CollegeFootballPoll.com Message Board

Arkansas athletic director Jeff Long has been named the first chairman of the College Football Playoff selection committee.

A news conference will be held Wednesday in Dallas to announce the committee's members.

ESPiN and The Associated Press have identified the other 12 members of the committee as:

• Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez

• 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 coach/athletic director 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


Yeah, that should fix everything. No more worries and no more controversy.

Committees like this, those that are morally superior to the proletariat are rampant in our society. They decide everything without regards to the natural outcome and revise history to conform with their moral compass or lack thereof. Seem to me specifically on this topic, the games should be the only voice allowed. If there is not a format, that allows the games decide, then voting by a select committee of 12, or computer rankings or this message board posters does not serve any purpose other than to deceive.

Football games are scored. No style points, not polls, not idle conversation.

Some good games this weekend....I will wait until Monday to see why the winners didn't really win.

donovan wrote:Committees like this, those that are morally superior to the proletariat are rampant in our society. They decide everything without regards to the natural outcome and revise history to conform with their moral compass or lack thereof. Seem to me specifically on this topic, the games should be the only voice allowed. If there is not a format, that allows the games decide, then voting by a select committee of 12, or computer rankings or this message board posters does not serve any purpose other than to deceive.

Football games are scored. No style points, not polls, not idle conversation.

Some good games this weekend....I will wait until Monday to see why the winners didn't really win.

That is why I have always believed if you are going to have a playoff then you must take the conference winners and not try and figure out how to get other teams in. Play them off and go from there. I'm not a big playoff guy, I don't like them, but this is no different then taking the top 8 teams in the coaches poll. It is completely subjective and you can guarantee that politics will decide who is in, not merit.

I noticed there isn't one guy with a background in statistics, which seems odd. I know the BCS being based on computer polls took a lot of flak, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some of the guys who make these computer polls could provide some insight that this committee probably won't even consider.

And I also agree, Spence, It would be simpler just to do a "tournament of champions" kind of thing, even including the smaller ones so you don't deal with the anti-trust stuff that the BCS had. There are only 10 conferences and the independents. Give the top 5 teams byes and have the bottom six "play-in" for the other three spots in the round. I would have to leave one wild card spot open to keep it fair for independents like Notre Dame, BYU, etc. The berth wouldn't have to go to an independent team, it would just open it up for them, but this kind of tournament would probably spur these independents to join a conference.

Independents would have to get in a conference or play 1AA.

This is not a case of "let's make a fair system for all" this is a system that allows the power brokers to control who gets in. I would like to know how many games these guys actually end up seeing. With this committee you have taken a system that requires lots of votes and turned in into a committee comprised of 12 votes. There is nothing fair about that sort of system. We went from a mythical national champion based in exhibition games to a system that uses a couple polls and computer rankings to determine two teams to decide a championship on the field. Now we have 12 people pick four teams to decide a championship. I said becareful what you ask for with a playoff. Well it's here and it's sounds worse than any system we have ever had. Bowl games anyone?

.

Spence wrote:This is not a case of "let's make a fair system for all" --- this is a system that allows the power brokers to control who gets in.

That is precisely what they have set up.

Eric wrote:And I also agree, Spence, It would be simpler just to do a "tournament of champions" kind of thing, even including the smaller ones so you don't deal with the anti-trust stuff that the BCS had. There are only 10 conferences and the independents.

No, chances are there wont be smaller conferences at the same level to concern over anti-trust issues.

Cane from the Bend wrote:And now the writing is on the wall:

NCAA president Mark Emmert said Monday he expects "a lot of change" to the governance structure of Division I sports over the next year.
Emmert said during his opening remarks at a meeting of more than 100 Division I faculty athletics representatives.

Mark Emmert: "I've said publicly on a number of occasions the only thing everybody agrees on with Division I governance is that it doesn't work. I think the board anticipates a lot of change. They're going into their October and January meetings expecting to look at a whole different governance model for Division I. So it will be significantly different."

The NCAA's annual convention is in January. The board is saying that it hopes to adopt proposals at its meeting next April, then have a special meeting for the full membership next summer.

