(01-17-2018 04:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 04:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 12:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 12:24 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  http://collegefootballplayoff.com/news/2...th=general

Countdown to G5 meltdown 3-2-1

Thing is, the CFP Management Committee that chooses the CFP selection committee is made up of a single representative from all 10 FBS conferences and Notre Dame. The Sun Belt has the same representation on the committee as the SEC does.

Shrug. Its a 6-5 vote. The P5 gets who they want. I'd much prefer each conference appoint one member---but the moment a Selection Committee was mentioned in 2012, I knew this was how it would be. Hated the idea then and still do. I held out a slim sliver of hope that the G5 would be treated reasonably fair by the committee---but their treatment of undefeated G5's and their assumption that a G5 schedule automatically disqualifies a team from being top 10 made it clear there is no chance of a G5 getting a fair shake from a body stacked to the gills with P5 representatives. It is what it is.

That's all questionable. First, it's actually 5-5-1. Notre Dame is independent, and there's no reason to assume they always vote with the P5. Notre Dame has its own interests and it's all the same to them whether a G5 team or a P5 team makes the playoffs.

Second, what makes you think these votes are 6-5? If they were, I'd bet that G5 commissioners like Aresco, who is on this committee and who isn't shy about voicing his views in public, would be raising a stink about it, but are they? I haven't heard any complaints.

Third, as others noted, by the time someone is a high-level administrator, they probably have served tours of duty at several schools, G5 and P5, so whether someone is "P5" or not isn't necessarily clear.

Finally, these guys might have integrity. For example, in this past season's Coach's Poll, there were six AAC coaches who voted in the poll. Guess how they voted in the final, post-bowl poll?

All 6 voted Alabama #1, none voted UCF #1.

As for how Notre Dame votes---let me know when they vote on something that favors the G5 over the P5. They are not stupid.

As for the ethics of the Committee members---I dont think the committee is willfully biased. I believe the committee is voting exactly what they think and the rankings accurately reflect their true feelings. I absolutely have no trouble believing that the committee as currently constructed really thinks a G5 has no business in the top ten and that its probably not even close in their mind.

I also have zero problem believeing a Selection Committee comprised of 10 Big10 representatives and 3 SEC representatives would have truly believed Ohio State was better and more deserving of the number #4 playoff slot over Alabama this year and would have cited reasons to support that position.

Its not about ethics. Its about stacking the committee with reps that tend to think a certain way. Let me know when the any P5 conference gets a 10-3 majority of representatives on the committee. There is a reason that will never happen.

Remember, it wasn't just the CFP committee that had UCF nowhere near the top 4, nobody else did either. Reporters, coaches, computers, the whole world had UCF far away from the playoffs.

And after the Peach Bowl, six AAC coaches - who unlike during the BCS era were under no contractual obligation to vote the CFP winner #1 - all of them voted Alabama #1, none voted for UCF.

I agree, when something is *close*, like Alabama vs Ohio State for the last playoff spot, then CFP composition can matter. But for the issue you're concerned with, a G5's chance of making the playoffs, it just hasn't ever mattered.

(01-20-2018 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 04:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 04:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 12:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Thing is, the CFP Management Committee that chooses the CFP selection committee is made up of a single representative from all 10 FBS conferences and Notre Dame. The Sun Belt has the same representation on the committee as the SEC does.

Shrug. Its a 6-5 vote. The P5 gets who they want. I'd much prefer each conference appoint one member---but the moment a Selection Committee was mentioned in 2012, I knew this was how it would be. Hated the idea then and still do. I held out a slim sliver of hope that the G5 would be treated reasonably fair by the committee---but their treatment of undefeated G5's and their assumption that a G5 schedule automatically disqualifies a team from being top 10 made it clear there is no chance of a G5 getting a fair shake from a body stacked to the gills with P5 representatives. It is what it is.

That's all questionable. First, it's actually 5-5-1. Notre Dame is independent, and there's no reason to assume they always vote with the P5. Notre Dame has its own interests and it's all the same to them whether a G5 team or a P5 team makes the playoffs.

Second, what makes you think these votes are 6-5? If they were, I'd bet that G5 commissioners like Aresco, who is on this committee and who isn't shy about voicing his views in public, would be raising a stink about it, but are they? I haven't heard any complaints.

Third, as others noted, by the time someone is a high-level administrator, they probably have served tours of duty at several schools, G5 and P5, so whether someone is "P5" or not isn't necessarily clear.

Finally, these guys might have integrity. For example, in this past season's Coach's Poll, there were six AAC coaches who voted in the poll. Guess how they voted in the final, post-bowl poll?

All 6 voted Alabama #1, none voted UCF #1.

As for how Notre Dame votes---let me know when they vote on something that favors the G5 over the P5. They are not stupid.

As for the ethics of the Committee members---I dont think the committee is willfully biased. I believe the committee is voting exactly what they think and the rankings accurately reflect their true feelings. I absolutely have no trouble believing that the committee as currently constructed really thinks a G5 has no business in the top ten and that its probably not even close in their mind.

I also have zero problem believeing a Selection Committee comprised of 10 Big10 representatives and 3 SEC representatives would have truly believed Ohio State was better and more deserving of the number #4 playoff slot over Alabama this year and would have cited reasons to support that position.

Its not about ethics. Its about stacking the committee with reps that tend to think a certain way. Let me know when the any P5 conference gets a 10-3 majority of representatives on the committee. There is a reason that will never happen.

Remember, it wasn't just the CFP committee that had UCF nowhere near the top 4, nobody else did either. Reporters, coaches, computers, the whole world had UCF far away from the playoffs.

And after the Peach Bowl, six AAC coaches - who unlike during the BCS era were under no contractual obligation to vote the CFP winner #1 - all of them voted Alabama #1, none voted for UCF.

I agree, when something is *close*, like Alabama vs Ohio State for the last playoff spot, then CFP composition can matter. But for the issue you're concerned with, a G5's chance of making the playoffs, it just hasn't ever mattered.

It should also be noted that of the six AAC coaches voting in the final regular season poll - before the CFP selection - none had UCF ranked in the top 6. One (Navy) had them ranked at #10. Their average rank was 8.

Fact is, there has never been any evidence or suggestion, outside forums like this one, that poll voters or selection committees are biased in their ballots. Fans who say there should be equal representation of G5 conferences on these committees are in effect saying they believe those G5 reps would be biased. Otherwise, what difference would it make?

Historically, successful coaches and AD's have tended to move up from the G5 ranks to positions at P5 schools. Rarely do coaches successful at a P5 program elect to move to a G5 program voluntarily. So why should it be a surprise, if one is looking to staff a selection committee with the best (that is, most successful) talent available, that the result would be more coaches and ADs from P5 schools than G5 schools?

