This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I tried to talk about this last week....no one seemed interested. The whole committee hasn't been announced yet has it? I have issue with a lot of the folks on it for the reason you bring up....time. I was waiting to see who else was going to be on it before I formed a full opinion though.
I asked a couple of the national writers via their mailbags but none have addressed it yet.
Pat Haden
I was hoping guys like Herbstreit, Phil Steele, etc would be asked to do it. I do agree it's a diverse group. My only hope is that we get to the end of next season and aren't longing for the BCS. Not a very high bar to set, I know, but we have to start somewhere.
I'd rather have a combination of journalists and computer models than a small group of people affiliated with certain schools.
Yeah, another thing I took from that article was that people on the committee aren't going to get paid. I really think this is a part-time job and should be paid like it. You have to watch football from 9am to midnight (Pacific time) every Saturday in the fall.
I heard someone saying that some of the members (ADs maybe) will be responsible for only one Conference. This seems odd to me.
Particularly when you consider there could be a choice between a school the AD works for and one of their conference rivals....
More of a discussion item for next year, especially because the details of the committee are still being ironed out. Maybe I'm on an island, but I'm just not all that interested in the middle of a season before the season it gets implemented.
So they chose a guy that intentionally defied NCAA direction during an investigation resulting in Ga Tech getting 4 years of probation but they claim integrity is one of the key qualities of the members. Nice.
I agree with you. The playoff is a much needed step in the right direction. I still don't believe a 4 team playoff is really a whole step though. It's more a half step. I've been a long time believer that until we get to at least an 8 team playoff system not much is really changing. The rankings are all still going to be relevant as they are today. Basically this just moves the focus of one rank if system to another, this commitee's. My gut tells me the commitee is still going to weigh our current ranking system into their evaluations even if they don't publicly state it. The committee seems like a joke to me. I won't even get into the merits of the people listed, which I don't really agree with. OK, it's fine if these are the people you want to be in charge of deciding things. What criteria and tangible objectives are being placed upon them other than coming up with their list though? There needs to be far less room for personal judgement and potential preferential treatment. Some sort of computer ranking would be a nice hedge to that. Better yet, there should be a high level of transparency for how these committee members are making decisions. I'm not sure what all that would entail, but a few things come to mind such as; write ups for each ranking, tracking of which games each member has watched or attended, ect. Lastly, there needs to be an appeals commitee for rankings that just don't make sense or stand out as odd.
So you think they are already lying to us about "how" they will come to the list of teams??
I don't think it's a lie per say. More an influence. This is why there is a need for transparency. How are they reaching their conclusion? This is the question for me.Another problem I have is that I feel the task at hand for these individuals is unrealistic. There are over 120 teams in college football. There is no realistic way any of these members are going to become experts in all of them. Hell, they probably won't become experts over half of them. The committee should be expanded and regionalized. Rolled them up from there. The problem is, with only a 4 team playoff this becomes mundane.
What are you talking about? You believe the polls are going to be relevant as they are today, but they are saying they won't. I understand the need for transparency and agree on that point. The "problem" you raise has been a "problem" from the beginning. It's always been unrealistic to have rankings by coaches given the issues you raise here plus more. Your solution? No idea what you are talking about so I'll just let it be.jurb26 said:
Honest question, do you even read the post before you comment on them? I didn't say the polls would be as relevant as they are today. I said the polls would still be relevant as they are today. The difference being the placement of the as. The point being, without transparency the committee can still be influenced by them.
Yeah, realized I misread your as... My apologies. As to the point, this is why I feel a regional committee needs to be in place. When these members realize they just don't have enough time in the day to really dig into the teams they will turn to something as a guide. I'm betting for many the polls will be one of those resources. Likely a big one. There needs to be a higher level of engagement with actual games and to get that the committees need smaller regions to break down. At the end of the day, what about their process of evaluation is going to be different than the current guys voting? With out that differentiation we are heading nowhere.
