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!
That would be a weird move for Nebraska. Narduzzi is basically a Pelini clone. He's super intense, great defensive coordinator, players love him, but he lacks head coaching experience and might be a little too crazy to be in charge of a whole football program.Whatever. Why would he go to UCONN when he could have the Nebraska gig next year?Pat Narduzzi turned down UCONN job because assistant pay wasn't high enough.
Pete Lembo next on the list?
Any speculation on what she is going to announce? A civil suit against the TPD? I doubt there could be any more details the public doesn't know, and a smear campaign would make them look desperate.
Just save face, stick to your guns and let them go about their business as a separate entity already.This committee sounds awful. Having current ADs involved in the decision making is ripe for abuse.
Until the conference champions get automatic bids into a playoff it will always be a joke to me. A.D.'s are going to be biased for sure. Local media would be biased. National media would be about selecting TV matchups. Just expand to 8 with five conference champions and the next three best teams. Stop pretending to care about CUSA and the MAC and what not.This committee sounds awful. Having current ADs involved in the decision making is ripe for abuse.
Would be better to keep the current ranking process and put a playoff ontop of it.
Not sure there's a big difference between the coaches now and the ADs in the new system other than the new system having the ADs out of the room when the teams from their conference are being discussed. Might be a small step forward, but ti's a step. I'd be fine with the current system if they removed the coaches all together and made the computers fully disclose what is going on in their black boxes. It'd be even better if they weighed each poll ranking as the season progressed. As of right now, the first week's poll carries the same weight as week 12's.This committee sounds awful. Having current ADs involved in the decision making is ripe for abuse.
Would be better to keep the current ranking process and put a playoff ontop of it.
Until the conference champions get automatic bids into a playoff it will always be a joke to me. A.D.'s are going to be biased for sure. Local media would be biased. National media would be about selecting TV matchups. Just expand to 8 with five conference champions and the next three best teams. Stop pretending to care about CUSA and the MAC and what not.This committee sounds awful. Having current ADs involved in the decision making is ripe for abuse.
Would be better to keep the current ranking process and put a playoff ontop of it.
, mostly. Not sure about totally dismissing the small conferences.There is going to be bias anywhere. At least in the current system, there are several different types of biases that often conflict and the influence one individual's viewpoint can have is small.Not sure there's a big difference between the coaches now and the ADs in the new system other than the new system having the ADs out of the room when the teams from their conference are being discussed. Might be a small step forward, but ti's a step. I'd be fine with the current system if they removed the coaches all together and made the computers fully disclose what is going on in their black boxes. It'd be even better if they weighed each poll ranking as the season progressed. As of right now, the first week's poll carries the same weight as week 12's.This committee sounds awful. Having current ADs involved in the decision making is ripe for abuse.
Would be better to keep the current ranking process and put a playoff ontop of it.
I don't want any part of this. You're inviting the idea of an 8-5 or 9-4 team sneaking in by doing this. There needs to be an if statement attached to this rule.Until the conference champions get automatic bids into a playoff it will always be a joke to me. A.D.'s are going to be biased for sure. Local media would be biased. National media would be about selecting TV matchups. Just expand to 8 with five conference champions and the next three best teams. Stop pretending to care about CUSA and the MAC and what not.This committee sounds awful. Having current ADs involved in the decision making is ripe for abuse.
Would be better to keep the current ranking process and put a playoff ontop of it.
When was the last time there was a five-loss major conference champion? And if it happens once every five years and they immediately get the 8 seed, that doesn't strike me as a big deal. The 1 seed deserves a soft matchup anyway.I don't want any part of this. You're inviting the idea of an 8-5 or 9-4 team sneaking in by doing this. There needs to be an if statement attached to this rule.Until the conference champions get automatic bids into a playoff it will always be a joke to me. A.D.'s are going to be biased for sure. Local media would be biased. National media would be about selecting TV matchups. Just expand to 8 with five conference champions and the next three best teams. Stop pretending to care about CUSA and the MAC and what not.This committee sounds awful. Having current ADs involved in the decision making is ripe for abuse.
Would be better to keep the current ranking process and put a playoff ontop of it.
I think excusing the AD from the room while their conference teams are being discussed makes it a little similar, if not better, than current, but we won't know until this all goes down the first time.There is going to be bias anywhere. At least in the current system, there are several different types of biases that often conflict and the influence one individual's viewpoint can have is small.Not sure there's a big difference between the coaches now and the ADs in the new system other than the new system having the ADs out of the room when the teams from their conference are being discussed. Might be a small step forward, but ti's a step. I'd be fine with the current system if they removed the coaches all together and made the computers fully disclose what is going on in their black boxes. It'd be even better if they weighed each poll ranking as the season progressed. As of right now, the first week's poll carries the same weight as week 12's.This committee sounds awful. Having current ADs involved in the decision making is ripe for abuse.
Would be better to keep the current ranking process and put a playoff ontop of it.
New system will still have bias but a smaller group of people to check it. I think that is clearly worse.
11 cases the last 4 years have had rep's with at least 4 losses.When was the last time there was a five-loss major conference champion? And if it happens once every five years and they immediately get the 8 seed, that doesn't strike me as a big deal. The 1 seed deserves a soft matchup anyway.I don't want any part of this. You're inviting the idea of an 8-5 or 9-4 team sneaking in by doing this. There needs to be an if statement attached to this rule.Until the conference champions get automatic bids into a playoff it will always be a joke to me. A.D.'s are going to be biased for sure. Local media would be biased. National media would be about selecting TV matchups. Just expand to 8 with five conference champions and the next three best teams. Stop pretending to care about CUSA and the MAC and what not.This committee sounds awful. Having current ADs involved in the decision making is ripe for abuse.
Would be better to keep the current ranking process and put a playoff ontop of it.
I think he's talking about the potential. FSU was a four loss team in 2010 and playing for the ACC championship. Last year Wisconsin was 8-5 and went to the Rose Bowl. I think in 2011 and/or 2012 UCLA was playing in the championship game with 4-5 losses.When was the last time there was a five-loss major conference champion? And if it happens once every five years and they immediately get the 8 seed, that doesn't strike me as a big deal. The 1 seed deserves a soft matchup anyway.I don't want any part of this. You're inviting the idea of an 8-5 or 9-4 team sneaking in by doing this. There needs to be an if statement attached to this rule.Until the conference champions get automatic bids into a playoff it will always be a joke to me. A.D.'s are going to be biased for sure. Local media would be biased. National media would be about selecting TV matchups. Just expand to 8 with five conference champions and the next three best teams. Stop pretending to care about CUSA and the MAC and what not.This committee sounds awful. Having current ADs involved in the decision making is ripe for abuse.
Would be better to keep the current ranking process and put a playoff ontop of it.
Big deal is what I say. There are 8-8 teams in the NFL playoffs and we all salivate how great that system is.I think he's talking about the potential. FSU was a four loss team in 2010 and playing for the ACC championship. Last year Wisconsin was 8-5 and went to the Rose Bowl. I think in 2011 and/or 2012 UCLA was playing in the championship game with 4-5 losses.When was the last time there was a five-loss major conference champion? And if it happens once every five years and they immediately get the 8 seed, that doesn't strike me as a big deal. The 1 seed deserves a soft matchup anyway.I don't want any part of this. You're inviting the idea of an 8-5 or 9-4 team sneaking in by doing this. There needs to be an if statement attached to this rule.Until the conference champions get automatic bids into a playoff it will always be a joke to me. A.D.'s are going to be biased for sure. Local media would be biased. National media would be about selecting TV matchups. Just expand to 8 with five conference champions and the next three best teams. Stop pretending to care about CUSA and the MAC and what not.This committee sounds awful. Having current ADs involved in the decision making is ripe for abuse.
Would be better to keep the current ranking process and put a playoff ontop of it.
I'm not making an argument one way or the other, but I don't particularly care for comparing two completely different systems as if they are similar either. I can see why someone would have an issue with this given the uneven scheduling, number of teams etc etc.Big deal is what I say. There are 8-8 teams in the NFL playoffs and we all salivate how great that system is.I think he's talking about the potential. FSU was a four loss team in 2010 and playing for the ACC championship. Last year Wisconsin was 8-5 and went to the Rose Bowl. I think in 2011 and/or 2012 UCLA was playing in the championship game with 4-5 losses.When was the last time there was a five-loss major conference champion? And if it happens once every five years and they immediately get the 8 seed, that doesn't strike me as a big deal. The 1 seed deserves a soft matchup anyway.I don't want any part of this. You're inviting the idea of an 8-5 or 9-4 team sneaking in by doing this. There needs to be an if statement attached to this rule.Until the conference champions get automatic bids into a playoff it will always be a joke to me. A.D.'s are going to be biased for sure. Local media would be biased. National media would be about selecting TV matchups. Just expand to 8 with five conference champions and the next three best teams. Stop pretending to care about CUSA and the MAC and what not.This committee sounds awful. Having current ADs involved in the decision making is ripe for abuse.
Would be better to keep the current ranking process and put a playoff ontop of it.
Okay fair enough. Then who is to say the 8-4 conference champion isn't one of the best teams since the schedule sample size is so small? They can use the SEC schtick and claim that teams in their conference beat each other up. If all conference champs are in the playoffs then it truly is decided on the field. You win your half of the conference on the field. You win the conf. championship game on the field. You compete in the playoffs on the field.I'm not making an argument one way or the other, but I don't particularly care for comparing two completely different systems as if they are similar either. I can see why someone would have an issue with this given the uneven scheduling, number of teams etc etc.Big deal is what I say. There are 8-8 teams in the NFL playoffs and we all salivate how great that system is.I think he's talking about the potential. FSU was a four loss team in 2010 and playing for the ACC championship. Last year Wisconsin was 8-5 and went to the Rose Bowl. I think in 2011 and/or 2012 UCLA was playing in the championship game with 4-5 losses.When was the last time there was a five-loss major conference champion? And if it happens once every five years and they immediately get the 8 seed, that doesn't strike me as a big deal. The 1 seed deserves a soft matchup anyway.I don't want any part of this. You're inviting the idea of an 8-5 or 9-4 team sneaking in by doing this. There needs to be an if statement attached to this rule.Until the conference champions get automatic bids into a playoff it will always be a joke to me. A.D.'s are going to be biased for sure. Local media would be biased. National media would be about selecting TV matchups. Just expand to 8 with five conference champions and the next three best teams. Stop pretending to care about CUSA and the MAC and what not.This committee sounds awful. Having current ADs involved in the decision making is ripe for abuse.
Would be better to keep the current ranking process and put a playoff ontop of it.
FSU didn't win the ACC championship in 2010. And Wisconsin was only playing for the Big Ten because the top two teams were ineligible. If you feel the need to add a caveat that a team that only plays for a conference because of ineligible teams ahead of it can't make the playoffs, fine. But do you really think it matters? Do you really think Wisconsin 2012, or for that matter FSU 2010, beats the #1 seed in the quarterfinal? If not, who cares? Better to have a four-loss team make it in and get crushed in the first round than to keep an undefeated Utah or TCU or Boise, or a one-loss Big 12 team out for no good reason. Or what about, say, an SEC team that plays a brutal schedule with road games at two top 10 teams, and chooses to play a tough non-conference game too and loses that, but then wins the conference at 10-3 overall? They probably deserve to play for the title too.I think he's talking about the potential. FSU was a four loss team in 2010 and playing for the ACC championship. Last year Wisconsin was 8-5 and went to the Rose Bowl. I think in 2011 and/or 2012 UCLA was playing in the championship game with 4-5 losses.When was the last time there was a five-loss major conference champion? And if it happens once every five years and they immediately get the 8 seed, that doesn't strike me as a big deal. The 1 seed deserves a soft matchup anyway.I don't want any part of this. You're inviting the idea of an 8-5 or 9-4 team sneaking in by doing this. There needs to be an if statement attached to this rule.Until the conference champions get automatic bids into a playoff it will always be a joke to me. A.D.'s are going to be biased for sure. Local media would be biased. National media would be about selecting TV matchups. Just expand to 8 with five conference champions and the next three best teams. Stop pretending to care about CUSA and the MAC and what not.This committee sounds awful. Having current ADs involved in the decision making is ripe for abuse.
Would be better to keep the current ranking process and put a playoff ontop of it.