(01-20-2018 11:21 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 04:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 04:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Shrug. Its a 6-5 vote. The P5 gets who they want. I'd much prefer each conference appoint one member---but the moment a Selection Committee was mentioned in 2012, I knew this was how it would be. Hated the idea then and still do. I held out a slim sliver of hope that the G5 would be treated reasonably fair by the committee---but their treatment of undefeated G5's and their assumption that a G5 schedule automatically disqualifies a team from being top 10 made it clear there is no chance of a G5 getting a fair shake from a body stacked to the gills with P5 representatives. It is what it is.

That's all questionable. First, it's actually 5-5-1. Notre Dame is independent, and there's no reason to assume they always vote with the P5. Notre Dame has its own interests and it's all the same to them whether a G5 team or a P5 team makes the playoffs.

Second, what makes you think these votes are 6-5? If they were, I'd bet that G5 commissioners like Aresco, who is on this committee and who isn't shy about voicing his views in public, would be raising a stink about it, but are they? I haven't heard any complaints.

Third, as others noted, by the time someone is a high-level administrator, they probably have served tours of duty at several schools, G5 and P5, so whether someone is "P5" or not isn't necessarily clear.

Finally, these guys might have integrity. For example, in this past season's Coach's Poll, there were six AAC coaches who voted in the poll. Guess how they voted in the final, post-bowl poll?

All 6 voted Alabama #1, none voted UCF #1.

As for how Notre Dame votes---let me know when they vote on something that favors the G5 over the P5. They are not stupid.

As for the ethics of the Committee members---I dont think the committee is willfully biased. I believe the committee is voting exactly what they think and the rankings accurately reflect their true feelings. I absolutely have no trouble believing that the committee as currently constructed really thinks a G5 has no business in the top ten and that its probably not even close in their mind.

I also have zero problem believeing a Selection Committee comprised of 10 Big10 representatives and 3 SEC representatives would have truly believed Ohio State was better and more deserving of the number #4 playoff slot over Alabama this year and would have cited reasons to support that position.

Its not about ethics. Its about stacking the committee with reps that tend to think a certain way. Let me know when the any P5 conference gets a 10-3 majority of representatives on the committee. There is a reason that will never happen.

Remember, it wasn't just the CFP committee that had UCF nowhere near the top 4, nobody else did either. Reporters, coaches, computers, the whole world had UCF far away from the playoffs.

And after the Peach Bowl, six AAC coaches - who unlike during the BCS era were under no contractual obligation to vote the CFP winner #1 - all of them voted Alabama #1, none voted for UCF.

I agree, when something is *close*, like Alabama vs Ohio State for the last playoff spot, then CFP composition can matter. But for the issue you're concerned with, a G5's chance of making the playoffs, it just hasn't ever mattered.

It should also be noted that of the six AAC coaches voting in the final regular season poll - before the CFP selection - none had UCF ranked in the top 6. One (Navy) had them ranked at #10. Their average rank was 8.

Fact is, there has never been any evidence or suggestion, outside forums like this one, that poll voters or selection committees are biased in their ballots. Fans who say there should be equal representation of G5 conferences on these committees are in effect saying they believe those G5 reps would be biased. Otherwise, what difference would it make?

Historically, successful coaches and AD's have tended to move up from the G5 ranks to positions at P5 schools. Rarely do coaches successful at a P5 program elect to move to a G5 program voluntarily. So why should it be a surprise, if one is looking to staff a selection committee with the best (that is, most successful) talent available, that the result would be more coaches and ADs from P5 schools than G5 schools?

If ethical people are all that’s required, and any ethical person would see it the same way, then why stack the committee with P5 representatives? Look, this isn’t rocket science. Why don’t we have 13 retired SEC coaches and AD’s serve on the committee? I mean, don’t we all think the SEC is the best top to bottom conference with the most rabid fans? If they are ethical—why does it matter if they are all from the SEC, right? Of course we know the other 4 P5’s would howl that there was bias and they would be right to complain. You can be ethical and still have bias built in to the way you think without even being aware of it.

Any reasonable person would say a 10 person Committee comprised of one representative from each conference is a fair and equitable way to create a committee. The fact that every version of the Committee continues to be stacked with P5 representatives, even after several years of gross under ranking of G5 teams, would indicate that the G5 clearly has no ability to place G5 members on the committee. It wouldn’t be that way if they could.

(01-20-2018 11:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 11:21 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 04:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 04:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  That's all questionable. First, it's actually 5-5-1. Notre Dame is independent, and there's no reason to assume they always vote with the P5. Notre Dame has its own interests and it's all the same to them whether a G5 team or a P5 team makes the playoffs.

Second, what makes you think these votes are 6-5? If they were, I'd bet that G5 commissioners like Aresco, who is on this committee and who isn't shy about voicing his views in public, would be raising a stink about it, but are they? I haven't heard any complaints.

Third, as others noted, by the time someone is a high-level administrator, they probably have served tours of duty at several schools, G5 and P5, so whether someone is "P5" or not isn't necessarily clear.

Finally, these guys might have integrity. For example, in this past season's Coach's Poll, there were six AAC coaches who voted in the poll. Guess how they voted in the final, post-bowl poll?

All 6 voted Alabama #1, none voted UCF #1.

As for how Notre Dame votes---let me know when they vote on something that favors the G5 over the P5. They are not stupid.

As for the ethics of the Committee members---I dont think the committee is willfully biased. I believe the committee is voting exactly what they think and the rankings accurately reflect their true feelings. I absolutely have no trouble believing that the committee as currently constructed really thinks a G5 has no business in the top ten and that its probably not even close in their mind.

I also have zero problem believeing a Selection Committee comprised of 10 Big10 representatives and 3 SEC representatives would have truly believed Ohio State was better and more deserving of the number #4 playoff slot over Alabama this year and would have cited reasons to support that position.

Its not about ethics. Its about stacking the committee with reps that tend to think a certain way. Let me know when the any P5 conference gets a 10-3 majority of representatives on the committee. There is a reason that will never happen.

Remember, it wasn't just the CFP committee that had UCF nowhere near the top 4, nobody else did either. Reporters, coaches, computers, the whole world had UCF far away from the playoffs.

And after the Peach Bowl, six AAC coaches - who unlike during the BCS era were under no contractual obligation to vote the CFP winner #1 - all of them voted Alabama #1, none voted for UCF.

I agree, when something is *close*, like Alabama vs Ohio State for the last playoff spot, then CFP composition can matter. But for the issue you're concerned with, a G5's chance of making the playoffs, it just hasn't ever mattered.

