http://collegefootballplayoff.com/news/2...th=general

Countdown to G5 meltdown 3-2-1

(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.

Hatfield coached at Rice and AFA for like 15 years. Stansbury was UCF AD for four seasons, including during the Fiesta Bowl win over Baylor.

(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.

(01-17-2018 12:31 PM)YNot Wrote:  Hatfield coached at Rice and AFA for like 15 years. Stansbury was UCF AD for four seasons, including during the Fiesta Bowl win over Baylor.

Hatfield is an Razorback ex-player and a ex Razorback head coach. He also was HC at Clemson for a while. Anyone labeling Hatfield as some sort of "G5 rep" is being overly generous with that description.

Solid candidates that were appointed to the committee. Lots of experience in this group.

Someone try to rationalize the fairness of ND having the same amount of votes (1) as the entire 14 member SEC (1), so in essence, ND has 14 times the voting power as Alabama. Also, ND is already a member of the ACC, and they already have a vote, so they now have 2 votes with ND.

How is that fair?

Fairness dictates that the committee should be comprised of one representative of each FBS conference.

(01-17-2018 02:34 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Someone try to rationalize the fairness of ND having the same amount of votes (1) as the entire 14 member SEC (1), so in essence, ND has 14 times the voting power as Alabama. Also, ND is already a member of the ACC, and they already have a vote, so they now have 2 votes with ND.

How is that fair?

Fairness dictates that the committee should be comprised of one representative of each FBS conference.

And infinity more votes than BYU, Army, UMass, NMSU, and Liberty.

It is not fair, but it is a part of the contract that created the CFP structure....which is miles ahead of the old BCS and bowl alliance systems.

(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.

I guess everyone is entitled to his opinion. So far, I have seen no evidence that is is a correct one. But that's my opinion.

(01-17-2018 02:47 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 02:34 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Someone try to rationalize the fairness of ND having the same amount of votes (1) as the entire 14 member SEC (1), so in essence, ND has 14 times the voting power as Alabama. Also, ND is already a member of the ACC, and they already have a vote, so they now have 2 votes with ND.

How is that fair?

Fairness dictates that the committee should be comprised of one representative of each FBS conference.

And infinity more votes than BYU, Army, UMass, NMSU, and Liberty.

It is not fair, but it is a part of the contract that created the CFP structure....which is miles ahead of the old BCS and bowl alliance systems.

This is debatable. While I do like the 4 team CFP, the way they arrive at the 4 teams is not, in my opinion, more fair than the previous system of polls and computers, with how the committee is stacked.

Dislike the tilt of the committee. Hatfield is a nice choice though.
Oklahoma AD Castiglioiine replaces Tech AD Hocutt
GT AD Stansbury replaces Clemson AD Radkovich (who was previously at GT)
Florida AD Stricklin replaces Arkansas AD Long
Bolvin, the media rep with Arizona and Southern California ties, replaces Weinberg, the media rep from Missouri
Lott, the miscellaneous rep from USC, replaces the NCAA guy from Oregon
Hatfield-strong Arkansas ties, but connections elsewhere-ACC, WAC, SWC replaces Whittingham-ND/Washington/Stanford

So you replaced Clemson AD with GT ties with a GT guy and included a former Clemson coach.
You got rid of Missouri, Oregon and UW/Stanford guys and replaced them with Arkansas, Arizona St. and USC ties.

SEC and Pac 12 still have disproportionate representation. Hasn't visibly helped the Pac 12, but it might in close cases.

(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.

(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.

Sadly, integrity is no longer the default assumption on the internet (if it ever was). Talk about your thankless jobs. And these guys aren't even getting paid to do this.

(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.

edit: Whoops, Castiglione was selection committee chair in 2016, not 2017.

New playoff rules will include the 3 best teams in the country and a team from the state of Alabama

(01-17-2018 02:34 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Someone try to rationalize the fairness of ND having the same amount of votes (1) as the entire 14 member SEC (1), so in essence, ND has 14 times the voting power as Alabama. Also, ND is already a member of the ACC, and they already have a vote, so they now have 2 votes with ND.

How is that fair?

Fairness dictates that the committee should be comprised of one representative of each FBS conference.

Basically agree. The ACC needs to be special enabled ND's voice because that is where they are associated, though they are not committed to f/t ACC football. It does, theoretically, and perhaps practically, renders the ACC an extra voice and vote.

I would be OK with independents having a representative. Schools such as UMass, Army, and BYU, could have some input in the process.

Does not really matter who is on the committee, ESPN has a very tight grip on the control of college football, and until that ends the G5 schools and P5 non marquee schools will get the shaft.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(01-17-2018 02:34 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Someone try to rationalize the fairness of ND having the same amount of votes (1) as the entire 14 member SEC (1), so in essence, ND has 14 times the voting power as Alabama. Also, ND is already a member of the ACC, and they already have a vote, so they now have 2 votes with ND.

First, if the CFP were a general athletic body, you'd have a point about ND and the ACC. But, ND is not a *football* member of the ACC, and this is a football-only body, so no, the ACC does not have two votes. Proof of this is that no other Power conference would tolerate the ACC having two votes.

Second, ND has the same number of votes because Notre Dame is the only blue-blood independent. Are they really 14x more important than Alabama? No, but if they didn't have a separate vote, they would have zero influence on the CFP, which would give them infinitely less influence than Alabama.

So if the choice is between ND having 14x more influence or infinitely less influence, then 14x more is closer to the ideal (same influence), especially since from Alabama or Texas point of view, there's no harm done in ND having a vote.

Basically, no college playoff system can be credible if Notre Dame isn't part of it. That's not true of BYU, Army, the AAC, the Sun Belt, etc.

I am sure that there are non disclosures everywhere. That's why we don't hear about who the candidate pool was and how the votes go down, no different than how the actual CFP poll votes..... all in secrecy and under cover. Opening up the process and showing how committee members vote during each poll would go a long way. Maybe they don't even do individual votes and simply sit around a round table.......thing is, we simply don't know. It's all secret.

Just like I would love to see how these candidates were selected. Who were the candidates rejected? Were the votes party line 6-5? Once again.... all secret. Putting in a little sunshine in the process would go a long way. Just don't understand why people would have a problem with that. Maybe if there are in fact 6-5 votes, some eyes would be opened.

But I can say one thing, you wont hear any conference commissioner complain simply because I am sure there would be massive legal repercussions.