I don't have a problem with conference champs being in the playoff....just has to be more than 4 teams. I posted what I thought would be the ideal situation in the old BCS thread from a year or two ago, but my scenario was with 16 teams.Okay fair enough. Then who is to say the 8-4 conference champion isn't one of the best teams since the schedule sample size is so small? They can use the SEC schtick and claim that teams in their conference beat each other up. If all conference champs are in the playoffs then it truly is decided on the field. You win your half of the conference on the field. You win the conf. championship game on the field. You compete in the playoffs on the field.I'm not making an argument one way or the other, but I don't particularly care for comparing two completely different systems as if they are similar either. I can see why someone would have an issue with this given the uneven scheduling, number of teams etc etc.Big deal is what I say. There are 8-8 teams in the NFL playoffs and we all salivate how great that system is.I think he's talking about the potential. FSU was a four loss team in 2010 and playing for the ACC championship. Last year Wisconsin was 8-5 and went to the Rose Bowl. I think in 2011 and/or 2012 UCLA was playing in the championship game with 4-5 losses.When was the last time there was a five-loss major conference champion? And if it happens once every five years and they immediately get the 8 seed, that doesn't strike me as a big deal. The 1 seed deserves a soft matchup anyway.I don't want any part of this. You're inviting the idea of an 8-5 or 9-4 team sneaking in by doing this. There needs to be an if statement attached to this rule.Until the conference champions get automatic bids into a playoff it will always be a joke to me. A.D.'s are going to be biased for sure. Local media would be biased. National media would be about selecting TV matchups. Just expand to 8 with five conference champions and the next three best teams. Stop pretending to care about CUSA and the MAC and what not.This committee sounds awful. Having current ADs involved in the decision making is ripe for abuse.
Would be better to keep the current ranking process and put a playoff ontop of it.
It depends on the end goal I guessFSU didn't win the ACC championship in 2010. And Wisconsin was only playing for the Big Ten because the top two teams were ineligible. If you feel the need to add a caveat that a team that only plays for a conference because of ineligible teams ahead of it can't make the playoffs, fine. But do you really think it matters? Do you really think Wisconsin 2012, or for that matter FSU 2010, beats the #1 seed in the quarterfinal? If not, who cares? Better to have a four-loss team make it in and get crushed in the first round than to keep an undefeated Utah or TCU or Boise, or a one-loss Big 12 team out for no good reason. Or what about, say, an SEC team that plays a brutal schedule with road games at two top 10 teams, and chooses to play a tough non-conference game too and loses that, but then wins the conference at 10-3 overall? They probably deserve to play for the title too.I think he's talking about the potential. FSU was a four loss team in 2010 and playing for the ACC championship. Last year Wisconsin was 8-5 and went to the Rose Bowl. I think in 2011 and/or 2012 UCLA was playing in the championship game with 4-5 losses.When was the last time there was a five-loss major conference champion? And if it happens once every five years and they immediately get the 8 seed, that doesn't strike me as a big deal. The 1 seed deserves a soft matchup anyway.I don't want any part of this. You're inviting the idea of an 8-5 or 9-4 team sneaking in by doing this. There needs to be an if statement attached to this rule.Until the conference champions get automatic bids into a playoff it will always be a joke to me. A.D.'s are going to be biased for sure. Local media would be biased. National media would be about selecting TV matchups. Just expand to 8 with five conference champions and the next three best teams. Stop pretending to care about CUSA and the MAC and what not.This committee sounds awful. Having current ADs involved in the decision making is ripe for abuse.
Would be better to keep the current ranking process and put a playoff ontop of it.
No system is perfect but this one would give you as close to a perfect balance as you can get, especially if they add a rule that any non-BCS undefeated team automatically gets an at-large bid.