It should also be noted that of the six AAC coaches voting in the final regular season poll - before the CFP selection - none had UCF ranked in the top 6. One (Navy) had them ranked at #10. Their average rank was 8.

Fact is, there has never been any evidence or suggestion, outside forums like this one, that poll voters or selection committees are biased in their ballots. Fans who say there should be equal representation of G5 conferences on these committees are in effect saying they believe those G5 reps would be biased. Otherwise, what difference would it make?

Historically, successful coaches and AD's have tended to move up from the G5 ranks to positions at P5 schools. Rarely do coaches successful at a P5 program elect to move to a G5 program voluntarily. So why should it be a surprise, if one is looking to staff a selection committee with the best (that is, most successful) talent available, that the result would be more coaches and ADs from P5 schools than G5 schools?

If ethical people are all that’s required, and any ethical person would see it the same way, then why stack the committee with P5 representatives? Look, this isn’t rocket science. Why don’t we have 13 retired SEC coaches and AD’s serve on the committee? I mean, don’t we all think the SEC is the best top to bottom conference with the most rabid fans? If they are ethical—why does it matter if they are all from the SEC, right? Of course we know the other 4 P5’s would howl that there was bias and they would be right to complain. You can be ethical and still have bias built in to the way you think without even being aware of it.

Ken_d answered that question: He pointed out that the CFP is supposed to be a committee not of just anybody with a pulse, but people with a lot of knowledge of college football. A panel of top-tier experts. And if you are an expert college football administrator, chances are you will end up at a P5 school, because they will hire you away from G5 and other levels. That's the career ladder in college athletics. Just like with coaches, someone who stands out as a great AD at Houston or USF isn't going to stay there, they will likely be hired away by an Alabama or a USC.

Similarly, if someone puts together a blue-ribbon panel of constitutional law scholars, it won't be a surprise if most of the panelists have Ivy League backgrounds, because those schools have the top law schools, and hence attract the best law professors.

(01-20-2018 11:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 11:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 11:21 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 04:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  As for how Notre Dame votes---let me know when they vote on something that favors the G5 over the P5. They are not stupid.

As for the ethics of the Committee members---I dont think the committee is willfully biased. I believe the committee is voting exactly what they think and the rankings accurately reflect their true feelings. I absolutely have no trouble believing that the committee as currently constructed really thinks a G5 has no business in the top ten and that its probably not even close in their mind.

I also have zero problem believeing a Selection Committee comprised of 10 Big10 representatives and 3 SEC representatives would have truly believed Ohio State was better and more deserving of the number #4 playoff slot over Alabama this year and would have cited reasons to support that position.

Its not about ethics. Its about stacking the committee with reps that tend to think a certain way. Let me know when the any P5 conference gets a 10-3 majority of representatives on the committee. There is a reason that will never happen.

Remember, it wasn't just the CFP committee that had UCF nowhere near the top 4, nobody else did either. Reporters, coaches, computers, the whole world had UCF far away from the playoffs.

And after the Peach Bowl, six AAC coaches - who unlike during the BCS era were under no contractual obligation to vote the CFP winner #1 - all of them voted Alabama #1, none voted for UCF.

I agree, when something is *close*, like Alabama vs Ohio State for the last playoff spot, then CFP composition can matter. But for the issue you're concerned with, a G5's chance of making the playoffs, it just hasn't ever mattered.

It should also be noted that of the six AAC coaches voting in the final regular season poll - before the CFP selection - none had UCF ranked in the top 6. One (Navy) had them ranked at #10. Their average rank was 8.

Fact is, there has never been any evidence or suggestion, outside forums like this one, that poll voters or selection committees are biased in their ballots. Fans who say there should be equal representation of G5 conferences on these committees are in effect saying they believe those G5 reps would be biased. Otherwise, what difference would it make?

Historically, successful coaches and AD's have tended to move up from the G5 ranks to positions at P5 schools. Rarely do coaches successful at a P5 program elect to move to a G5 program voluntarily. So why should it be a surprise, if one is looking to staff a selection committee with the best (that is, most successful) talent available, that the result would be more coaches and ADs from P5 schools than G5 schools?

If ethical people are all that’s required, and any ethical person would see it the same way, then why stack the committee with P5 representatives? Look, this isn’t rocket science. Why don’t we have 13 retired SEC coaches and AD’s serve on the committee? I mean, don’t we all think the SEC is the best top to bottom conference with the most rabid fans? If they are ethical—why does it matter if they are all from the SEC, right? Of course we know the other 4 P5’s would howl that there was bias and they would be right to complain. You can be ethical and still have bias built in to the way you think without even being aware of it.

Ken_d answered that question: He pointed out that the CFP is supposed to be a committee not of just anybody with a pulse, but people with a lot of knowledge of college football. A panel of top-tier experts. And if you are an expert college football administrator, chances are you will end up at a P5 school, because they will hire you away from G5 and other levels. That's the career ladder in college athletics. Just like with coaches, someone who stands out as a great AD at Houston or USF isn't going to stay there, they will likely be hired away by an Alabama or a USC.

Similarly, if someone puts together a blue-ribbon panel of constitutional law scholars, it won't be a surprise if most of the panelists have Ivy League backgrounds, because those schools have the top law schools, and hence attract the best law professors.

Lol. Like Condalizza Rice? There are plenty of highly qualified football minds in the G5.

(01-20-2018 11:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 11:21 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 04:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 04:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  That's all questionable. First, it's actually 5-5-1. Notre Dame is independent, and there's no reason to assume they always vote with the P5. Notre Dame has its own interests and it's all the same to them whether a G5 team or a P5 team makes the playoffs.

Second, what makes you think these votes are 6-5? If they were, I'd bet that G5 commissioners like Aresco, who is on this committee and who isn't shy about voicing his views in public, would be raising a stink about it, but are they? I haven't heard any complaints.

Third, as others noted, by the time someone is a high-level administrator, they probably have served tours of duty at several schools, G5 and P5, so whether someone is "P5" or not isn't necessarily clear.

Finally, these guys might have integrity. For example, in this past season's Coach's Poll, there were six AAC coaches who voted in the poll. Guess how they voted in the final, post-bowl poll?

All 6 voted Alabama #1, none voted UCF #1.

As for how Notre Dame votes---let me know when they vote on something that favors the G5 over the P5. They are not stupid.

As for the ethics of the Committee members---I dont think the committee is willfully biased. I believe the committee is voting exactly what they think and the rankings accurately reflect their true feelings. I absolutely have no trouble believing that the committee as currently constructed really thinks a G5 has no business in the top ten and that its probably not even close in their mind.

I also have zero problem believeing a Selection Committee comprised of 10 Big10 representatives and 3 SEC representatives would have truly believed Ohio State was better and more deserving of the number #4 playoff slot over Alabama this year and would have cited reasons to support that position.

Its not about ethics. Its about stacking the committee with reps that tend to think a certain way. Let me know when the any P5 conference gets a 10-3 majority of representatives on the committee. There is a reason that will never happen.

Remember, it wasn't just the CFP committee that had UCF nowhere near the top 4, nobody else did either. Reporters, coaches, computers, the whole world had UCF far away from the playoffs.

And after the Peach Bowl, six AAC coaches - who unlike during the BCS era were under no contractual obligation to vote the CFP winner #1 - all of them voted Alabama #1, none voted for UCF.

I agree, when something is *close*, like Alabama vs Ohio State for the last playoff spot, then CFP composition can matter. But for the issue you're concerned with, a G5's chance of making the playoffs, it just hasn't ever mattered.

It should also be noted that of the six AAC coaches voting in the final regular season poll - before the CFP selection - none had UCF ranked in the top 6. One (Navy) had them ranked at #10. Their average rank was 8.

Fact is, there has never been any evidence or suggestion, outside forums like this one, that poll voters or selection committees are biased in their ballots. Fans who say there should be equal representation of G5 conferences on these committees are in effect saying they believe those G5 reps would be biased. Otherwise, what difference would it make?

Historically, successful coaches and AD's have tended to move up from the G5 ranks to positions at P5 schools. Rarely do coaches successful at a P5 program elect to move to a G5 program voluntarily. So why should it be a surprise, if one is looking to staff a selection committee with the best (that is, most successful) talent available, that the result would be more coaches and ADs from P5 schools than G5 schools?

If ethical people are all that’s required, and any ethical person would see it the same way, then why stack the committee with P5 representatives? Look, this isn’t rocket science. Why don’t we have 13 retired SEC coaches and AD’s serve on the committee? I mean, don’t we all think the SEC is the best top to bottom conference with the most rabid fans? If they are ethical—why does it matter if they are all from the SEC, right? Of course we know the other 4 P5’s would howl that there was bias and they would be right to complain. You can be ethical and still have bias built in to the way you think without even being aware of it.

Any reasonable person would say a 10 person Committee comprised of one representative from each conference is a fair and equitable way to create a committee. The fact that every version of the Committee continues to be stacked with P5 representatives, even after several years of gross under ranking of G5 teams, would indicate that the G5 clearly has no ability to place G5 members on the committee. It wouldn’t be that way if they could.

"Gross under ranking of G5 teams"? That's your opinion. And we already know that you have a strong bias in favor of G5 teams. In fact, my perception has always been that G5 teams tend to be overranked, not underranked. IMO, that is a function of voting for a Top 25, instead of, say, a Top 15.

If you look at poll results, you tend to see that there is general agreement about which teams belong in the Top 15, in some order. Beyond that point, voters realize that it's difficult to make a significant distinction among remaining good teams. So the tendency is to simply pick somebody you think deserves some recognition, even if they may not really be stronger than some schools you left out. Maybe, if you are a coach with a vote, you throw a bone to a future opponent (or one who upset you).

Votes for #16-25 can easily be throw away votes, or votes to make a statement, or just to display a little whimsy. A lot of those votes go to G5 teams, just because.

The presumption that G5 teams are underranked because of bias against the G5 is in itself, bias.

(01-20-2018 02:14 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 11:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 11:21 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 04:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  As for how Notre Dame votes---let me know when they vote on something that favors the G5 over the P5. They are not stupid.

As for the ethics of the Committee members---I dont think the committee is willfully biased. I believe the committee is voting exactly what they think and the rankings accurately reflect their true feelings. I absolutely have no trouble believing that the committee as currently constructed really thinks a G5 has no business in the top ten and that its probably not even close in their mind.

I also have zero problem believeing a Selection Committee comprised of 10 Big10 representatives and 3 SEC representatives would have truly believed Ohio State was better and more deserving of the number #4 playoff slot over Alabama this year and would have cited reasons to support that position.

Its not about ethics. Its about stacking the committee with reps that tend to think a certain way. Let me know when the any P5 conference gets a 10-3 majority of representatives on the committee. There is a reason that will never happen.

Remember, it wasn't just the CFP committee that had UCF nowhere near the top 4, nobody else did either. Reporters, coaches, computers, the whole world had UCF far away from the playoffs.

And after the Peach Bowl, six AAC coaches - who unlike during the BCS era were under no contractual obligation to vote the CFP winner #1 - all of them voted Alabama #1, none voted for UCF. Of the P5 was blasting the much lower ranked G5’s in the access bowl, I wouldn’t feel the way I do.

I agree, when something is *close*, like Alabama vs Ohio State for the last playoff spot, then CFP composition can matter. But for the issue you're concerned with, a G5's chance of making the playoffs, it just hasn't ever mattered.

It should also be noted that of the six AAC coaches voting in the final regular season poll - before the CFP selection - none had UCF ranked in the top 6. One (Navy) had them ranked at #10. Their average rank was 8.

Fact is, there has never been any evidence or suggestion, outside forums like this one, that poll voters or selection committees are biased in their ballots. Fans who say there should be equal representation of G5 conferences on these committees are in effect saying they believe those G5 reps would be biased. Otherwise, what difference would it make?

Historically, successful coaches and AD's have tended to move up from the G5 ranks to positions at P5 schools. Rarely do coaches successful at a P5 program elect to move to a G5 program voluntarily. So why should it be a surprise, if one is looking to staff a selection committee with the best (that is, most successful) talent available, that the result would be more coaches and ADs from P5 schools than G5 schools?

If ethical people are all that’s required, and any ethical person would see it the same way, then why stack the committee with P5 representatives? Look, this isn’t rocket science. Why don’t we have 13 retired SEC coaches and AD’s serve on the committee? I mean, don’t we all think the SEC is the best top to bottom conference with the most rabid fans? If they are ethical—why does it matter if they are all from the SEC, right? Of course we know the other 4 P5’s would howl that there was bias and they would be right to complain. You can be ethical and still have bias built in to the way you think without even being aware of it.

Any reasonable person would say a 10 person Committee comprised of one representative from each conference is a fair and equitable way to create a committee. The fact that every version of the Committee continues to be stacked with P5 representatives, even after several years of gross under ranking of G5 teams, would indicate that the G5 clearly has no ability to place G5 members on the committee. It wouldn’t be that way if they could.

"Gross under ranking of G5 teams"? That's your opinion. And we already know that you have a strong bias in favor of G5 teams. In fact, my perception has always been that G5 teams tend to be overranked, not underranked. IMO, that is a function of voting for a Top 25, instead of, say, a Top 15.