SEC commissioner Mike Slive suggested last week that the NCAA's rules on governing agents are part of the problem [this statement came amid reports of possible problems at Alabama and Tennessee].

The discussion touched briefly on whether the NCAA would consider creating a new big-school bowl division -- in essence, splitting up the current Division I.

A packet distributed at the session called "Principles and Model for New Governance Structure" suggests that FBS institutions and conferences that are more closely aligned in issues and athletics resources form a new division --- This packet states, "The simpler the governance structure, the better".

Essentially; they wanted to keep the system they already have, but change the formula to guise it as a playoff
(they say it's not a plus one game ), so that everyone would back off the pressure.

espn is going to shut up about it now, because they have exclusive broadcasting rights (if it were a fair market, they would opt to hold a game on each major network).

The only dispute espn is raising, is their inability to vote on the rankings.

Every week, where we used to get the same rhetoric about how bad the BCS is, and that we need a playoff --- has now been replaced by the espn analysts telling us, thank god this current system is coming to an end, and we get a playoff next year; which is then followed up with, "We need to be the ones voting in the new system. Us guys who watch all of the games".

espn is not trying to cover College Football --- they are trying to induct it within the disney monopoly.

.

.

.

That is until next year. Then you will hear about how unfair the system is. I disagree that it's the same system. It is like the old system only it gives the PTB more power to control the out come. They have taken a fun time of year and made it a total joke.

I am okay beating the dead horse. The best days were geographical football, Bowls with representatives of various conferences and the day after January 1, everyone could talk and argue who was number one and hope next year would get here quickly.

donovan wrote:I am okay beating the dead horse. The best days were geographical football, Bowls with representatives of various conferences and the day after January 1, everyone could talk and argue who was number one and hope next year would get here quickly.

The funny thing is that is probably the best system we have ever had.

It sure was ...

Too often I hear that this team, or that, should have rightfully played for the title.
And too often, I hear, the team that lost the Championship game, is still a better team.

So, why not have a bowl system in place, where multiple champions can be declared?

There has been, and always will be, someone left out, who supposedly deserves the chance.
A system where more than one champion may potentially be crowned, is the most fair.

We can all argue semantics, and someone always will.
Changing the system, only changes how to argue them.

.

.

.

donovan wrote:I am okay beating the dead horse. The best days were geographical football, Bowls with representatives of various conferences and the day after January 1, everyone could talk and argue who was number one and hope next year would get here quickly.

I could not agree more. The BCS was implemented for the express purpose to let the NC be decided on the field instead of being decided by the subjective opinion/conjecture of so-called experts. But during BCS years, rankings have devolved into representing team quality (which is a subjective metric) instead of actual performance on the field (an objective metric). So the big irony is that today the NC is decided based on the opinion of so-called experts more than ever before, which undermines the very purpose of why the BCS was instituted in the first place. The ensuing years will make this problem even worse, but few seem to notice, since rankings are so subjective these days--and it did not used to be like that. I clearly remember the days when a top 5 team that lost would drop 5-10 places on a loss, even when losing to a top-5 team. That's is how it should be, and used to be, but no more. Today, teams largely are earmarked for their end-of-season position based on how good the consensus thinks they are; and losing (even in November) is no big deal...one way or another, teams tend to get right where the opinion of the experts think they ought to be in advance. The most dominant teams should still have to earn it on the field and should still be punished for having a let down, just as underdogs are.

Duke1632 wrote: The most dominant teams should still have to earn it on the field and should still be punished for having a let down, just as underdogs are.

Exactly; which is why I've always been against the preseason polls.

By what merit has a team yet to compete, earned the right to claim rank?

They played in/won a bowl game
They were ranked to end the year
Their schedule is light enough to run the table
They are currently running (X) number winning streak
They are a Big Name traditionally ranked school

Great, but that doesn't give me a whole lot of perspective . . . at least, not 25 positions worth.

Too often, an unranked team out performs many of the preseason top 25. but it is difficult for that unranked team to climb into the polls, let alone have a shot at playing in a major bowl game.

.

.

.

Cane from the Bend wrote:

Duke1632 wrote: The most dominant teams should still have to earn it on the field and should still be punished for having a let down, just as underdogs are.