Again....I'm not making an argument. I was just responding to your question. Teams with 4+ losses make it to their conference championship game frequently That's one win away from being in the playoff. So for those that want the "best teams" in the playoff, I can see why they'd have issue with it. If you on the "most deserving" side, then I can see why you'd have no problem with it.Yeah, it does depend on the end goal. And I'm definitely on the "most deserving" side of the debate.It depends on the end goal I guessFSU didn't win the ACC championship in 2010. And Wisconsin was only playing for the Big Ten because the top two teams were ineligible. If you feel the need to add a caveat that a team that only plays for a conference because of ineligible teams ahead of it can't make the playoffs, fine. But do you really think it matters? Do you really think Wisconsin 2012, or for that matter FSU 2010, beats the #1 seed in the quarterfinal? If not, who cares? Better to have a four-loss team make it in and get crushed in the first round than to keep an undefeated Utah or TCU or Boise, or a one-loss Big 12 team out for no good reason. Or what about, say, an SEC team that plays a brutal schedule with road games at two top 10 teams, and chooses to play a tough non-conference game too and loses that, but then wins the conference at 10-3 overall? They probably deserve to play for the title too.I think he's talking about the potential. FSU was a four loss team in 2010 and playing for the ACC championship. Last year Wisconsin was 8-5 and went to the Rose Bowl. I think in 2011 and/or 2012 UCLA was playing in the championship game with 4-5 losses.When was the last time there was a five-loss major conference champion? And if it happens once every five years and they immediately get the 8 seed, that doesn't strike me as a big deal. The 1 seed deserves a soft matchup anyway.I don't want any part of this. You're inviting the idea of an 8-5 or 9-4 team sneaking in by doing this. There needs to be an if statement attached to this rule.Until the conference champions get automatic bids into a playoff it will always be a joke to me. A.D.'s are going to be biased for sure. Local media would be biased. National media would be about selecting TV matchups. Just expand to 8 with five conference champions and the next three best teams. Stop pretending to care about CUSA and the MAC and what not.This committee sounds awful. Having current ADs involved in the decision making is ripe for abuse.
Would be better to keep the current ranking process and put a playoff ontop of it.
No system is perfect but this one would give you as close to a perfect balance as you can get, especially if they add a rule that any non-BCS undefeated team automatically gets an at-large bid.
They are currently working out their criteria. There is little known about how the process is going to work or what the committee is going to value. I like the committee idea (but not for the obvious reason. I think the committee will help get this thing to more than four teams faster than the polls). I didn't think it had a prayer of being chosen over the ridiculous polls, but I was wrong about that, so who knows where this is gonna take us.Yeah, it does depend on the end goal. And I'm definitely on the "most deserving" side of the debate.It depends on the end goal I guessFSU didn't win the ACC championship in 2010. And Wisconsin was only playing for the Big Ten because the top two teams were ineligible. If you feel the need to add a caveat that a team that only plays for a conference because of ineligible teams ahead of it can't make the playoffs, fine. But do you really think it matters? Do you really think Wisconsin 2012, or for that matter FSU 2010, beats the #1 seed in the quarterfinal? If not, who cares? Better to have a four-loss team make it in and get crushed in the first round than to keep an undefeated Utah or TCU or Boise, or a one-loss Big 12 team out for no good reason. Or what about, say, an SEC team that plays a brutal schedule with road games at two top 10 teams, and chooses to play a tough non-conference game too and loses that, but then wins the conference at 10-3 overall? They probably deserve to play for the title too.I think he's talking about the potential. FSU was a four loss team in 2010 and playing for the ACC championship. Last year Wisconsin was 8-5 and went to the Rose Bowl. I think in 2011 and/or 2012 UCLA was playing in the championship game with 4-5 losses.When was the last time there was a five-loss major conference champion? And if it happens once every five years and they immediately get the 8 seed, that doesn't strike me as a big deal. The 1 seed deserves a soft matchup anyway.I don't want any part of this. You're inviting the idea of an 8-5 or 9-4 team sneaking in by doing this. There needs to be an if statement attached to this rule.Until the conference champions get automatic bids into a playoff it will always be a joke to me. A.D.'s are going to be biased for sure. Local media would be biased. National media would be about selecting TV matchups. Just expand to 8 with five conference champions and the next three best teams. Stop pretending to care about CUSA and the MAC and what not.This committee sounds awful. Having current ADs involved in the decision making is ripe for abuse.
Would be better to keep the current ranking process and put a playoff ontop of it.
No system is perfect but this one would give you as close to a perfect balance as you can get, especially if they add a rule that any non-BCS undefeated team automatically gets an at-large bid.
Nothing's gonna be perfect. But this seems like a huge improvement over both the current system (anything would be) and the 4 team playoff that still doesn't appear to have any real direction or criteria for selecting the teams.