If you look at poll results, you tend to see that there is general agreement about which teams belong in the Top 15, in some order. Beyond that point, voters realize that it's difficult to make a significant distinction among remaining good teams. So the tendency is to simply pick somebody you think deserves some recognition, even if they may not really be stronger than some schools you left out. Maybe, if you are a coach with a vote, you throw a bone to a future opponent (or one who upset you).

Votes for #16-25 can easily be throw away votes, or votes to make a statement, or just to display a little whimsy. A lot of those votes go to G5 teams, just because.

The presumption that G5 teams are underranked because of bias against the G5 is in itself, bias.

It’s not really opinion. The much lower ranked G5 keeps beating the much higher ranked P5 in the BCS bowl. That’s about as close to objective fact as we can get in college football. If the much higher ranked P5 was consistently blasting the lower ranked G5 in the access bowl I wouldn’t feel the G5 was being under ranked.

In the old BCS era, Undefeated G5 teams routinely were ranked in the top10. What’s happened is the opinion of CFP Selection Committee tends to skew voting—likely because the committee is the only opinion that matters. Later in the season, poll ballots tend be more attempts to predict Tuesday’s CFP results than actual independent opinions of rank.

Bottom line—if the view across the nation is clear and universal—then why the need to stack the Committee? Give each conference a rep and let the ethical reps reach a consensus.

(01-20-2018 12:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 11:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 11:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 11:21 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, it wasn't just the CFP committee that had UCF nowhere near the top 4, nobody else did either. Reporters, coaches, computers, the whole world had UCF far away from the playoffs.

And after the Peach Bowl, six AAC coaches - who unlike during the BCS era were under no contractual obligation to vote the CFP winner #1 - all of them voted Alabama #1, none voted for UCF.

I agree, when something is *close*, like Alabama vs Ohio State for the last playoff spot, then CFP composition can matter. But for the issue you're concerned with, a G5's chance of making the playoffs, it just hasn't ever mattered.

It should also be noted that of the six AAC coaches voting in the final regular season poll - before the CFP selection - none had UCF ranked in the top 6. One (Navy) had them ranked at #10. Their average rank was 8.

Fact is, there has never been any evidence or suggestion, outside forums like this one, that poll voters or selection committees are biased in their ballots. Fans who say there should be equal representation of G5 conferences on these committees are in effect saying they believe those G5 reps would be biased. Otherwise, what difference would it make?

Historically, successful coaches and AD's have tended to move up from the G5 ranks to positions at P5 schools. Rarely do coaches successful at a P5 program elect to move to a G5 program voluntarily. So why should it be a surprise, if one is looking to staff a selection committee with the best (that is, most successful) talent available, that the result would be more coaches and ADs from P5 schools than G5 schools?

If ethical people are all that’s required, and any ethical person would see it the same way, then why stack the committee with P5 representatives? Look, this isn’t rocket science. Why don’t we have 13 retired SEC coaches and AD’s serve on the committee? I mean, don’t we all think the SEC is the best top to bottom conference with the most rabid fans? If they are ethical—why does it matter if they are all from the SEC, right? Of course we know the other 4 P5’s would howl that there was bias and they would be right to complain. You can be ethical and still have bias built in to the way you think without even being aware of it.

Ken_d answered that question: He pointed out that the CFP is supposed to be a committee not of just anybody with a pulse, but people with a lot of knowledge of college football. A panel of top-tier experts. And if you are an expert college football administrator, chances are you will end up at a P5 school, because they will hire you away from G5 and other levels. That's the career ladder in college athletics. Just like with coaches, someone who stands out as a great AD at Houston or USF isn't going to stay there, they will likely be hired away by an Alabama or a USC.

Similarly, if someone puts together a blue-ribbon panel of constitutional law scholars, it won't be a surprise if most of the panelists have Ivy League backgrounds, because those schools have the top law schools, and hence attract the best law professors.

Lol. Like Condalizza Rice? There are plenty of highly qualified football minds in the G5.

Condalizza Rice was brought in to give the committee initial visibility, plus she's also really smart.

But the general point stands: While their are plenty of good football minds in the G5, the best are in the P5, and we should want the best.

Remember, the management committee that selects the CFP committee is in fact comprised pretty much how you want it - one rep from every conference, the SEC doesn't have any more representation than the Sun Belt.

So heck, talk to Aresco about who is on the selection committee, he helped put it together.

(01-20-2018 06:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 12:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 11:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 11:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 11:21 AM)ken d Wrote:  It should also be noted that of the six AAC coaches voting in the final regular season poll - before the CFP selection - none had UCF ranked in the top 6. One (Navy) had them ranked at #10. Their average rank was 8.

Fact is, there has never been any evidence or suggestion, outside forums like this one, that poll voters or selection committees are biased in their ballots. Fans who say there should be equal representation of G5 conferences on these committees are in effect saying they believe those G5 reps would be biased. Otherwise, what difference would it make?

Historically, successful coaches and AD's have tended to move up from the G5 ranks to positions at P5 schools. Rarely do coaches successful at a P5 program elect to move to a G5 program voluntarily. So why should it be a surprise, if one is looking to staff a selection committee with the best (that is, most successful) talent available, that the result would be more coaches and ADs from P5 schools than G5 schools?

If ethical people are all that’s required, and any ethical person would see it the same way, then why stack the committee with P5 representatives? Look, this isn’t rocket science. Why don’t we have 13 retired SEC coaches and AD’s serve on the committee? I mean, don’t we all think the SEC is the best top to bottom conference with the most rabid fans? If they are ethical—why does it matter if they are all from the SEC, right? Of course we know the other 4 P5’s would howl that there was bias and they would be right to complain. You can be ethical and still have bias built in to the way you think without even being aware of it.

Ken_d answered that question: He pointed out that the CFP is supposed to be a committee not of just anybody with a pulse, but people with a lot of knowledge of college football. A panel of top-tier experts. And if you are an expert college football administrator, chances are you will end up at a P5 school, because they will hire you away from G5 and other levels. That's the career ladder in college athletics. Just like with coaches, someone who stands out as a great AD at Houston or USF isn't going to stay there, they will likely be hired away by an Alabama or a USC.

Similarly, if someone puts together a blue-ribbon panel of constitutional law scholars, it won't be a surprise if most of the panelists have Ivy League backgrounds, because those schools have the top law schools, and hence attract the best law professors.

Lol. Like Condalizza Rice? There are plenty of highly qualified football minds in the G5.

Condalizza Rice was brought in to give the committee initial visibility, plus she's also really smart.

But the general point stands: While their are plenty of good football minds in the G5, the best are in the P5, and we should want the best.