So I go back to my original question and ask if you think they are lying to us already? Everyone's saying it's going to be very similar to the way they do the basketball tournament. To me, it's more likely that an rpi-esque system evolves and it would be used to fill your resource requirement. However, football is not like basketball. There's not nearly as much data to collect in football. These people will watch more football than the coaches. I don't know why you think they'd rely on the coaches (who don't watch hardly any of the games) as a "resource: while they can watch with their own eye in a lot of cases.
How many games do you think these 12 people can realistically watch? Saying they will watch more than the current coaches doesn't mean a whole lot IMO. We need to know what that means, quantitatively. I watch a ton of college football and it's impossible for me to keep up with all of the teams. Particularly teams on the west coast do to my living on the east coast. The body of work is simply too large for them. This is why I feel it should be enlarged and regionalized. Expand the committee to at least 16, assign 4 regions of 4 members and then have a senior committee of 4 to which everything gets rolled up too. That would be my minimum. Then, the members can realistically watch and follow the games within their region with a high level of engagement. No football isn't like basketball and doesn't need to be as complex. The key difference is there is a significant margin for error in basketball and the margin for error here is razor thin. 64 teams getting in vs. just 4.
As a Mia fan, I'm definitely concerned about tonight's game. They never seem to play well vs. UNC and the environment is going to be electric. For me personally, this is a bench mark game for how far this team has really come. They should dominate this UNC team. I'm not sure they will even win the game.
Not going to answer my question? I'll move on...thanks. Just wanted to know if you thought they were already lying to us about the polls. The rest is a fruitless tangent until we know what criteria they are using and what their formulas/approach are going to be.
jurb26 said:
ok.
Lol, who'd of thought they would be so sensitive.
All this because someone thinks Michigan is overrated
All this because someone thinks Michigan is overrated
My question had nothing to do with Michigan, but I should know better than to engage...I was warned early on.
I also understand the concern, but this isn't a Larry Coker or Randy Shannon coached team. I don't see how coach Golden won't have this team ready to go, especially coming off of a bye week.
Slider6 said:
I appreciate Pollard's comments and they have been true recently. Why Miami wets the bed against UNC is beyond me, but this year? This UNC team was drubbed by ECU who then proceeded to lose to Tulane. Let that sink in. There's no way this game should be close. UNC is not deep and is severely lacking in talent. They're off a bye week and have WFU next, so there's no "look ahead".
The depths that UNC has sunk makes it pretty unlikely, of course.Slider6 said:
I'm with yaThe depths that UNC has sunk makes it pretty unlikely, of course.Slider6 said:
Yes, it was all before the last couple of years.
The 3 game win streak from '07-'09 and the '04 game mainly. That would be 2 Top 15 MIA teams over the last decade that walked into Kenan and left with a loss. Considering the number of times Miami has actually been in the Top 15 over that span, it's sort of significant.
Not that it should have any bearing on tonight. Just pointing it out.
Plus, this is the ACC. Just when the conference starts to get a little mojo back, this is the sort of spot where an ACC team that seems back on the rise can really #### the bed.
Perhaps Miami can be the new Clemson??
No, let's leave Clemson as ClemsonI'm with yaThe depths that UNC has sunk makes it pretty unlikely, of course.Slider6 said:
Yes, it was all before the last couple of years.
The 3 game win streak from '07-'09 and the '04 game mainly. That would be 2 Top 15 MIA teams over the last decade that walked into Kenan and left with a loss. Considering the number of times Miami has actually been in the Top 15 over that span, it's sort of significant.
Not that it should have any bearing on tonight. Just pointing it out.
Plus, this is the ACC. Just when the conference starts to get a little mojo back, this is the sort of spot where an ACC team that seems back on the rise can really #### the bed.
Agreed.Premier said:
Using the polls as they are would be SSDD. I REALLY hope that doesn't happen, but wouldn't be surprised at all if it did.The Commish said:
