We don't know how the sausage is being made. But it needs to be more open and transparent process and should be open to public scrutiny other words have a few select media people in the room, as they make the sausage. Maybe they should pick the teams like in a blind taste test of wines, see data, scrutinize data, teams ABCDE with no names, (to reduce bias) and on till you get your top 25 .

(11-04-2015 06:23 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  We don't know how the sausage is being made. But it needs to be more open and transparent process and should be open to public scrutiny other words have a few select media people in the room, as they make the sausage. Maybe they should pick the teams like in a blind taste test of wines, see data, scrutinize data, teams ABCDE with no names, (to reduce bias) and on till you get your top 25 .

I think what data they are emphasizing needs to be known. What I mean is when they have their 6 teams they are considering at one time, what data flashes up on the screen for each team. ESPN would have you believe it is their strength of record and game control data, but I think that is them pushing thieir stats and analytics team.

I get that bias ultimately comes into play, especially the "eye test". Still, they have some analytics they are using. It's reasonable to let us know what it is.

(11-04-2015 07:21 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I get that bias ultimately comes into play, especially the "eye test". Still, they have some analytics they are using. It's reasonable to let us know what it is.

I think they are using some analytics, but I question whether each of the committee members is using the same analytics. There was an article recently in which Jeff Long mentioned that he prepares his own charts with various data points and brings those to the meetings. He's probably not the only one. And no doubt there are a few "low information voters" who are mostly just watching games and then getting more information from what the other committee members say.

Go back to the computers...

The CFP being a 100% committee decision was dumb from day one. It got worse from the day they announced its membership. If you want to make the committee seem fair and unbiased---you try to build a committee without bias and with lots of differing points of views---you don't load it with all P5 reps and expect there not to be a bias. The committee should have been structured with 1 rep from each conference and another 5-10 guys who are just trusted personalities who know football. Second, you don't make the committee be the whole enchilada. You spread out the decision making---like I said 33% computers, 33% polls, 33% committee. Even the NCAA committee doesn't have full power in the tournament. Half the field is selected without any input from the committee. The committee only selects who gets in after every single conference has at least ONE team automatically in the tournament.

I do think a bigger committee is necessary. I like the current system, especially the way they compare teams in groups of 6, rank 3 of them then add 3 to the group and do it all over again. But I worry that strong personalities/ opinions could dominate the discussion with such a small group.

If anyone wanted a fair playoff selection process with no bias, there would be a 10 team playoff of all FBS conference champions and NO at-large selections. Would it be the best 10 teams? Of course not, but rules would be clear, fair, and equitable; results determined on the field; and no name bias favoring an Alabama over a TCU for an at-large selection. Any at-large bid will inherently have bias built in by definition; it is unavoidable.

But no one wants to run the risk that a Memphis, Toledo, or App State sneaks into the finals, so we should accept that the bias exists, move on and enjoy the games.

I actually like the set-up. No system is perfect, but I think they do a better job than the AP and certainly than the coaches. At least I feel confident that the people voting on this know the names of at least the starting quarterbacks of half the teams they are voting on (something I don't believe in either the other 2).

Final Point: The system here makes less difference than we often imagine. Let's look at last year.

Top 4: For the hype last year, those who tried to model the BCS system (using the AP instead of the Harris and using the old computer models), came up with exactly the same top 4. The computers did not like Baylor.

Rest: The only differences I see as possible using the AP or BCS formula instead of the committee last year was that Mississippi State might have been behind Michigan State (and thus Michigan State in the Orange and Mississippi State in the Peach/Cotton) and that Kansas State might have beat our Arizona for the final at large spot. In neither case was one answer clearly better than the other at the end of the season and I think a committee where everyone can probably at least name the starting quarterback on half the top 25 teams is probably better than the coaches/AP.

(11-04-2015 08:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 07:21 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I get that bias ultimately comes into play, especially the "eye test". Still, they have some analytics they are using. It's reasonable to let us know what it is.

