have a few teams to consider, and it will be fairly easy to evaluate their respective SOS. They don't have to evaluate the entirety of college football. There will be less than 10 teams to consider for the 4 team playoff. So it shouldn't take that much effort. All the data needed will be readily available...
The selection committee will also seed all the at-large spots in the Access Bowls, including the G5 spot. In some years, they'll have to select the matchups for as many as 10 of the 12 spots (like 2014), but in others, they'll only have to seed as few as 6 (like 2016).
And this was hailed as great progress? Same crap in a new package x 2.
So no direct G5 representation on the committee. The best they have is Mike Tranghese (peripheral at best) and Lt. Gen. Gould (who's retired).
Retired is good for this job. I'm more concerned about the non-retired members. They presumably have their hands full with their day jobs. (Would you want your school to have an AD who cut back to half-time during football season so that he could focus on the football committee?) How much time are they going to spend on this? Are they going to have thoroughly researched each contender by watching actual games, or are they going to go by "name" and "buzz" and their own biases like the coaches who vote in the coaches' poll. I suspect the latter. Feel free to disagree if you are less cynical.
Your complaint is kind of silly. This is a PLAYOFF selection committee. They can let the season complete before they have to spend a whole lot of time worrying about who to select. It's not like polls, where they attempt to rate teams every week...
At the end of the season, you only have a few teams to consider, and it will be fairly easy to evaluate their respective SOS. They don't have to evaluate the entirety of college football. There will be less than 10 teams to consider for the 4 team playoff. So it shouldn't take that much effort. All the data needed will be readily available...
The selection committee will also seed all the at-large spots in the Access Bowls, including the G5 spot. In some years, they'll have to select the matchups for as many as 10 of the 12 spots (like 2014), but in others, they'll only have to seed as few as 6 (like 2016).
And this was hailed as great progress? Same crap in a new package x 2.
Exactly. More or less a new way to reset the clock to 1998.
So no direct G5 representation on the committee. The best they have is Mike Tranghese (peripheral at best) and Lt. Gen. Gould (who's retired).
Retired is good for this job. I'm more concerned about the non-retired members. They presumably have their hands full with their day jobs. (Would you want your school to have an AD who cut back to half-time during football season so that he could focus on the football committee?) How much time are they going to spend on this? Are they going to have thoroughly researched each contender by watching actual games, or are they going to go by "name" and "buzz" and their own biases like the coaches who vote in the coaches' poll. I suspect the latter. Feel free to disagree if you are less cynical.
Your complaint is kind of silly. This is a PLAYOFF selection committee. They can let the season complete before they have to spend a whole lot of time worrying about who to select. It's not like polls, where they attempt to rate teams every week...
At the end of the season, you only have a few teams to consider, and it will be fairly easy to evaluate their respective SOS. They don't have to evaluate the entirety of college football. There will be less than 10 teams to consider for the 4 team playoff. So it shouldn't take that much effort. All the data needed will be readily available...
The selection committee will also seed all the at-large spots in the Access Bowls, including the G5 spot. In some years, they'll have to select the matchups for as many as 10 of the 12 spots (like 2014), but in others, they'll only have to seed as few as 6 (like 2016).
And this was hailed as great progress? Same crap in a new package x 2.
You expected something else? It's still basically the BCS, with added caveat of having 4 teams selection for the Championship, instead of just 2...
Until they give a spot to every conference champion, like they do at the FCS level, that's all it will ever be...
Seeing the arkansas AD running the bcs things, how about this for big 10 expansion...Missouri + Arkansas right now to jump to 16. There would be no GOR problems and its a nice geographic setup for the big 10 with 8 teams in the east and west. I had always thought missouri + KU would be perfect for the big 10 but than switched to KU + Oklahoma but Missouri + Arkansas works great right now without any issues to get to 16 school's. The real key is its future bait for getting texas having an historic rival in the big 10 with arkansas + throw in OU/ku looking much more favorable on moving to the big 10 post the big 10 adding missouri + arkansas. Big 10 could cut the knife down on the big 12 someday when GOR aren't a problem by jumping to 19 with KU, OU and Texas than add team 20 in the east. Granted, arkansas isn't AAU but they are probably on level with nebraska academically and have lots of potential walmart money to build up the academic standing over time. IF the big 10 desires to jump to 16 before negotiating its tv deal and doesn't want to deal with GOR's, the Missouri + arkansas combo might be the best bet.
Big 10
E: UM, MSU, IU, PUR, OSU, PSU, Rut, Maryland
W: NW, ILL, WIS, MIN, IO, NEB, Missouri, Arkansas
expansion to 20 post big 12 GOR with Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and X(eastern school)
(This post was last modified: 10-15-2013 12:43 PM by bluesox.)
Quote:Team-Selection Method:
Unlike the BCS, which uses a formula based on a combination of computer rankings and human polls to select teams, selection committee members for the new playoff will have flexibility to examine whatever data they believe is relevant to inform their decisions. Among the many factors the committee will consider are win-loss record, strength of schedule, head-to-head results, and conference championships won.
Anticipated Timing of Announcements:
Although the exact timing has yet to be determined, the selection committee will meet several times in person to evaluate teams and prepare interim rankings during the regular season. It will meet again during selection weekend and will announce the pairings for the playoff.
Quote:Team-Selection Method:
Unlike the BCS, which uses a formula based on a combination of computer rankings and human polls to select teams, selection committee members for the new playoff will have flexibility to examine whatever data they believe is relevant to inform their decisions. Among the many factors the committee will consider are win-loss record, strength of schedule, head-to-head results, and conference championships won.
Anticipated Timing of Announcements:
Although the exact timing has yet to be determined, the selection committee will meet several times in person to evaluate teams and prepare interim rankings during the regular season. It will meet again during selection weekend and will announce the pairings for the playoff.
There were lots of other quotes flying around about the announcements and Q&A with each selection committee member. One guy even flustered Mike Tranghese about the juxtaposition of him being on the committee and statements he made previously about how a playoff would be bad for college football. I need to find that.
Also, Hancock said that the committee will be "transparent" but also will NOT share individual ballots on how they selected their top 25.
They also said that they will take the top-ranked G5 team for the access bowl that is in their top 25 (by whatever method they choose to rank the teams), but if there's no G5 school in that top 25, they'll rank more schools until they get to one. I'm paraphrasing here based on several tweets I saw yesterday.
(10-17-2013 09:49 AM)CommuterBob Wrote: Also, Hancock said that the committee will be "transparent" but also will NOT share individual ballots on how they selected their top 25.
They had a chance to make this playoff all inclusive if they wanted to. but they chose not to. (All the selection committee would have to do was pick the at large)
Plan One Most Fair:
16 team playoff
1 slot for each conference Champ of all 10 FBS conferences
+ 6 at large
Or Plan two
8 team Playoff :
1 slot for each of the P-5 Champions
2 At large from the P-5 Major Conferences
1 At Large from the G-5 Not Major Conferences
But they chose the 4 Team at Large and they keep talking strength of schedule, Which is a crock because the P-5 conferences can keep
from scheduling the G-5 so making sure their strength of schedule will
never be high enough for inclusion.
Also even if they do schedule it will always be a home game for the P-5 school.
FBS College Football is the only sport from High School, College and Pro that you can't tell every team if you win all your games you will be the
Champion
Any football avid fan, as condi claims she is could take all 125 teams and put them in their proper conference. know way she could.......
(This post was last modified: 10-17-2013 12:27 PM by Hilltop 75.)
(10-17-2013 11:56 AM)Hilltop 75 Wrote:
Or Plan two
8 team Playoff :
1 slot for each of the P-5 Champions
2 At large from the P-5 Major Conferences
1 At Large from the G-5 Not Major Conferences
This plan would be ideal, however I wouldn't limit G5 to only one team. If they have two in the top 8, let them in.
/
CFP Selection Committee Membership Announcements
