Start your emails: CFP Committee forming
Names are leaking out about who will be on the 12-to-18 member committee starting in 2014 to pick the 4 teams in the College Football Playoff (TM) (because they spent $1M to hire a marketing company to pick the best name for the college football playoff, and all that money resulted in the unique name, College Football Playoff -- hey, they capitalized it, at least).
Here's the current list of names:
Condy Rice is the interesting pick. Alvarez seems kind of obvious from the B1G -- you can't have UM or OSU on the committee, b/c over the next few years, they'll be picking themselves. Pat Haden (what's he been doing lately)?
They mention that Rice is of course a huge Stanford booster, but didn't she grow up in Alabama and wasn't she rumored for a while to be a potential gubernatorial or senatorial candidate from Alabama? I would imagine she's a Tide fan, too. ESS EE SEE.
October 4th, 2013 at 4:42 PM ^
I want one hard core stats nerd to advocate for some 8-4 team that just rocks FEI. Otherwise, it's just arguing between the best four one loss teams.
Seriously though, those guys aren't watching enough football to make an informed decision about the best four teams--which means ESPN ultimately picks the playoff lineup--which is what I thought all along. It's good for Michigan's chances...
October 4th, 2013 at 4:49 PM ^
What I have had trouble with regarding this playoff thing is why can't they use the exact same system as the BCS, but just put the top 4 in a playoff? It's a lot more fair than a committee of unavoidably biased members. There's never been more than 3-4 teams that REALLY had an argument for being in the BCS championship game, so why doesn't adding a 4 team playoff to the system solve the problem? It doesn't really need to be totally replaced.
October 4th, 2013 at 4:56 PM ^
Because this way they can argue that the SEC is so much better than everyone else that they deserve to have 2 and 3 loss SEC teams in the playoff over undefeated and 1 loss teams from the other major conferences. I am being somewhat sarcastic but the sad thing is that its not too far from the truth.
October 4th, 2013 at 5:03 PM ^
Ultimately, any major conference team with one loss has a good argument.
Let's look at last season, with an eligible OSU:
- Notre Dame and OSU are unbeaten
- Alabama, Florida, Kansas State, and Oregon had one loss
It's pretty easy to pick Notre Dame and OSU. Florida beat South Carolina and South Carolina beat Georgia in the SEC East. South Carolina losing two conference games meant Florida lost the head-to-head tiebreaker to play Alabama in the SEC title game. Should they have gone over 1-loss Alabama? Why not Oregon? Kansas State could argue they laid an egg, but were otherwise solid.
As soon as one teams with identical records are excluded, it's easy to make a case that the wrong team was chosen.
October 4th, 2013 at 5:13 PM ^
But isn't that what the BCS is good for? Separating the ties? The situation you reviewed is made a lot less fair if the final 4 is chosen by pure opinion. No matter how many playoff spots there are the first team out is going to be pissed, but at least with 4 teams instead of 2 the BCS could say tough shit, you should have won all your games. When there were 3 undefeated teams and 2 spots they couldn't say that. There's not going to be 5 undefeated teams so the BCS with a 4 team playoff seems the most fair to me.
Given the way it's going to be with the selection committee I personally think they should just take all undefeated teams, and after that the only teams eligible are the teams who won their conference titles. What's frustrating is the fact that it will absolutely never happen that way.
October 4th, 2013 at 4:52 PM ^
I'm pretty sure she's a Browns fan for some reason. She may like other midwestern teams.
October 4th, 2013 at 4:56 PM ^
Pretty sure every national politician has to be a fan of Ohio sports, or at least be on record saying so at least once.
October 4th, 2013 at 5:04 PM ^
Ohio is The Heart of it All.
/yes, I said that to make someone puke
October 4th, 2013 at 5:38 PM ^
October 4th, 2013 at 5:01 PM ^
SBNation has a tracker for the various unveilings for this committee:
(LINK)
The "Hopefully" section speaks volumes, in my estimation. Their words:
People who know a lot about college football.
People who like math.
People who live in gated communities.
People who watch a ton of college football.
October 4th, 2013 at 5:07 PM ^
They should just include out of work coaches who have been fired. They probably watch a lot of football, they actually know about football, and they are less likely to vote for their old teams. Just because Condoleez Rice loves football doesn't make her any more worthy to select the final four than any drunk guy in a stadium parking lot.
