(01-08-2024 05:20 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 03:54 PM)Claw Wrote:  I would add a strength-of-team factor into the strength-of-schedule.

With 100% being every player healthy and playing, what is the given strength-of-team during the actual played game? Then factor that into the strength of schedule calculation.

Yeah like in 2020 when ND beat Clemson while Lawrence was hurt but got smoked in the rematch when he was healthy. If they're going to take injury into account for picking teams, it seems like they should also take injury into account for games that have actually, you know, been played.

Exactly. How the hell you do that I have no idea.

(01-08-2024 05:35 PM)whittx Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 04:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 03:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  Now its disappointing there were death threats,

I'm going to read the rest and probably comment, but I thought it was important to take a second to let that statement breathe.

I don't know how persuasive Narvaez' complaints about the SOS metric the committee (allegedly) uses are, but they could always go back to the last version of the BCS formula. The computer rankings and the polls take SOS into account, to some extent.

IMO the only thing the committee should do is make matchups, limited by the BCS formula deciding who hosts a QF, who hosts a playoff game, who plays a first-round game on the road.

Then just pick polarizing (but hopefully konwledgable) broadcasters to make those polarizing decisions. The "committee" would be the likes of Clay Travis, Stephen A Smith, Pat McAfee and Kirk Herbstreit, chaired by a man with undeniable college football crediblity north and south, Urban Meyer.

You need a SEC homer to round this out. Paul Feinbaum is perfect.

As long as he gets people to tune into the selection show, sure.

Actually, maybe just let Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce make the picks for a couple of years.

(My idea is that the human decisions can be arbitrary because the margin is close enough that there is no Real, True Answer.)

(01-08-2024 05:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 05:05 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  There is a popular word for people so insular in their world that they get upset that anyone could see things differently than them: Snowflake.

Committee getting death flakes are hardly snowflakes pal. FSU/ACC fanboys were totally unhinged about it and took things way too far.

Well, Sankey mainly seemed upset that he was getting critical emails. His idea is we should all just bend over and take it and not complain.

Going forward, as imperfect as the system is, the team that will be on the wrong side of the bubble will be ranked #12, not #5 as is now the case. I'm having trouble working up too much angst about that.

(01-08-2024 05:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 05:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 05:05 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  There is a popular word for people so insular in their world that they get upset that anyone could see things differently than them: Snowflake.

Committee getting death flakes are hardly snowflakes pal. FSU/ACC fanboys were totally unhinged about it and took things way too far.

Well, Sankey mainly seemed upset that he was getting critical emails. His idea is we should all just bend over and take it and not complain.

And starting next year, I agree with him.

Quote:Mid-American Conference commissioner Jon Steinbrecher said this season demonstrated that there are enough teams to legitimately fill a 12-team bracket.

"This proves the point," he said. "If you didn't have people upset that they weren't in the event, I'd question the intensity and interest in the event. When we have 12 teams, we're going to have people who aren't happy they're not in the event. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the decision, I have no doubt in the integrity of the people making those decisions."

This is a BS response by Steinbrecher.

They need to go back to emperical selection criteria like they had with the BCS where it was polls and computers.

Keeping an undefeated FSU team out of the Top 4 because a player was out stunk.

Dump the committee for 2026 or put in an undefeated rule.

Understand, I fully support the committee's decision. I think it absolutely was the correct call to make with the charter they were given. Results proved them right.

Florida State's argument is asking for criteria to have been weighed differently with a different purpose of the CFP invite than that charged to the committee. It is essentially an emotional appeal and argument. Disagree with it, but it is fair they made it, as it expressed the frustration of that segment of fans who see the CFP invite as the reward, not the competitiveness of the invited teams.

Sankey gets my snowflake vote because he needs his "safe space" to avoid his personal upset at discovering his every move is not universally loved.

Sankey's discomfort is on the spectrum of emotional immaturity we see from too many supposed adults. Safe spaces, denial of speech and retaliation are common tactics that result from that immaturity, whether we are talking campus overseers or former Presidents of the US who want to go after their detractors as the enemy. These are snowflake behaviors.

Everyone grow up and take the criticism that comes with your actions like an adult, don't whine about it. The problem is not your detractors who pop your bubble of not being universally loved. Or put another way, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

How are the volunteers screened? Eager beavers to be on the playoff selection committee could come with hidden agendas or are vulnerable to undue pressure.

Sankey sounds defensive and dismissive. While fan threats are an ugly and disturbing outcome, he needs to recognize a respectable number of complaints come from very knowledgeable and well-meaning observers.

What’s done is done. Focus on making the new 12-team playoff format as clean a process as may be achievable. It won’t be perfect. It can be much better than the left baggage.

(01-08-2024 06:41 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  How are the volunteers screened? Eager beavers to be on the playoff selection committee could come with hidden agendas or are vulnerable to undue pressure.

https://collegefootballnetwork.com/what-...-is-on-it/

8 FBS Athletic Directors.
1 Division II Athletic Director
2 former college football players
1 former reporter.
1 former coach

(01-08-2024 05:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 05:05 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  There is a popular word for people so insular in their world that they get upset that anyone could see things differently than them: Snowflake.

Committee getting death flakes are hardly snowflakes pal. FSU/ACC fanboys were totally unhinged about it and took things way too far.

And...their commissioner was one who was against expanding the playoffs this year!

There are two ways to solve this problem:
1. Accept that next year the best contestants for the CFP championship will be the usual 2 or 3 schools that belong, the couple who are always on the margin and might or might not make it, and likely half a dozen with no business being there. By overreaching the size of the field it clearly eliminates anyone with a legitimate claim being overlooked. The price they pay for that is facing more chances to lose.

2. Expand the conference playoffs and only take conference champs.

(01-08-2024 07:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 05:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 05:05 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  There is a popular word for people so insular in their world that they get upset that anyone could see things differently than them: Snowflake.

Committee getting death flakes are hardly snowflakes pal. FSU/ACC fanboys were totally unhinged about it and took things way too far.

And...their commissioner was one who was against expanding the playoffs this year!

There are two ways to solve this problem:
1. Accept that next year the best contestants for the CFP championship will be the usual 2 or 3 schools that belong, the couple who are always on the margin and might or might not make it, and likely half a dozen with no business being there. By overreaching the size of the field it clearly eliminates anyone with a legitimate claim being overlooked. The price they pay for that is facing more chances to lose.

2. Expand the conference playoffs and only take conference champs.

I don’t think Dr. J cared that FSU was left out lol

AFA the playoff expansion, he was hoodwinked by Warren. Who wasn’t?

(01-08-2024 07:43 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 07:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 05:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 05:05 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  There is a popular word for people so insular in their world that they get upset that anyone could see things differently than them: Snowflake.

Committee getting death flakes are hardly snowflakes pal. FSU/ACC fanboys were totally unhinged about it and took things way too far.

And...their commissioner was one who was against expanding the playoffs this year!

There are two ways to solve this problem:
1. Accept that next year the best contestants for the CFP championship will be the usual 2 or 3 schools that belong, the couple who are always on the margin and might or might not make it, and likely half a dozen with no business being there. By overreaching the size of the field it clearly eliminates anyone with a legitimate claim being overlooked. The price they pay for that is facing more chances to lose.

2. Expand the conference playoffs and only take conference champs.

I don’t think Dr. J cared that FSU was left out lol

AFA the playoff expansion, he was hoodwinked by Warren. Who wasn’t?

Sankey and Bowlsby/Yormark.

(01-08-2024 05:17 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 05:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 05:05 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  There is a popular word for people so insular in their world that they get upset that anyone could see things differently than them: Snowflake.

Committee getting death flakes are hardly snowflakes pal. FSU/ACC fanboys were totally unhinged about it and took things way too far.

It's not just unhinged FSU/ACC fanboys. Death threats are common with unhinged fanboys across all majors sports and many teams. It's a failure of our society for letting online bullying from sports fans be acceptable.

And the people who receive them often have no recourse, so the people who send them walk off scot-free.

The problem is that these people who decided to put schools in like Alabama who was the third placed team in the CFP where they won it that year kept unbeaten UCF out of the playoffs when UCF rolled all over the team that kept Alabama out of the CCG that year. I could see UCF rolling up the score on Alabama as well. The issue is each conference have the weakest links, and the weakest links in the P5 are the ones usually lost to G5 and FCS schools every year. You have to treat the weakest P5 schools as the same as the weakest G5 schools, and treat the top G5 programs as the top P5 programs to have a much better outcome. Oregon got better bowl games over Boise State the same year Boise State beat them. Boise State is a P5 program stuck in a G5 conference. So are other schools as well.

(01-08-2024 05:14 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 03:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...fp-ranking

I think Sankey just says a lot of wrong things.

Now its disappointing there were death threats, but for other complaints, it was a very controversial decision. And a lot of things done were contradictory, exposing the holes in the system.

The death threats are a function of the sports fandom culture in our society. It's pretty much normalized now that sports fandom culture has intersected with social media. Holding sports fans accountable for their behavior online is one thing our society has failed at.

It's because a lot of prosecuting attorneys have gone lax on how they enforce the law, IMO. People know they can probably get away with it. This is why it is important to be fair, impartial,( like how the committee is supposed to be for determining playoff participants) and stay true to your convictions in enforcing the law, and people will respect the law. Don't do it, and people will have no respect for you.

(01-08-2024 07:59 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 05:17 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 05:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 05:05 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  There is a popular word for people so insular in their world that they get upset that anyone could see things differently than them: Snowflake.

Committee getting death flakes are hardly snowflakes pal. FSU/ACC fanboys were totally unhinged about it and took things way too far.

It's not just unhinged FSU/ACC fanboys. Death threats are common with unhinged fanboys across all majors sports and many teams. It's a failure of our society for letting online bullying from sports fans be acceptable.

And the people who receive them often have no recourse, so the people who send them walk off scot-free.

The problem is that these people who decided to put schools in like Alabama who was the third placed team in the CFP where they won it that year kept unbeaten UCF out of the playoffs when UCF rolled all over the team that kept Alabama out of the CCG that year. I could see UCF rolling up the score on Alabama as well. The issue is each conference have the weakest links, and the weakest links in the P5 are the ones usually lost to G5 and FCS schools every year. You have to treat the weakest P5 schools as the same as the weakest G5 schools, and treat the top G5 programs as the top P5 programs to have a much better outcome. Oregon got better bowl games over Boise State the same year Boise State beat them. Boise State is a P5 program stuck in a G5 conference. So are other schools as well.

lol. UCF didn't deserve to get in over Alabama. Period the end. No you don't have to treat them the same. No one in their right mind except for G5 fanboys really believes that at all whatsoever.

(01-08-2024 10:36 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 07:59 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 05:17 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 05:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 05:05 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  There is a popular word for people so insular in their world that they get upset that anyone could see things differently than them: Snowflake.

Committee getting death flakes are hardly snowflakes pal. FSU/ACC fanboys were totally unhinged about it and took things way too far.

It's not just unhinged FSU/ACC fanboys. Death threats are common with unhinged fanboys across all majors sports and many teams. It's a failure of our society for letting online bullying from sports fans be acceptable.

And the people who receive them often have no recourse, so the people who send them walk off scot-free.

The problem is that these people who decided to put schools in like Alabama who was the third placed team in the CFP where they won it that year kept unbeaten UCF out of the playoffs when UCF rolled all over the team that kept Alabama out of the CCG that year. I could see UCF rolling up the score on Alabama as well. The issue is each conference have the weakest links, and the weakest links in the P5 are the ones usually lost to G5 and FCS schools every year. You have to treat the weakest P5 schools as the same as the weakest G5 schools, and treat the top G5 programs as the top P5 programs to have a much better outcome. Oregon got better bowl games over Boise State the same year Boise State beat them. Boise State is a P5 program stuck in a G5 conference. So are other schools as well.

lol. UCF didn't deserve to get in over Alabama. Period the end. No you don't have to treat them the same. No one in their right mind except for G5 fanboys really believes that at all whatsoever.

Utah a G5 school from the MWC, beat an Alabama team. The coach at the time is Nick Saban who is still coach there. The strong G5 schools do have a number on Nick Saban.

(01-08-2024 10:44 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 10:36 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 07:59 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 05:17 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 05:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Committee getting death flakes are hardly snowflakes pal. FSU/ACC fanboys were totally unhinged about it and took things way too far.

It's not just unhinged FSU/ACC fanboys. Death threats are common with unhinged fanboys across all majors sports and many teams. It's a failure of our society for letting online bullying from sports fans be acceptable.

And the people who receive them often have no recourse, so the people who send them walk off scot-free.

The problem is that these people who decided to put schools in like Alabama who was the third placed team in the CFP where they won it that year kept unbeaten UCF out of the playoffs when UCF rolled all over the team that kept Alabama out of the CCG that year. I could see UCF rolling up the score on Alabama as well. The issue is each conference have the weakest links, and the weakest links in the P5 are the ones usually lost to G5 and FCS schools every year. You have to treat the weakest P5 schools as the same as the weakest G5 schools, and treat the top G5 programs as the top P5 programs to have a much better outcome. Oregon got better bowl games over Boise State the same year Boise State beat them. Boise State is a P5 program stuck in a G5 conference. So are other schools as well.

lol. UCF didn't deserve to get in over Alabama. Period the end. No you don't have to treat them the same. No one in their right mind except for G5 fanboys really believes that at all whatsoever.

Utah a G5 school from the MWC, beat an Alabama team. The coach at the time is Nick Saban who is still coach there. The strong G5 schools do have a number on Nick Saban.

in a ******* meaningless bowl game. MEANINGLESS.