I think they are using some analytics, but I question whether each of the committee members is using the same analytics. There was an article recently in which Jeff Long mentioned that he prepares his own charts with various data points and brings those to the meetings. He's probably not the only one. And no doubt there are a few "low information voters" who are mostly just watching games and then getting more information from what the other committee members say.

All of them use their own separate analytics. They discussed this last year.

(11-04-2015 08:55 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I do think a bigger committee is necessary. I like the current system, especially the way they compare teams in groups of 6, rank 3 of them then add 3 to the group and do it all over again. But I worry that strong personalities/ opinions could dominate the discussion with such a small group.

They said they gave a lot of weight to the ex-coaches-there are 3-ex-Wisconsin, ex-Nebraska and ex-Stanford/Washington/ND. Two very much running coaches. And surprise-Ohio St. got in and two heavily pass oriented teams get left out.

(11-04-2015 10:07 PM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  If anyone wanted a fair playoff selection process with no bias, there would be a 10 team playoff of all FBS conference champions and NO at-large selections. Would it be the best 10 teams? Of course not, but rules would be clear, fair, and equitable; results determined on the field; and no name bias favoring an Alabama over a TCU for an at-large selection. Any at-large bid will inherently have bias built in by definition; it is unavoidable.

But no one wants to run the risk that a Memphis, Toledo, or App State sneaks into the finals, so we should accept that the bias exists, move on and enjoy the games.

It's not that we never want to see those teams in. If they have a miracle season and are one of the 4 best, I hope they do.

What I love about the sport though is the set-up. I don't watch the NFL, have no interest in it. I love college football. I love how a #1 team can lose in a week and it matters. I love watching cross country games knowing they affect my team. I love the fact that half the teams end up on good notes after bowls and not all but one dissatisfied with a playoff loss.

The sport is very different than most others, but to me, that's what makes it grand. I didn't like going to 4, but accept it. We get much bigger though and my days of following all the conferences will probably come to an end. If college football simply becomes NFL Junior, I won't have much reason to watch anything beside my own team.

Side Note: I'd rather end the concept of a national title at all (just focus on the conference races and bowls) than get a bigger playoff. If that means all the school taking down their national championship banners, so be it.

The entire reason they made this 'Committee' was so they (Espn, P5) would NOT be tied to taking certain teams they didn't want to take--- So that they could fudge the results to get the desired outcome. What about this do people not get....?

Edit: I didn't see Appfans response above at first, but that's it....

(11-04-2015 11:04 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 10:07 PM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  If anyone wanted a fair playoff selection process with no bias, there would be a 10 team playoff of all FBS conference champions and NO at-large selections. Would it be the best 10 teams? Of course not, but rules would be clear, fair, and equitable; results determined on the field; and no name bias favoring an Alabama over a TCU for an at-large selection. Any at-large bid will inherently have bias built in by definition; it is unavoidable.

But no one wants to run the risk that a Memphis, Toledo, or App State sneaks into the finals, so we should accept that the bias exists, move on and enjoy the games.

It's not that we never want to see those teams in. If they have a miracle season and are one of the 4 best, I hope they do.

What I love about the sport though is the set-up. I don't watch the NFL, have no interest in it. I love college football. I love how a #1 team can lose in a week and it matters. I love watching cross country games knowing they affect my team. I love the fact that half the teams end up on good notes after bowls and not all but one dissatisfied with a playoff loss.

The sport is very different than most others, but to me, that's what makes it grand. I didn't like going to 4, but accept it. We get much bigger though and my days of following all the conferences will probably come to an end. If college football simply becomes NFL Junior, I won't have much reason to watch anything beside my own team.

Side Note: I'd rather end the concept of a national title at all (just focus on the conference races and bowls) than get a bigger playoff. If that means all the school taking down their national championship banners, so be it.

Except it doesn't matter to every #1 team. Bama loses and they are propped up by the committee to keep them at #4...when they should be more like #10.

