CFP Committee: Big X replaces Big X
- Thread starter Oldmanastro
- Start date
You're right this is just more Big X manipulation to suit their amibitions whether they deserve it or not does not matter. I've been posting on here repeatedly about this.
I'd ease off on the conspiracy theories. The Big Ten has one member on the committee. They just swapped one with another. Every P5 conference has a direct representative on the committee, except for the Pac 12, which has two. If you want to go indirect it breaks down:
SEC - 3
Pac 12- 3.5
ACC - 1
Big 12 - 1
Big Ten -1
MAC -1
CUSA - 1
Notre Dame - 0.5
SEC - 3
Pac 12- 3.5
ACC - 1
Big 12 - 1
Big Ten -1
MAC -1
CUSA - 1
Notre Dame - 0.5
Last edited:
The issue isn't who is on the committee or the conference breakdown of the members. The problem is there is absolutely no creitera so each member is left to figure out what they value.
I'm not educated in the process, but why does the SEC have 3 reps, PAC 12 have 3.5, and others have 1 or less?
I actually like the members deciding for themselves. If it is gonna be a formula, it could just be computer driven. Ohio State this year was really the only highly questionable decision the committee has made. Even that was ok, as long as they picked Clemson and Bama - what difference did it make?
The extras aren't officially affiliated with the schools. For example, Bobby Johnson used to coach at Vanderbilt. He's not officially part of the school (or conference). Same with Tyrone Willingham, who used to coach at Stanford and Notre Dame.
In the case of Bobby Johnson the SEC had the best of both worlds. A former SEC coach who played at Clemson. Fortunately, he's not on the committee.
And I'm convinced that Jeff Bower while not an SEC coach (Southern Mississippi) votes with the SEC
The same goes with the Central Michigan coach and the Big X.
Look, everybody knows that Clemson was the best team in the country. But their ad was on the committee, and they had a former player on the committee. It's not right to have 2 people with direct ties to one school on the pc. And besides Clemson doesn't need them.
Condoleeza Rice is going to be replaced. Finally When is the sportswriter going to be replace?
I resent that the pc put a coach who went 0/12 on the committee.
But that's just my .02 worth I could be wrong
And let me tell you something else. There is proof positive that Alvarez and Long dominated the committee. For the first two years they had Trangese as an ally. They had their puppets who took their word on everything (Rice, Wieberg)
Two years ago Joel Klatt said he knew for a fact that Alvarez, Long, Rice and Trangese would play golf on Saturday and Monday the day they submitted their votes.
What bothered me as much as anything was how they kept stacking the deck in the Big X and SEC's favor. Example: in mid October Nebraska lost 62/3 to tOSU on national tv. They still stayed in the top 20. Why? Another example. Around that same time Arkansas lost to Auburn 56/3 and they also stayed in the top 20. You think Jeff Long had something to do with that? Duh....
And that sob Long is going to be on the pc for one more year. I don't mind admitting I enjoyed watching AR p*** away a 24/0 halftime lead in their bowl game against Virginia Tech. Not only did they blow that lead, they lost by 11.
Like John Lennon said instant karma's going to get you.
Two years ago Joel Klatt said he knew for a fact that Alvarez, Long, Rice and Trangese would play golf on Saturday and Monday the day they submitted their votes.
What bothered me as much as anything was how they kept stacking the deck in the Big X and SEC's favor. Example: in mid October Nebraska lost 62/3 to tOSU on national tv. They still stayed in the top 20. Why? Another example. Around that same time Arkansas lost to Auburn 56/3 and they also stayed in the top 20. You think Jeff Long had something to do with that? Duh....
And that sob Long is going to be on the pc for one more year. I don't mind admitting I enjoyed watching AR p*** away a 24/0 halftime lead in their bowl game against Virginia Tech. Not only did they blow that lead, they lost by 11.
Like John Lennon said instant karma's going to get you.
You get upset about Clemson, but don't mention that Oregon also has two people on the committee, their AD and a former player.
Regarding the Big Ten, I'll repeat. Each P5 conference has a member on the committee. If you take out Alvarez (soon to be Smith), then the Big Ten is the only conference without a direct representative. If the Big 12 was in the same situation, you would say that wasn't fair. Can't have it both ways.
I also said very clearly that Clemson deserved to be in the playoffs. I just don't think its right for a school to have more than one rep with ties to them.
And one more time. People have voted with special interests. The bloc involving Long and Alvarez was real. There was no way that Wisconsin deserved to be in the Cotton Bowl. It should have been Louisville. BA took his puppets, they did his bidding, and BA got what he wanted, WI in the CB, more bowl money for his school and an inferior opponent to boot.
Once again. The bs of the committee was was how they voted after the say the top 6. They were determined to keep as many Big X and SEC teams ranked as possible. And as I pointed above that's why NB and AR stayed ranked even though there was no way in h*** they deserved to be ranked at all. I think and I'll bet most non SEC fans agree with me when I say that beyond Bama none of the SEC teams deserved to even be in the top 20.
Now let me go back two years. In 2014 OK was ranked somewhere between 11 and 14th when they played Baylor in November that year. The sooners got whupped 48/14. The playoff committee polls were out and after that game OK was completely out of the polls something they didn't do to NB and AR who lost by far bigger margins. What this should say to Big XII fans is that the deck is stacked against us. If they did that to OK they will do it to TX and if they do that to OK and TX they da** sure will do to the rest of the Big XII.
I could be wrong about this there's no way to prove this. But if your board name is any indication you're a southern fb fan than it explains perfectly why you defend the pc.
And one more time. People have voted with special interests. The bloc involving Long and Alvarez was real. There was no way that Wisconsin deserved to be in the Cotton Bowl. It should have been Louisville. BA took his puppets, they did his bidding, and BA got what he wanted, WI in the CB, more bowl money for his school and an inferior opponent to boot.
Once again. The bs of the committee was was how they voted after the say the top 6. They were determined to keep as many Big X and SEC teams ranked as possible. And as I pointed above that's why NB and AR stayed ranked even though there was no way in h*** they deserved to be ranked at all. I think and I'll bet most non SEC fans agree with me when I say that beyond Bama none of the SEC teams deserved to even be in the top 20.
Now let me go back two years. In 2014 OK was ranked somewhere between 11 and 14th when they played Baylor in November that year. The sooners got whupped 48/14. The playoff committee polls were out and after that game OK was completely out of the polls something they didn't do to NB and AR who lost by far bigger margins. What this should say to Big XII fans is that the deck is stacked against us. If they did that to OK they will do it to TX and if they do that to OK and TX they da** sure will do to the rest of the Big XII.
I could be wrong about this there's no way to prove this. But if your board name is any indication you're a southern fb fan than it explains perfectly why you defend the pc.
Ok, so first point. You dodged my point about Clemson. You are mad that Clemson has two people on the committee, but not once have you complained that Oregon has two people on the committee. Stanford also has two people on the committee as well.
The "block" between Alvarez and Long. Well first off, Jeff Long isn't on the committee anymore, so you can't blame Wisconsin getting into the Cotton Bowl on that block. Your conspiracy theory also doesn't make sense from this standpoint. Both the AP and Coaches polls had Wisconsin ranked well ahead of Louisville ( #8 vs #15). Your theory doesn't hold up, since two separate polls (with 100+ participants) voted similarly. (In fact, the CFP had Louisville higher, at #13). That just goes to show you that the committee's view of Wisconsin, vs. Louisville, was consistent with the prevailing opinion.
If you check the final CFP rankings, you won't find either Arkansas or Nebraska in there. In fact, Nebraska hasn't been in the CFP rankings since Week 13, and Arkansas hasn't been in there since Week 11. In fact, that was the ONLY week Arkansas was ranked (which was just at #25), and they dropped out the very next week, when they lost to LSU. So no, you are incorrect when you say Arkansas got blown out and stayed in the poll, because that didn't happen. Arkansas was only in the poll the week after they beat Florida, and dropped the very next week when they lost to LSU.
Regarding Oklahoma, what you leave out is that when Oklahoma dropped out of the CFP ranking after losing to Baylor, they jumped back up to #21 the very next week, when they beat Texas Tech. They stayed in the CFP until the last week, when they lost to Oklahoma St.
Your last paragraph is exactly why I'm arguing with you. I'm not defending the committee. I'm criticizing your logic and speculation. You admit you can't prove any of this, but still believe it. Sorry, that's not a legitimate position, especially when there is factual evidence to contradict your claims.
Jeff Long is on the committee till next year.
AR and NB stayed on for a few more weeks after those losses. But they had to lose another game before the pc tired of their charade.