Exactly; which is why I've always been against the preseason polls.

By what merit has a team yet to compete, earned the right to claim rank?

They played in/won a bowl game
They were ranked to end the year
Their schedule is light enough to run the table
They are currently running (X) number winning streak
They are a Big Name traditionally ranked school

Great, but that doesn't give me a whole lot of perspective . . . at least, not 25 positions worth.

Too often, an unranked team out performs many of the preseason top 25. but it is difficult for that unranked team to climb into the polls, let alone have a shot at playing in a major bowl game
.

Amen If what Duke and Cane suggest, then rankings are based on this years performance, which it should be. What, it seems to me, gets tangled in all of this are lists that are predictive in nature. Nothing wrong with them, in fact, they are interesting and certainly a worthwhile hobby as all of this is. (Well predictive listing may have a bit more pecuinary ramifications.) But like one of my grandsons said the other day, "Grandpa, did you know this is 2013?"

Cane from the Bend wrote:Exactly; which is why I've always been against the preseason polls.

I've heard this argument a lot lately, but I honestly do not see this mitigating the problem in any way. Which ever teams the consensus deem the best will be ranked in that order at week 8 (or whatever) as they would have been at preseason. If by week 8 some unexpected loss occurs, then whatever effect that has to the on-going preseason poll, the non-preseason poll will integrate in exactly the same way, so having no preseason poll doesn't help.

The problem is teams are now ranked on quality instead of performance--that's what changed to create this problem, so it's that which must change (and specifically change back to the way it used to be, where the best teams that lose might still be considered the best, but it is noted in the rankings that those teams simply did not EARN it that year).

A possible solution is for each entity to publish two polls, one for official ranking (based on performance) and another as a power ranking (based on quality). Those two polls will rarely be the same, just as performance and quality occasionally diverge, but it would satisfy the urge of putting the team you subjectively believe is the best team in the country at the #1 spot, even if they've had an unfortunate let down along the way.

As it turns out, quality (e.g., how good a team is) is entirely subjective, and that's not a good thing for rankings, when the only real objective measurement we have is what happens on the field (e.g., a win vs. a loss). That is why the W-L record is one of the few metrics one can use to construct a valid ranking system. If other factors are considered, like SoS or margin of victory, then that's fine, but these things should be minor factors, not the dominant factors. Today, that paradigm is turned on it's head. For example (and I do not favor or dislike either of these teams), Michigan dropped 4 points after a WIN against Akron, and another 4 points after a WIN against UConn, for a grand total of -8 in the polls for an undefeated team after 2 wins and a bye. In contrast, over the same period 1-loss South Carolina dropped only -1 in the polls after another LOSS and 2 so-so wins. That tells me subjective metrics have completely overrun the objective metrics. Current rankings hardly use the objective metrics they were supposed to be based exclusively on. This is terrible, as it makes perception more important than performance, and great teams already have a significant advantage--now underdogs must overcome both instead of just the one.

To illustrate how the AP poll SHOULD look, Ohio State should probably be ranked #1. Even though almost everyone agrees they are not the best team in the country, that doesn't matter for rankings, only for power rankings. It's very hard to ignore an 18-game win-streak, since the "W" is the ultimate objective metric. If SoS is added as a factor, then probably Oregon should be #1 (noting that OSU, Ore, Bama, and Clem all have similar SoS according to CFP, with Oregon being the toughest). Yet, we see that the AP has Bama overwhelmingly at the #1 position, which can only be explained by pointing out that position is obtained based mostly on the fact that the consensus subjectively believes Bama is the best team in the country--a metric that should NOT even be a factor in being ranked #1--after all, if it's really true Bama is the best team in the country, it is more likely than not they will earn it via performance. I honestly do not mean to disparage Bama (I like watching them play, and it's certainly not their fault they are so good), but at this point in the season there truly ought to be a healthy split of #1 votes between them and the other 4 teams in the top-5, yet there is not. The other four all have considerable argument for the #1 spot, but since that is not represented in the polls, there is no clearer evidence the polls are not serving their ostensible purpose.