Remember, the management committee that selects the CFP committee is in fact comprised pretty much how you want it - one rep from every conference, the SEC doesn't have any more representation than the Sun Belt.

So heck, talk to Aresco about who is on the selection committee, he helped put it together.

No. Aresco is not on the Selection Committee. He is on the Management Committee where the P5 and Notre Dame hold a 6-5 advantage. He can suggest anyone he wants--but they arent going to get on the Selection Committee until he gets Notre Dame or a P5 to vote for them (which is not in the best interests of Notre Dame or the P5). Its not rocket science nor is it some big secret. If they could do something about it, they would.

Lets be honest here--when it came to negotiating the CFP, the G5 wasnt in the room negotiating. They were just waiting to be told how it would be. Again, I keep asking--if the opinion in the Selection Committee room is so universal, then why not let every conference have one representative on the committee and have those 10 members then reach a consensus on the rankings. In fact, if there isnt any difference between the committee and the polls--then why have the committee at all? Just let the AP and Coaches polls handle the chores.

(01-20-2018 02:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  In the old BCS era, Undefeated G5 teams routinely were ranked in the top10. What’s happened is the opinion of CFP Selection Committee tends to skew voting—likely because the committee is the only opinion that matters.

That's an interesting theory, but weighing heavily against it is the fact that the most important CFP vote, the last one that determines who makes the playoffs, comes after the AP and coaches have voted, so if anything, the CFP is influenced by the coaches and reporters, not vice-versa.

Plus, there's an obvious alternative explanation for the BCS vs CFP discrepancy you lay so much stock in: The BCS-era "G5" teams were simply better than the best CFP-era G5 teams, and so deserved to be ranked higher.

Evidence for this are computer rankings from that era. This year, UCF finished #8 in the Massey Composite, post-Bowl.

In contrast, in 2009, post-bowl, Boise finished 4th in the Massey Composite, while TCU finished 5th. In 2010, TCU finished 2nd in the MC, while Boise finished 5th, and in 2011, Boise finished 5th in the MC. Finally, in 2008, we see that Utah was 8th in the final MC rankings, which were done before the bowl games. Surely, Utah would have risen above that after beating Alabama.

So contrary to your theory that "the CFP is consciously and unconsiously biased against the G5, and then all the rest of the human sheep Baaaaah and follow their lead" are computers which say that the best turn of the 2010s non-AQ teams were simply better than UCF this year or Houston in 2015 or Boise in 2014 and therefore were ranked higher by AP and coach voters.

Why might that be? Realignment in the west. In the east, realignment basically involved Power conferences raiding each other - stripping the Big East, etc.

But out west, the MWC and WAC, very strong in the late 2000s, got wacked hard by realignment and the domino effects it had out there.

Look at the Sagarin ratings: The last three years, the AAC has basically had either a 66 or 67 Sagarin rating, a good 7+ points worse than the worst P5 conference.

In contrast, from 2008 - 2010, the MWC was above *70* each year, and was never more than 3.5 points from the closest AQ conference. The WAC also had two years there when its rating was 65+, very close to what the AAC is now.

Bottom line: The best non-power conference now, the AAC, isn't as good as the MWC was in the late 2000s, and was barely better than the WAC was then. So back then, out west where Boise and TCU and Utah were playing, you had two conferences that were, averaged out, better than the AAC is now.

That milieu just produced better top non-Power teams, which were properly ranked higher by the pollsters than the best non-power teams of the past four seasons.

(01-20-2018 07:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 06:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 12:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 11:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 11:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If ethical people are all that’s required, and any ethical person would see it the same way, then why stack the committee with P5 representatives? Look, this isn’t rocket science. Why don’t we have 13 retired SEC coaches and AD’s serve on the committee? I mean, don’t we all think the SEC is the best top to bottom conference with the most rabid fans? If they are ethical—why does it matter if they are all from the SEC, right? Of course we know the other 4 P5’s would howl that there was bias and they would be right to complain. You can be ethical and still have bias built in to the way you think without even being aware of it.

Ken_d answered that question: He pointed out that the CFP is supposed to be a committee not of just anybody with a pulse, but people with a lot of knowledge of college football. A panel of top-tier experts. And if you are an expert college football administrator, chances are you will end up at a P5 school, because they will hire you away from G5 and other levels. That's the career ladder in college athletics. Just like with coaches, someone who stands out as a great AD at Houston or USF isn't going to stay there, they will likely be hired away by an Alabama or a USC.

Similarly, if someone puts together a blue-ribbon panel of constitutional law scholars, it won't be a surprise if most of the panelists have Ivy League backgrounds, because those schools have the top law schools, and hence attract the best law professors.

Lol. Like Condalizza Rice? There are plenty of highly qualified football minds in the G5.

Condalizza Rice was brought in to give the committee initial visibility, plus she's also really smart.

But the general point stands: While their are plenty of good football minds in the G5, the best are in the P5, and we should want the best.

Remember, the management committee that selects the CFP committee is in fact comprised pretty much how you want it - one rep from every conference, the SEC doesn't have any more representation than the Sun Belt.

So heck, talk to Aresco about who is on the selection committee, he helped put it together.

No. Aresco is not on the Selection Committee. He is on the Management Committee where the P5 and Notre Dame hold a 6-5 advantage. He can suggest anyone he wants--but they arent going to get on the Selection Committee until he gets Notre Dame or a P5 to vote for them (which is not in the best interests of Notre Dame or the P5). Its not rocket science nor is it some big secret. If they could do something about it, they would.

Lets be honest here--when it came to negotiating the CFP, the G5 wasnt in the room negotiating. They were just waiting to be told how it would be. Again, I keep asking--if the opinion in the Selection Committee room is so universal, then why not let every conference have one representative on the committee and have those 10 members then reach a consensus on the rankings. In fact, if there isnt any difference between the committee and the polls--then why have the committee at all? Just let the AP and Coaches polls handle the chores.

I've made that argument from the beginning. Not because they are better - just because they are pretty much the same.

(01-20-2018 07:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 02:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  In the old BCS era, Undefeated G5 teams routinely were ranked in the top10. What’s happened is the opinion of CFP Selection Committee tends to skew voting—likely because the committee is the only opinion that matters.

That's an interesting theory, but there's no evidence to support it. Weighing heavily against it is the fact that the most important CFP vote, the last one that determines who makes the playoffs, comes after the AP and coaches have voted, so if anything, the CFP is influenced by the coaches and reporters, not vice-versa.

Plus, there's an obvious alternative explanation for the BCS vs CFP discrepancy you lay so much stock in: The BCS-era "G5" teams were simply better than the best CFP-era G5 teams, and so deserved to be ranked higher.

Evidence for this are computer rankings from that era. This year, UCF finished #8 in the Massey Composite, post-Bowl.