October 4th, 2013 at 5:09 PM ^
Condi Rice has as much reason to be included as my dog.
October 4th, 2013 at 5:47 PM ^
also a stupid one.
October 4th, 2013 at 6:28 PM ^
October 4th, 2013 at 5:11 PM ^
dream job has always been to be the commissioner of the NFL. i suspect her football credentials are pretty decent.
October 4th, 2013 at 6:20 PM ^
are those football credentials?
October 4th, 2013 at 5:20 PM ^
October 4th, 2013 at 5:45 PM ^
October 4th, 2013 at 6:19 PM ^
Denver pioneer as well
October 4th, 2013 at 6:15 PM ^
ND has a seat at the table, and I am sure they made sure some of the candidates had some ties to the university so they would be satisfied. Alvarez also coached there under Holtz for one of the National Championship teams.
October 4th, 2013 at 5:29 PM ^
I think I would do a good job. Outside of always voting Michigan in no matter what, I feel I would be very inbiased.
October 4th, 2013 at 5:49 PM ^
October 4th, 2013 at 6:21 PM ^
Can I be on the committee? I'm sorry, but Condoleeza Rice has no business being on the Selection Committee.
For some this has nothing to do with politics. She has no experience in college football administration or coaching. Being Secretary of State and her line of work does not qualify her for the committee. They aren't related at all. This committee is supposed to be some of the smartest minds in the game. Having her on it undermines its credibility.
Might as well have a fan vote. That would be a step up from Condoleeza Rice.
October 4th, 2013 at 6:25 PM ^
Becase these are dark times on MGoBlog and I can't do it via drop-down menu. What is the football experience case for Condi Rice? I'm seriously asking. I've been a devoted fan and student of football history since I was about 6 and started getting library books like "NFL's Greatest Games". Can I be on the committee?
October 4th, 2013 at 6:44 PM ^
October 4th, 2013 at 8:13 PM ^
I have never heard or read anywhere where Condoleezza Rice had any involvement with the Pac 12 or athletic administration. Her name was thrown around for Pac 12 commissioner but that never happened.
October 5th, 2013 at 12:31 AM ^
You're actually making my point. Condoleezza Rice wouldn't be mentioned in connection with this job in a million years if it weren't for the very fact that she's held at least two highly political jobs with a presidential administration. If she had just remained a respected academic instead of taking those positions, we wouldn't even be talking about her here.
This doesn't make any more sense than giving lifelong political scientists a vote for the Oscars, or giving Brady Hoke a vote in determining who receives the Nobel Prize for Physics.
October 4th, 2013 at 6:11 PM ^
Arkansas AD Jeff Long was hired by Bo and worked in the Michigan AD. Long played high school football with Brady Hoke. Long was the QB, and Hoke was his center. Brady Hoke was also his paperboy growing up in Ohio. No joke.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/sports/friends-family-excited-for-new-michigan-coach-hoke/nMnJ7/
October 4th, 2013 at 6:48 PM ^
She is a big Alabama fan. She lived in Tuscaloosa for much of her life.
No bias at all.
October 4th, 2013 at 7:10 PM ^
I highly doubt Condi Rice is gonna watch all the top teams all year and be able to make an educated decision for the CFP.
October 4th, 2013 at 7:49 PM ^
cause 98% of the AP voters actually watch the games as evidenced by sparty getting top 25 votes until they lost to Notre Dame 2 weeks ago.
October 4th, 2013 at 8:26 PM ^
I would rather have former players, coaches, and administrators who have been around the game their whole lives deciding this. Putting Condoleezza Rice on the Playoff Committee makes about as much sense as making Bobby Bowden a Supreme Court Justice.
I've always thought the best idea would be to put experienced FCS (I-AA) coaches and administrators on the committee.
October 4th, 2013 at 10:31 PM ^
I would rather have an academic that knows a thing or two about advance metrics. Sometimes it is good to have an outside voice. Condi has a background in data analysis.