OK did not get back the following week.
Why would Joel Klatt talk about the committee if it wasn't true?
And once again for the umpeenth time. Clemson deserved to be in the playoffs.
And Stanford does not have two people. You can make a case that Tyrone Willingham can claim Stanford and Washington. You want to make a case out of Condoleeza Rice? Seriously?
AR and NB stayed on for a few more weeks after those losses. But they had to lose another game before the pc tired of their charade.
OK did not get back the following week.
Why would Joel Klatt talk about the committee if it wasn't true?
And once again for the umpeenth time. Clemson deserved to be in the playoffs.
And Stanford does not have two people. You can make a case that Tyrone Willingham can claim Stanford and Washington. You want to make a case out of Condoleeza Rice? Seriously?
If there are no creitera why don't we put the 4 best teams in regardless of recored. One of the problems with the system as it stands is it doesn't really allow you to get better. You could argue that USC and Penn State by the end of the season were better than UW and Ohio state. But because they took a couple losses early they weren't considered.
I guess my question is if we're not going to put forth creitera and let everyone just figure it out for themselves why is recored the end all be all?
I guess my question is if we're not going to put forth creitera and let everyone just figure it out for themselves why is recored the end all be all?
No, you are incorrect. Arkansas did not stay in the polls after they lost. That's simply not true. Arkansas was only ranked in the polls for one week, after they beat Florida. They dropped out the next week, after they lost to LSU. You are simply factually incorrect.
Oklahoma also got back into the polls after their loss to Baylor. Oklahoma dropped out of the polls in Week 11 of 2014. In Week 12, they were ranked #21. You are simply factually incorrect on this point also.
There is also another point about Nebraska. The committee dropped Nebraska from the rankings in Week 14. Both the AP and Coaches polls still had Nebraska ranked after the regular season. You complain about the committee giving Nebraska special treatment, but they were tougher on Nebraska than the polls were.
Stanford does have two people. This is just you trying to spin when confronted with facts you don't like. Condoleeza Rice is a professor at Stanford. She's an employee of the university. If you want to get into conflict of interest, that's a clear one right there. Tyrone Willingham was also a coach at Stanford. Again, another conflict of interest, according to your way of thinking. You try to brush this off, but criticize Clemson for having the same setup. Dan Radakovich is Clemson's AD. He's an employee of the school, just like Condoleeza Rice. Bobby Johnson played for Clemson, but he also coached at Vanderbilt. He has split interests, just like Tyrone Willingham with Stanford and Washington. That said, for now the third time, you have completely ignored Oregon. Rob Mullens is Oregon's AD. Tom Jernstedt played for Oregon. Oregon has their AD and a former player on the committee, exactly like Clemson. Yet, you have ignored that for 3 posts.
Joel Klatt isn't the authoritative word in college football. I have no idea why you think his opinion somehow proves your point. Here is what you don't get. It's possible to make a bad decision without some sort of conspiracy behind it. Let's take for example 2014, when Ohio St got in over TCU. Many people thought that was a bad decision. Here's the thing. You don't have to find a conspiracy theory to explain that decision. Sometimes people just flat out make bad decisions. There isn't some sinister reason behind it. They simply just make an incorrect decision.
Dan Radakovich is on the committee, AND HIS SON PLAYS FOR CLEMSON!!! Clemson deserved to be in the Final 4, but, come on, the first thing they taught us on the first day of law school was to avoid the APPEARANCE of impropriety. The fact that he is even on the committee calls the whole thing into question. Outhereincali is spot on - this whole thing is stacked and stinks to high heaven. I vote for Barry Switzer as the Big XII rep - he knows how to fight dirty!
No, he isn't spot on. Every P5 conference has someone on the committee. You have Texas Tech AD, Wisconsin AD, Arkansas AD, Oregon AD, and Clemson AD. It's funny how you have a problem with Clemson's AD being on the committee, but not one word about Oregon's AD being on the committee (who made the playoffs just two years ago). It's selective outrage, pure and simple.
Bite me. If you can't see that the Clemson guy is going to favor his son, then you are an idiot. And if he doesn't favor his son, then he's a crappy father. So you think Tyrone Willingham doesn't have a bias one way or the other? You think Weiberg, a "journalist" who just happened to go to an SEC school doesn't have a bias? You think Rice, on the payroll at Stanford, doesn't have a bias? Let's flip it around - let the Big 12 have a journalist or a faculty member or a former coach with ties to the Big 12 on the committee - give me that and then I'll shut up.