(01-08-2024 11:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 10:44 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 10:36 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 07:59 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 05:17 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  It's not just unhinged FSU/ACC fanboys. Death threats are common with unhinged fanboys across all majors sports and many teams. It's a failure of our society for letting online bullying from sports fans be acceptable.

And the people who receive them often have no recourse, so the people who send them walk off scot-free.

The problem is that these people who decided to put schools in like Alabama who was the third placed team in the CFP where they won it that year kept unbeaten UCF out of the playoffs when UCF rolled all over the team that kept Alabama out of the CCG that year. I could see UCF rolling up the score on Alabama as well. The issue is each conference have the weakest links, and the weakest links in the P5 are the ones usually lost to G5 and FCS schools every year. You have to treat the weakest P5 schools as the same as the weakest G5 schools, and treat the top G5 programs as the top P5 programs to have a much better outcome. Oregon got better bowl games over Boise State the same year Boise State beat them. Boise State is a P5 program stuck in a G5 conference. So are other schools as well.

lol. UCF didn't deserve to get in over Alabama. Period the end. No you don't have to treat them the same. No one in their right mind except for G5 fanboys really believes that at all whatsoever.

Utah a G5 school from the MWC, beat an Alabama team. The coach at the time is Nick Saban who is still coach there. The strong G5 schools do have a number on Nick Saban.

in a ******* meaningless bowl game. MEANINGLESS.

That’s a crock a chit. That was a sugar bowl in 09. BCS NY bowls had a lot of buzz around them.

I don't understand how people clamor for objectivity where none can be found.

There are(I've lost count) over 130 FBS teams that are technically eligible for this CFP. They don't all play each other nor do they play within a systematized structure where division champions have accomplished objective goals that are predetermined. No objectivity.

Not only that, all 130 teams don't have an equal shot. The conference groupings are totally voluntary and aligned along economic and regional(less so recently) priorities. Outside of conference play, you literally get to pick who's on your schedule and when you play them. No objectivity.

People clamor for the BCS system. You think it's better than a committee? Ok fine, but it's still entirely subjective. Again, no objective basis for the results or data points given the scheduling system outlined above. More so than that, the BCS system weighed human polling...no objectivity. More so than that, the BCS system used data sets determined by who? Human beings. Those humans determined what data sets were relevant and which ones more relevant than others...no objectivity. The BCS system was tweaked and toyed with multiple times before being done away with. People forget that they changed the formula regularly in response to criticism of the results...no objectivity.

You don't like the committee? Which committee, the first one or the current one? It's not the same committee. The members change and they have to recuse themselves should discussion arise around a school they represent. But what about schools they used to represent? What about schools they might have a secret vendetta against? Who gets to pick the committee in the first place? What if some people on the committee have ulterior motives and have the ability to wheel and deal behind the scenes or worse yet...have the ability to punish other members for voting in ways they don't approve? That's politics BTW.

Everybody agreed to the process so what is the basis for complaint? Doesn't matter how you look at it, no objectivity.

Actually, I've always thought that if we're going to have a committee then there should be a Congress basically...representatives from all the schools and votes count equally. That's just my opinion though, still subjective.

You can frame it as preferring something better, not something perfect...which is itself a subjective appeal. You can frame it as preferring something with more data behind it...assuming your data sets are objectively chosen in the first place. You can frame it as checks and balances...assuming there's an objective balance that could be reached whenever you involve humans. It simply doesn't matter.

You might as well be asking questions like who's the greatest team of all time and would the teams from the 80s beat the teams from the 2000s and whatnot. There is no objective answer...doesn't matter how much you strain the gnat out, someone will always have a reason or argument as to why it isn't good enough.

This is the main reason I've always liked the idea of bigger playoffs. If there are blowouts, let them be. If there are upsets, let them be. There's too much subjectivity in this game to say any system we come up with will 100% of the time choose the best 2 or 4 or however many you involve.

We're talking about the same sport that used to rely exclusively on polls and multiple disconnected match-ups to crown champions. There's nothing new about this beauty contest.

From the ESPN article originally posted by bullet:

“Sankey and Phillips, along with the other FBS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick, will have their annual meeting Monday morning prior to the title game, but no changes to the selection committee's protocol are expected to be made at this time.”

Notre Dame is given an ongoing seat at the table with unique access and the voting power of an 18 and 16 P2 conference.

Notre Dame’s interests need to be channeled through Phillips, the ACC Commissioner. Notre Dame is an ACC member, and do have 5 contracted ACC football games each season along with certain bowl tie-is established as ACC-related options.

Equity and proportionality need to begin with their own organizational group.