October 4th, 2013 at 10:38 PM ^
Do you have any proof that Rice has any indepth knowledge on football metrics? It is just as likely Rice doesn't know what a Cover 2 defense is. Just because someone is educated in one discipline doesn't necessarily make them qualified for something else; actually in most cases they usually aren't. Many people who reach the pinnacle of their professions usually do so by dedicated their entire lives to that subject and neglecting things like spending an inordinate amount of time watching football.
And the part I find most offensive is that this committee still does not have a single black player, coach or administrator on the committee yet. But somehow Condoleezza Rice was invited.
October 4th, 2013 at 10:57 PM ^
Data is data. It doesn't what the application is. Their is a reason those I trust the most are mathematicians, staticians, and physicists.
Who the fuck cares about color of skin. This is 2013. It shouldn't matter what someone's race is. That should be least of their cares next gender identity and sexual preference.
October 4th, 2013 at 10:40 PM ^
he'll even tell you who's going to win the playoff after it's selected, and the score of every game.
October 4th, 2013 at 10:58 PM ^
That would be awesome. In my opinion the committee should be all mathematicians and physicists. The only language that always tells the truth is mathematics.
October 5th, 2013 at 12:38 AM ^
LOL. Have you never heard of GIGO?
Sagarin's rankings are highly mathematical in nature. That mathematical wizardry puts Baylor at the #3 team in the country.
Michigan is #40.
October 5th, 2013 at 6:22 AM ^
It's been 4 games, your arguement sucks.
October 5th, 2013 at 9:00 AM ^
What in hell does the number of games have to do with Condi Rice being on the decision committee?
If you think I agree with Sagarin's rankings of either Baylor or Michigan, your reading comprehension needs work.
October 4th, 2013 at 10:32 PM ^
Yeah, who is someone who never played football to talk about football! Looking at you, Brian Cook. He had a great article linked in a previous UV post that showed current players were actually quite shitty at picking all star teams because they don't actually have all that great of a perspective on the league.
October 4th, 2013 at 10:40 PM ^
But Brian Cook has devoted HIS CAREER to it. And that is the point I am making. It is not a hobby. His job is watching and analyzing football.
October 4th, 2013 at 10:59 PM ^
yet, brian doesn't have a background in advance data analysis.
October 5th, 2013 at 2:29 AM ^
Condi Rice's expertise is in politics. I have no idea how you expect her to transfer that to choosing good football teams.
Also, your argument that the AP poll voters don't watch all the big games is just silly. Why do you think they're developing the playoff? Because the old system sucked.
October 4th, 2013 at 9:55 PM ^
Take the conference champs from 8 super/mega conferences and seed them based off a ranking system similar to the BCS. The 8 conferences have to have a championship game. You have to win your championship game. No at-large bids or that BS. Win or watch from home. Oh and ND sorry you don't belong to a conference. Use the existing Bowls to play the first round, semifinals, and rotate the championship game around the "BCS" bowl locations. Semifinals are rotated through the BCS bowls. First round games would be at BCS locations not being used as Semifinals and allow all other bowls to "bid" or rotate through the unallocated slot(s).
Its not a hard concept when you take the money out of the equation. I mean if we're still going to have a biased system committee vs BCS/polls, just drop all this crap and go back to pre-BCS era where the PAC played B1G in the Rose, etc... Who cares if we get split champions.
My post is mostly off-topic from the OP, but its ridiculous that all other divisions of football can successfully manage play-off systems. They include: the NFL, the CFL, the Arena league, the various HS state systems, my cousins Pee-Wee football league, my local Flag football league, my Fantasy Football league, etc...
So, in all honesty, it doesn't really matter who is on the committee, it will be viewed as biased or unfair by someone somewhere who feels their team wase better deserving than team X.
October 4th, 2013 at 9:59 PM ^
October 4th, 2013 at 10:47 PM ^
Primarily to remove bias from the equation.
2 or 3 of the teams would probably be a little "weak" compared to an SEC champ (say like a MAC school). But it does open it up to all the "little" guys that would never really stand a chance to get in otherwise.
It would also prevent things like an all SEC championship game if you only have one representative from each conference. Additionally, it makes getting to and winning your conference game more important.
It might also help eliminate Week 1 - 3 match ups that basically suck. Schools could schedule aggressively without fear of losing a season kick off game to the likes of Oregon or Alabama and ruining their chance of playing for a national championship before the season even really gets started.