The kind of response I'd expect when you can't back up your argument with facts.
You keep proving my point with selective outrage. Oregon has their AD and a former player on the committee, but that's no problem. It's only a problem when Clemson has an AD and former player. If you were consistent, then you would complain about that too, but you don't.
I want to address another point you mentioned, which was Condoleeza Rice. The other poster is claiming the committee is biased for the Big Ten and SEC. Now, you are saying Condoleeza Rice and Tyrone Willingham are biased for Stanford and the Pac 12. Well, that begs the question, why didn't Stanford get into the playoffs last year? The Pac 12 has more people on the committee than any conference: Tom Jernstedt played for Oregon, Rob Mullens is Oregon's AD, Condoleeza Rice teaches at Stanford, and Tyrone Willingham coached at Stanford and Washington. That leaves you with two options, either the Pac 12 people are saints, or your bias argument doesn't hold up.
I'll close by telling you the same thing I told the other guy. I'm not defending the committee. I'm just (accurately) disproving the conspiracy theories. The AP and Coaches polls are similar to the committee rankings. If the committee was so biased, then you would expect to see much different results. The truth is, college football just has a stupid way of determining champions to begin with. The committee is just a symptom of a larger problem.
It doesn't matter in Oregon's case. They went 4/8!!!! They fired their coach!!!!!
I guess I need to space this out for you. One more time. CR has had no association with fb in her life. She was put on the list for some diversity bs to make the committee look good. It was also the same reason that General Gould was on the pc. They must be getting tired of the charade because General Gould was replaced by a fb coach. Hopefully they will end bs diversity act and replace CR with someone with a fb connection. I don't give a **** about Tyrone Willingham. Anybody who coaches a 0/12 team has no right to be on the pc. Unfortunately he's on for one more year. And MSU and ND can claim him since he played at MSU and coached at ND. In other words its a wash.
I'm to smart to believe in conspiracy theories. I still have the impression you're a southerner which is why you have no problem with the pc. Sadly there is not much honor in college fb. As long as there are coaches who will do anything to win it will stay that way.
And one more thing. The AP voters are required to make their votes known to the public. The pc doesn't. Now isn't' that special?
You are a blithering idiot. (a) I never said, mentioned, addressed or otherwise stated that I don't have a problem with Oregon. Yes I have a problem with them. But the easiest conflict for everyone to see EXCEPT YOU is Clemson. (b) No where, and no where, did I state that every single decision involves a fix. But if Stanford (or Oregon) was sitting in Penn St.'s position, I can guaranty you they would be in. When you are in a position of power, you have to avoid the appearance of impropriety (or at least I think fair minded people would feel that way). Its clear that the SEC supporters don't see things that way.
All I know is that TCU won 53-3, held all of their starters out of the 4th quarter (they could've scored a hundred) and dropped 3 spots. THAT is a fact.
It does matter in Oregon's case. Oregon made the national title game in the playoff's first year. After that, Pat Haden (Southern Cal AD) was replaced by Oregon AD Rob Mullens. So, when Mullens was appointed, Oregon was a playoff contender. You just gave the runners-up TWO people on the selection committee. You can't ignore that. You just got lucky that Oregon went downhill and didn't have to deal with the bias issue.
Now contrast that to Clemson. Clemson was second fiddle in the ACC when Radakovich was installed. Florida State was the defending national champion, defending 2-time conference champ, and had beaten Clemson three or four years in a row. Nobody had any idea Clemson would be in contention for a playoff spot, much less winning a national championship.
Condoleeza Rice has an association with Stanford. That's the problem. You keep saying Barry Alvarez is a homer for the Big Ten, because of his ties to Wisconsin, or Dan Radakovich is a homer for Clemson. Well, you can't say that, and then deny Condoleeza isn't a homer for Stanford. She works as the school. They pay her salary. You also can't deny that Rob Mullens is a homer for Oregon and the Pac 12. You also can't deny that Tom Jernstedt is a homer for Oregon and the Pac 12. That's my problem with you. You only accuse people of being homers if they are for teams or conferences you don't like. You keep trying to diminish the fact that the Pac 12 has more homers than anyone else, which undermines the credibility of your argument.