(11-04-2015 08:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The CFP being a 100% committee decision was dumb from day one. It got worse from the day they announced its membership. If you want to make the committee seem fair and unbiased---you try to build a committee without bias and with lots of differing points of views---you don't load it with all P5 reps and expect there not to be a bias. The committee should have been structured with 1 rep from each conference and another 5-10 guys who are just trusted personalities who know football. Second, you don't make the committee be the whole enchilada. You spread out the decision making---like I said 33% computers, 33% polls, 33% committee. Even the NCAA committee doesn't have full power in the tournament. Half the field is selected without any input from the committee. The committee only selects who gets in after every single conference has at least ONE team automatically in the tournament.

I mean this should be obvious but apparently it isn't. Already the media is mostly made up of P5 guys so the media slant already leans that way.

(11-04-2015 11:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 08:55 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I do think a bigger committee is necessary. I like the current system, especially the way they compare teams in groups of 6, rank 3 of them then add 3 to the group and do it all over again. But I worry that strong personalities/ opinions could dominate the discussion with such a small group.

They said they gave a lot of weight to the ex-coaches-there are 3-ex-Wisconsin, ex-Nebraska and ex-Stanford/Washington/ND. Two very much running coaches. And surprise-Ohio St. got in and two heavily pass oriented teams get left out.

Barry Alveraz already mentioned teams like TCU does not belong to the championship game. That includes Utah, Louisville and some others. They are the have nots in his eyes.

(11-04-2015 10:07 PM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  If anyone wanted a fair playoff selection process with no bias, there would be a 10 team playoff of all FBS conference champions and NO at-large selections. Would it be the best 10 teams? Of course not, but rules would be clear, fair, and equitable; results determined on the field; and no name bias favoring an Alabama over a TCU for an at-large selection. Any at-large bid will inherently have bias built in by definition; it is unavoidable.

I think the bias comes into the picture with Heisman candidates.

The media can build a consensus that X is a great player. But X's team is not undefeated and only beat 2 ranked teams. However committee thinks the team should be included in his Top 6 because they have X and others agree.

You see the bias in the basketball committee over great players but when you give 68 teams a shot including all conference champions its not a big deal. Doing it in the football committee is when only 4 get a shot.

That said it does seem obvious the committee does consult the computers because Clemson is #1 in the computer polls and Alabama is #4.

Compare the Top 10 of the CFP this week with seating capacity.

1) Clemson (81,473)
2) LSU (102,321)
3) Ohio State (104,944)
4) Alabama (101,821)
5) Norte Dame (80,795)
6) Baylor (45,140)
7) Michigan State (75,005)
8) TCU (45,000)
9) Iowa (70,585)
10) Florida (88,548)

Other than Baylor and TCU the other Top 10 schools are blue blood football schools with 70,000+ seat stadiums. The type of football schools that 5 star players (Heisman Candidates) have as their first choice.

For a blue collar get it done football team P5 or G5 there is much less margin for error because you can't argue that your Heisman guy had an off day when you don't have a Heisman guy.

(11-05-2015 09:15 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Compare the Top 10 of the CFP this week with seating capacity.

1) Clemson (81,473)
2) LSU (102,321)
3) Ohio State (104,944)
4) Alabama (101,821)
5) Norte Dame (80,795)
6) Baylor (45,140)
7) Michigan State (75,005)
8) TCU (45,000)
9) Iowa (70,585)
10) Florida (88,548)

Other than Baylor and TCU the other Top 10 schools are blue blood football schools with 70,000+ seat stadiums. The type of football schools that 5 star players (Heisman Candidates) have as their first choice.

For a blue collar get it done football team P5 or G5 there is much less margin for error because you can't argue that your Heisman guy had an off day when you don't have a Heisman guy.

Baylor and TCU are the have nots that they think belong with the same class as Memphis, Temple, Boise State etc. etc.

Houston might be a blue blood or big name school more than TCU and Baylor.