In contrast, in 2009, post-bowl, Boise finished 4th in the Massey Composite, while TCU finished 5th. In 2010, TCU finished 2nd in the MC, while Boise finished 5th, and in 2011, Boise finished 5th in the MC. Finally, in 2008, we see that Utah was 8th in the final MC rankings, which were done before the bowl games. Surely, Utah would have risen above that after beating Alabama.

So contrary to your theory that "the CFP is consciously and unconsiously biased against the G5, and then all the rest of the human sheep Baaaaah and follow their lead" are computers which say that the best turn of the 2010s non-AQ teams were simply better than UCF this year or Houston in 2015 or Boise in 2014 and therefore were ranked higher by AP and coach voters.

Why might that be? Realignment in the west. In the east, realignment basically involved Power conferences raiding each other - stripping the Big East, etc.

But out west, the MWC and WAC, very strong in the late 2000s, got wacked hard by realignment and the domino effects it had out there.

Look at the Sagarin ratings: The last three years, the AAC has basically had either a 66 or 67 Sagarin rating, a good 7+ points worse than the worst P5 conference.

In contrast, from 2008 - 2010, the MWC was above *70* each year, and was never more than 3.5 points from the closest AQ conference. The WAC also had two years there when its rating was 65+, very close to what the AAC is now.

Bottom line: The best non-power conference now, the AAC, isn't as good as the MWC was in the late 2000s, and was barely better than the WAC was then. So back then, out west where Boise and TCU and Utah were playing, you had two conferences that were, averaged out, better than the AAC is now.

That milieu just produced better top non-Power teams.

To your point, in the last 14 years before the CFP, the highest ranked G5 team in the final pre-bowl poll was either Boise State (4X), TCU (3X)or Utah (2X). And I think you can make a good case that Boise is not nearly as strong over the last five years as they were in the 10 years before that.

Boise is loaded for 2018.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would expect that Notre Dame and The ACC cooperate on football issues as they should. While Notre Dame is not a football member of The ACC, they are a partner with common interests.

With that being said Notre Dame will keep its voice in the CFP, and it's quiet alliance with The ACC.

Jim Delaney and The Big Ten won't push Notre Dame into the waiting arms of The ACC by requiring CFP participants to be members of conferences. Then again another season on the outside looking in might change The Big Ten's mind.
CJ

If anyone thought the CFP was really going to change anything for those outside the P5, you haven't been paying attention.

The BCS was "limited" to the participation of 6 conferences. With the CFP, participation has thus far been "limited" to 5 Power Conferences.

In 2016 when The Big 12 attempted to expand with proven, deserving G5 programs, media partners stepped in and agreed to pay The Big 12 not to expand. Couple this with ESPN saying no to a Big 12 Network, signs point to The P5 soon becoming The P4.

I would expect that most, if not all, of the present Big 12 members, will find homes in The PAC, Big Ten, ACC and SEC.

The CFP may expand from 4 to 8 in the future, I just wouldn't look for true increased participation. JRSEC recently explained, very well I might add, how and why in The "Killing The Big 12" thread.
CJ

(01-20-2018 07:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 06:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 12:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 11:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 11:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If ethical people are all that’s required, and any ethical person would see it the same way, then why stack the committee with P5 representatives? Look, this isn’t rocket science. Why don’t we have 13 retired SEC coaches and AD’s serve on the committee? I mean, don’t we all think the SEC is the best top to bottom conference with the most rabid fans? If they are ethical—why does it matter if they are all from the SEC, right? Of course we know the other 4 P5’s would howl that there was bias and they would be right to complain. You can be ethical and still have bias built in to the way you think without even being aware of it.

Ken_d answered that question: He pointed out that the CFP is supposed to be a committee not of just anybody with a pulse, but people with a lot of knowledge of college football. A panel of top-tier experts. And if you are an expert college football administrator, chances are you will end up at a P5 school, because they will hire you away from G5 and other levels. That's the career ladder in college athletics. Just like with coaches, someone who stands out as a great AD at Houston or USF isn't going to stay there, they will likely be hired away by an Alabama or a USC.

Similarly, if someone puts together a blue-ribbon panel of constitutional law scholars, it won't be a surprise if most of the panelists have Ivy League backgrounds, because those schools have the top law schools, and hence attract the best law professors.

Lol. Like Condalizza Rice? There are plenty of highly qualified football minds in the G5.

Condalizza Rice was brought in to give the committee initial visibility, plus she's also really smart.

But the general point stands: While their are plenty of good football minds in the G5, the best are in the P5, and we should want the best.

Remember, the management committee that selects the CFP committee is in fact comprised pretty much how you want it - one rep from every conference, the SEC doesn't have any more representation than the Sun Belt.

So heck, talk to Aresco about who is on the selection committee, he helped put it together.

No. Aresco is not on the Selection Committee. He is on the Management Committee where the P5 and Notre Dame hold a 6-5 advantage. He can suggest anyone he wants--but they arent going to get on the Selection Committee until he gets Notre Dame or a P5 to vote for them (which is not in the best interests of Notre Dame or the P5). Its not rocket science nor is it some big secret. If they could do something about it, they would.

Lets be honest here--when it came to negotiating the CFP, the G5 wasnt in the room negotiating. They were just waiting to be told how it would be. Again, I keep asking--if the opinion in the Selection Committee room is so universal, then why not let every conference have one representative on the committee and have those 10 members then reach a consensus on the rankings. In fact, if there isnt any difference between the committee and the polls--then why have the committee at all? Just let the AP and Coaches polls handle the chores.

First, you misunderstood - in my previous post i meant that Aresco was on the Management committee that picks the CFP selection committee, not that he is on the selection committee. That's why i said talk to Aresco about the selection committee's composition because (as a Management committee member) he helped put the selection committee together.

Second, there's no reason to think Notre Dame marches with the P5. It isn't necessarily in ND's interest for the P5 or G5 to have more teams in the playoffs.

Third, if ND was voting in lock-step with the P5, such that the selection committee appointments are all 6-5 votes in the Management committee, surely Aresco and other G5 reps would be talking about this publicly and complaining, but nobody is.

Fourth, the reason we have a selection committee and not just the AP/Coach poll is because (a) the idea behind the CFP is that the playoff process be under the control of the member schools, not an outside entity, and (b) it is programming for ESPN.

And as Ken_d noted, it makes sense that since the best football-related admins are likely to be in the P5 that most selected will have a P5 background, just as most top constitutional law experts have an Ivy background.

(01-20-2018 12:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Lol. Like Condalizza Rice? There are plenty of highly qualified football minds in the G5.