You certainly do believe in a conspiracy theory. You make accusations, without evidence to back them up. My argument is not defending the committee. My argument is that your assessment doesn't hold up to the facts. The committee rankings are similar to the AP and Coaches polls, yet for some reason you let the polls get away with it, and only criticize the committee. The problem we have now is the same problem we had with both the polls and the BCS. The committee is just the opposite side the same coin.
You talk about coaches not having any honor. Well, I'd suggest it's not too honorable that you won't acknowledge several instances when I proved you factually incorrect:
1) Arkansas did not stay in the rankings after getting blown out
2) Oklahoma did in fact return to the rankings the week after losing to Baylor
3) Both the AP and Coaches polls had Louisville ranked lower than the committee, despite your claim that everyone thought Louisville should have made the Cotton Bowl ahead of Wisconsin.
Yes, you didn't address Oregon, and that's my point. I brought it up several times, and you didn't acknowledge it until now.
Your argument about the appearance of impropriety is frankly stupid, because you have no way of knowing which teams will be in contention for playoff spots from year to year. As I pointed out earlier, when Dan Radakovich was appointed to the committee, nobody had any idea Clemson would ever challenge for the playoffs. The only way to avoid the "appearance" of impropriety would be to wait until the season is over to appoint members of the committee. That's dumb.
Stanford WAS in Penn St's position last year. They were an 11-2 conference champ who didn't make the playoffs.
I can clearly see that's all you know about TCU. Here's what you don't know:
TCU had a weaker strength of schedule than the 4 playoff teams
TCU had fewer wins over ranked teams than the playoff teams
TCU was not a unanimous conference champ, unlike the other 4 playoffs teams
That for some reason gets ignored in this discussion.
And I'll again point out, Alabama in 2011, got in, when they didn't even win their division. Different system, no committee, and yet the same result. That's what happens when you don't have a full-scale playoff, and resort to halfway measures, whether a committee or a computer formula.
You point out every reason why TCU didn't get in. But you IGNORE THE FACT THAT THESE SAME PEOPLE YOU HAVE FAITH IN HAD TCU AHEAD NOT ONE BUT TWO SPOTS!! Let me get this straight - these geniuses saw TCU win 53-3 and dropped them to 6th in the rankings? WTH? The facts you listed were known the week before when TCU was ahead! And btw - you can stick your last point - tOSU wasn't a conference champ this year either.
And no one knew Clemson was going to be good? They started the year ranked no. 2 with the best QB in the country, coming off a national championship game appearance!!!! Who didn't know?
Appearance of impropriety is "frankly stupid"? If that's the view, then there's no sense arguing. Nick Saban is hands down the best coach in CFB --- just let him select since he knows more about football than anyone.
My point? Every single person in the universe is biased. We are turning College Football from a "decide it on the field" sport to a beauty pageant determined by judges' scorecards. My preacher told me that he wished he could get the congregation as fired up about the Gospel as it is for college football. When people are so passionate about an issue, you can't leave it to personal bias. Evidence? See the preseason Top 10 and post season Top 10. SEC 4 teams in Top 12 vs. 1 team at end of the season. Of course there's bias, and its plain for anyone to see (unless you are the beneficiary).
I'll be happy to address the TCU situation. You don't understand several factors
1) Everything about TCU was NOT known the week before. That's what you don't understand. The committee only ranks week to week. They don't factor in anything in the future.
Well, here's the consequence of that. TCU played Iowa St (2-10), the last week of 2014. Well, prior to that game, Iowa St did NOT count in TCU's strength of schedule. The inclusion of Iowa St dropped TCU's strength of schedule, which wasn't the case the previous week.
2) Another problem was Oklahoma. Oklahoma was ranked #20, but then lost to Oklahoma St on the final week. That dropped Oklahoma out of the final poll. That left TCU with only 2 wins over ranked teams, when everyone else had at least 3.
3) Ohio St also had a better record than Penn St. TCU did not have a better record than the other contenders in 2014. See, this is the problem I have with you and the other guy. You cherrypick. You want to base your argument on one or another specific factor, and just ignore everything else.
4) You also make this big deal of TCU blowing out Iowa St. So what? Iowa St was 2-10 that year. They sucked. Blowing out a 2 win team doesn't bolster your case at all. Especially when Florida St beat #11 Georgia Tech (10-2), Ohio St beat #13 Wisconsin (10-2), Oregon beat #7 Arizona (10-2), and Alabama beat #16 Missouri (10-2). So, the four playoff teams all beat 10 win teams, and you think TCU blowing out a 2 win team is supposed to be as impressive as that. Not even close.