This is where the committee steps in. It'd take a pretty special case to get them in though. All 4 losses to top 25 teams, win in title game was over a great team, and they have at least one other signature win on the schedule as well as a couple of other good ones.
In a 4 team playoff, sure. In an 8 team playoff why remove the on the field component and re-introduce humans? The humans can already pick the at-large teams.
I already said why
We're not going to 4 super conferences. The only people that have ever suggested that are people that like math and round numbers and think everyone wants four conferences with 16 teams so we can divide them all into eight team divisions making the conference championships de facto quarterfinals.I already said why
If the championship team hits a bench mark like top 15 in the standings then they're in and not subject to review.
There have been a lot of opportunities for very average teams to get in the dance in a win-and-in scenario. You may think that's fine, but I don't. Not in a field this small. Totally different case if this were 16+ or even 12 teams, but 8? No. We're probably at least a decade away from 8 anyway. A lot more until anything more. As conference re-allignment continues to take shape this may make more sense if we end up with 4 super conferences. Current setup though? No way.
Yeah, the expansion will happen fast. I give it 5 years or less.We're not going to 4 super conferences. The only people that have ever suggested that are people that like math and round numbers and think everyone wants four conferences with 16 teams so we can divide them all into eight team divisions making the conference championships de facto quarterfinals.I already said why
If the championship team hits a bench mark like top 15 in the standings then they're in and not subject to review.
There have been a lot of opportunities for very average teams to get in the dance in a win-and-in scenario. You may think that's fine, but I don't. Not in a field this small. Totally different case if this were 16+ or even 12 teams, but 8? No. We're probably at least a decade away from 8 anyway. A lot more until anything more. As conference re-allignment continues to take shape this may make more sense if we end up with 4 super conferences. Current setup though? No way.
And there's no way we're a decade from expanding the playoffs. At least one or two conferences is getting left out of the four team playoff every year. They will ##### up a storm and everyone will realize how much money they can make with expanding the playoffs and it's done.
Top 15? Please, the polls are already so biased.
Why not just create a 24 team playoff (similar to the NIT structure in basketball) to determine final rankings for team 3 - 25 and then use the SEC title game as the National Championship game?
How many years of #####ing did it take to get to a 4 team playoff? It's going to be a while.
What's the criteria of getting into the playoff? Have to know that before your question can be answered.
I expect the committee thing, whatever it is, to go pretty well. They have a good model to mimic with basketball, so I'm not too worried about the functioning of the actual committee. Conference champion if you meet a certain criteria + at large to be selected by the committee.
UCLA played in the championship game in 2011 with 5 losses because Southern Cal was ineligible for the conference championship for cheating.The Commish said:I think he's talking about the potential. FSU was a four loss team in 2010 and playing for the ACC championship. Last year Wisconsin was 8-5 and went to the Rose Bowl. I think in 2011 and/or 2012 UCLA was playing in the championship game with 4-5 losses.TobiasFunke said:When was the last time there was a five-loss major conference champion? And if it happens once every five years and they immediately get the 8 seed, that doesn't strike me as a big deal. The 1 seed deserves a soft matchup anyway.MAC_32 said:I don't want any part of this. You're inviting the idea of an 8-5 or 9-4 team sneaking in by doing this. There needs to be an if statement attached to this rule.Ramblin Wreck said:Until the conference champions get automatic bids into a playoff it will always be a joke to me. A.D.'s are going to be biased for sure. Local media would be biased. National media would be about selecting TV matchups. Just expand to 8 with five conference champions and the next three best teams. Stop pretending to care about CUSA and the MAC and what not.Slapdash said:This committee sounds awful. Having current ADs involved in the decision making is ripe for abuse.The Commish said:
Would be better to keep the current ranking process and put a playoff ontop of it.
Why would you chose Rice as an example instead of the members currently employed by programs?
Not a big fan of any automatic champions. Put the top 8 teams in and be done. I don't want "Central Illinois" in unless they are in the top 8. Allowing a team ranked around #20 is dumb while keeping out a team with a legit shot at being competitive.shader said:
Probably because they will be out of the room when their teams are discussed.
There are people on this committee that aren't part of the conferences and they'll be around for all of it. They'll have the most influence since they will be in the room the whole time. I'd still like to see some "experts" ala Herbie or Luginbill or Steele etc on the committee....maybe next time.