Let me know when the First Black Woman Secretary of State or someone with comparable prestige is associated with a G5 school and has a widely publicized interest in being commissioner of the NFL.

(01-21-2018 07:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 07:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 06:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 12:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 11:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Ken_d answered that question: He pointed out that the CFP is supposed to be a committee not of just anybody with a pulse, but people with a lot of knowledge of college football. A panel of top-tier experts. And if you are an expert college football administrator, chances are you will end up at a P5 school, because they will hire you away from G5 and other levels. That's the career ladder in college athletics. Just like with coaches, someone who stands out as a great AD at Houston or USF isn't going to stay there, they will likely be hired away by an Alabama or a USC.

Similarly, if someone puts together a blue-ribbon panel of constitutional law scholars, it won't be a surprise if most of the panelists have Ivy League backgrounds, because those schools have the top law schools, and hence attract the best law professors.

Lol. Like Condalizza Rice? There are plenty of highly qualified football minds in the G5.

Condalizza Rice was brought in to give the committee initial visibility, plus she's also really smart.

But the general point stands: While their are plenty of good football minds in the G5, the best are in the P5, and we should want the best.

Remember, the management committee that selects the CFP committee is in fact comprised pretty much how you want it - one rep from every conference, the SEC doesn't have any more representation than the Sun Belt.

So heck, talk to Aresco about who is on the selection committee, he helped put it together.

No. Aresco is not on the Selection Committee. He is on the Management Committee where the P5 and Notre Dame hold a 6-5 advantage. He can suggest anyone he wants--but they arent going to get on the Selection Committee until he gets Notre Dame or a P5 to vote for them (which is not in the best interests of Notre Dame or the P5). Its not rocket science nor is it some big secret. If they could do something about it, they would.

Lets be honest here--when it came to negotiating the CFP, the G5 wasnt in the room negotiating. They were just waiting to be told how it would be. Again, I keep asking--if the opinion in the Selection Committee room is so universal, then why not let every conference have one representative on the committee and have those 10 members then reach a consensus on the rankings. In fact, if there isnt any difference between the committee and the polls--then why have the committee at all? Just let the AP and Coaches polls handle the chores.

First, you misunderstood - in my previous post i meant that Aresco was on the Management committee that picks the CFP selection committee, not that he is on the selection committee. That's why i said talk to Aresco about the selection committee's composition because (as a Management committee member) he helped put the selection committee together.

Second, there's no reason to think Notre Dame marches with the P5. It isn't necessarily in ND's interest for the P5 or G5 to have more teams in the playoffs.

Third, if ND was voting in lock-step with the P5, such that the selection committee appointments are all 6-5 votes in the Management committee, surely Aresco and other G5 reps would be talking about this publicly and complaining, but nobody is.

Fourth, the reason we have a selection committee and not just the AP/Coach poll is because (a) the idea behind the CFP is that the playoff process be under the control of the member schools, not an outside entity, and (b) it is programming for ESPN.

And as Ken_d noted, it makes sense that since the best football-related admins are likely to be in the P5 that most selected will have a P5 background, just as most top constitutional law experts have an Ivy background.

Actually when the CFP was being defined, the Pac 12, Big 12 and ACC weren't in the room. It was Slive and Delany making a deal which was then presented to the rest of the P5.

(01-21-2018 07:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 07:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 06:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 12:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 11:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Ken_d answered that question: He pointed out that the CFP is supposed to be a committee not of just anybody with a pulse, but people with a lot of knowledge of college football. A panel of top-tier experts. And if you are an expert college football administrator, chances are you will end up at a P5 school, because they will hire you away from G5 and other levels. That's the career ladder in college athletics. Just like with coaches, someone who stands out as a great AD at Houston or USF isn't going to stay there, they will likely be hired away by an Alabama or a USC.

Similarly, if someone puts together a blue-ribbon panel of constitutional law scholars, it won't be a surprise if most of the panelists have Ivy League backgrounds, because those schools have the top law schools, and hence attract the best law professors.

Lol. Like Condalizza Rice? There are plenty of highly qualified football minds in the G5.

Condalizza Rice was brought in to give the committee initial visibility, plus she's also really smart.

But the general point stands: While their are plenty of good football minds in the G5, the best are in the P5, and we should want the best.

Remember, the management committee that selects the CFP committee is in fact comprised pretty much how you want it - one rep from every conference, the SEC doesn't have any more representation than the Sun Belt.

So heck, talk to Aresco about who is on the selection committee, he helped put it together.

No. Aresco is not on the Selection Committee. He is on the Management Committee where the P5 and Notre Dame hold a 6-5 advantage. He can suggest anyone he wants--but they arent going to get on the Selection Committee until he gets Notre Dame or a P5 to vote for them (which is not in the best interests of Notre Dame or the P5). Its not rocket science nor is it some big secret. If they could do something about it, they would.

Lets be honest here--when it came to negotiating the CFP, the G5 wasnt in the room negotiating. They were just waiting to be told how it would be. Again, I keep asking--if the opinion in the Selection Committee room is so universal, then why not let every conference have one representative on the committee and have those 10 members then reach a consensus on the rankings. In fact, if there isnt any difference between the committee and the polls--then why have the committee at all? Just let the AP and Coaches polls handle the chores.

First, you misunderstood - in my previous post i meant that Aresco was on the Management committee that picks the CFP selection committee, not that he is on the selection committee. That's why i said talk to Aresco about the selection committee's composition because (as a Management committee member) he helped put the selection committee together.

Second, there's no reason to think Notre Dame marches with the P5. It isn't necessarily in ND's interest for the P5 or G5 to have more teams in the playoffs.

Third, if ND was voting in lock-step with the P5, such that the selection committee appointments are all 6-5 votes in the Management committee, surely Aresco and other G5 reps would be talking about this publicly and complaining, but nobody is.

Fourth, the reason we have a selection committee and not just the AP/Coach poll is because (a) the idea behind the CFP is that the playoff process be under the control of the member schools, not an outside entity, and (b) it is programming for ESPN.

And as Ken_d noted, it makes sense that since the best football-related admins are likely to be in the P5 that most selected will have a P5 background, just as most top constitutional law experts have an Ivy background.

They have complained very publicly about under ranking. In fact, one has said he thinks its virtually impossible for a G5 to get in currently. That said, there also clearly seems to be a line they G5 commissioners are not allowed to cross with their criticism. Its pretty obvious that these guys arent saying what they really think. Best I can figure, the bottom line is the G5 is being paid 85 million to sit down and shut up...thats what we saw after UCF declared a "National Championship". Doesnt take much imagination to figure if thats how it goes in public--thats exactly how things roll when they are behind closed doors deciding who will serve on the Selection Committee. G5 has zero say.