BCS putting together playoff selection committee

I have all the faith in the world that the BCS will be able to figure this out so that everyone is satisfied with the selection process.

Dare I say....  /s

This is so much harder than it is with basketball.  

1- there are less games- so the magnitude of each game is higher

2- schedules are so uneven- out-of conference is 4 games and many teasm play cream-puffs

3- In basketball many teams play home and away- if a team loses to a team on the road and that's taken into account it can make selections tricky- you can easily make the arguement a team is better than a team with a better record if you take location into play- it will get ugly potentially 

4- politics- if each conference is represented I imagien they will vote for their champ every year unless it is too absurd (speaking BCS big-boys not MAC etc)- and that could lead to some big disputes

5- smaller than basketball- arguements over who is the 34th at large or whatever it is compared to a semi-final worthy team are not comparable

It will be a tough thing to do- and there will be plenty of complaints- and I don't envy those selected- I am pleased with overall changes however- the more teams with a chance to win the better imo

I would have to agree, I'm not exactly a fan of the key injurie criteria. That becomes very subjective, but hell the whole process probably will be.

monkey is going to be better than anyone the BCS chooses.

It's basically giving them an excuse to vote for teams based on potential. The season is only 12 games (it's essentially a quasi-playoff as is, where every game counts), and injuries and depth are a huge part of football. Injuries should have absolutely no bearing on who makes the playoff. The complaint about the current system is "let the games be decided on the field," but now they have a rule that makes it that the ability to make it into the playoff isn't necessarily based on "play on the field". That's stupid.

I understand it a bit in basketball, where 68 teams make the tournament and they play a lot more games, but with there being so fewer connections and methods of compairing one team to another, if some 2 loss team gets in over a 1 loss team because of an injury, that's idiotic. If team A is a 1 loss team and has a weaker body of work than another 1 loss team, lets call them team B, team B should still be picked. This is an excuse to get the big teams into a playoff (namely, SEC schools). 

I don't get the injury to key players criteria. That's part of the game. I get the scenario: Team goes 10-1 or something, dominating competition, star QB gets short term injury in first quarter of last game. Team ends up 10-2 and left out of the playoffs even though with the QB back they might be a better team than 1 of the 4 selected.

My response is tough cookies. You can't imply and project what could have happened or what might be if a guy doesn't get hurt. If Denard doesn't go down last season, are we probably in the BTCG, maybe Rose Bowl? I'd like to think so, but I didn't see the commissioner letting our losses slide and letting us play in it.

It sounds like a built-in excuse to get big name or market teams in that might slip because of a late season injury.

Urban says B1G teams, besides his own, do not have key players because they cannot recruit like ohio and the SEC.

Seriously though, I am curious about what the hell a "football purist" is. Pure by what standards.

Let's just go back to the old bowl system and let the AP choose the champion. I do not trust the BCS.

As others have touched on, I also don't particularly care for injuries being part of the criteria for the simple reason that there is no real accurate way to quantify how a team would have performed if, say, Player A, was in a certain game or quarter or however long they were out. You can't say, for example, "Well, normally, with Player A in, they get this sort of production...." and really use that as grounds to say another team is technically more deserving, in my opinion.

It seems that we would run the risk of the committee potentially saying something like, "Well, Team X, your statistics are stellar, you played outstanding through a tough schedule and won your conference championship, but we still think that, all other things being equal, Team Y is simply better."  If I am Team X and I miss out on the playoffs simply for that, I would think that I would have grounds to be rather upset because I just lost to a hypothetical team, not the team that was on the field.

You don't lose a game because one player gets injured. You lose a game because your back-up wasn't good enough.

If injuries were taken into account, it would raise a ton of questions.  Do only major injuries (like Denard's or Countess's or Ftiz's) count, or do we also consider minor injuries that cause a player to miss a single game or part of a game?  What if the player remains in the game despite the injury but is just less effective?  Does it matter if the team knew a player would be out and had time to plan for it, or if it happened in a game and the team just had to make do?  And what qualifies as a "key player?"  (For instance, M had to play Ohio without Toussaint in 2012, but Toussaint was struggling before the injury and didn't have a very impressive stat line--was he a key player or not?)

And then there is the slppery-slope.  What if a key player is not injured, but suspended?  Does it matter what the suspension is for?  And so on...

I am legitimately afraid that Tressel or Gene Smith will be on the panel, given Ohio's buddy-buddy status with the NCAA

whatever changes make it so that ND never makes it back is good with me

Lloyd, please serve on this committee.

Also, please don't let Bill Martin serve on the committee.  Thanks.

- Michigan

Hooray for more bureaucracy in college athletics!!!

Now we can see BSU waltz through a schedule with three real games and nine tomato cans,  end up 11-1, and the guys from the lesser conferences will vote them in.  

Injury considerations? Any of you other old-timers remember how Michigan got hosed in the Rose Bowl vote in 1973 after Dennis Franklin was injured? No thanks.

Wow I really don't like the "injuries to key players" caveat. 

What if a star running back broke his leg and is out for the season? Think Fitz or that running back from South Carolina (No disrespect I just can't think of his name right now). Should those two teams get the benefit of the doubt, even if their star player will not return to any games that year? Or do injuries only matter if there is a "chance" the player will return for the playoffs? This opens up a ridiculous can of worms.

Hey Lane Kiffin we saw that your star QB was completly separated from his throwing arm on national TV. His arm was taken off the field in a separate ambulance. Comment on his injury.

"Nasa was experimenting with swamp gas and it effected the lenses of the cameras. What you saw was an illusion, he just has a deep thigh bruise...inside his arm...and will be good to go in 2 days. Trust me!"

Also, trying to define a "key player" can be difficult if you don't watch every one of their games. Jordan Kovacs was a key player to Michigan's 2012 season by being reliable, smart, and having good technique to always be where he needed to be. He is not super fast, or flashy, or athletic. If he went down mid-season, would the committee view him as a key player and take his injury into account? Or do you have to be a flashy superstar with a 5 star ranking?

Not a fan, I already see this being abused.