Yes, no one knew Clemson was going to be that good. Pay attention to what I'm saying. Dan Radokovich was appointed to the committee in 2014. Nobody knew Clemson would turn out to be that good when Radakovich was appointed. As I said, Florida St was the defending national champ, and had beaten Clemson several times recently. On the other hand, Oregon had been the national runners-up when Rob Mullens (Oregon AD) was appointed to the committee in 2015. Oregon had a track record to show they had a chance to make the playoff when their AD was appointed to the committee. Clemson didn't.
Yes, it is a stupid idea. You haven't suggested how to avoid the appearance of impropriety. You have only complained about it. As I said, you don't know which schools will be good from year to year. Therefore, when you appoint someone to the committee, you don't know if their school will be in the running or not.
By the way, you are aware that these people can't vote on their own school, right? For example, Dan Radakovich isn't allowed to vote on Clemson. Not only that, he can't vote on a school that impacts Clemson. For example, he can't vote on Ohio St either, since that could have been Clemson's opponent.
Oh, and I want to make one more point. When the hell was college football a sport that was ever "decided on the field?" That's never been true. Up until the 90s, there wasn't even a title game. You just had a bunch of writers and coaches picking the champions, without the best teams playing each other. I'll just give you a few examples:
2011 Alabama loses to LSU, doesn't even win their division, but still gets into the BCS.
2000 Florida St loses to Miami, but gets in the BCS ahead of Miami.
1991 Miami and Washington are co-champs, without playing each other.
1990 Colorado and Georgia Tech are co champs, without playing each other
1973 Alabama is co champ, despite losing to Notre Dame in their bowl game.
That's just a partial list. I could go on. But that comes back to my point. What in the world makes you think college football is "becoming" a sport that's not decided on the field. It never has been. It's actually closer now to being decided on the field than it ever was.
Last edited:
ADs are on the basketball committee to and in the case of both committees have to recuse themselves when their school comes up. Conspiercies will always be out there when it's just a judgement call, but I'd say most of the guys and women on the committee do the job with integrity. The system just has flaws it's not the people doing it
Oh bs do you actually believe what you're writing? Once again there is very little honor in college football don't be an ostrich. Coaches will do anything to win. Former TT coach Spyke Dykes once joked that if you're not willing to say or do whatever it takes to win you shouldn't be in coaching. He was well known for making jokes like this but he was right. That's the same thing with the committee.
And the rest of the new pc members has just been announced.
Frank Beamer former VT coach. Outstanding coach. During the bitter battle between TX and OK in 2008 FB was one of the few coaches that voted for TX. Maybe that's a sign that he won't vote with blinders. That makes two members from the ACC on the committee. So spare me the bs about each conference only having one member. Basically a former Clemson fb player is replaced by an ACC coach.
The other two members
Gene Smith current ad at tOSU. I'm all for diversity. But Condoleeza Rice and Tyrone Willingham are a joke. Imo, Gene Smith is eminently qualified to be on the committee. He is ad at a school that has the three biggest ad's. By that I mean the school with the most teams, and the biggest budgets. And tOSU has one of the very best athletic programs in the country. He hired Urban Meyer.
*ftr, the other two schools are UT and Stanford
Chris Howard the current president at Robert Morris. From what I've read the man is academically gifted. Had a distinguished career in the Air Force. Ok he's not a former fb player but how much does he know about college fb? Will he be easily led like CR was? I hope he will be his own man. Also unlike CR he doesn't seem to have any ties to a political party.
I'm just plain confused about Kirby Hocutt is he on the pc for another year or not? I keep reading conflicting reports. But when he is replaced it will be another Big XII guy.
This committee has shown it will replace a conference guy with somebody from the same conference. What this tells me is that when Dan Radokovich steps down next year he will be deplored with another ACC guy.
Oh the joys and privileges that go with being the national champion. I can't wait to hear the pc apologists opinons on these coaches.
Frank Beamer former VT coach. Outstanding coach. During the bitter battle between TX and OK in 2008 FB was one of the few coaches that voted for TX. Maybe that's a sign that he won't vote with blinders. That makes two members from the ACC on the committee. So spare me the bs about each conference only having one member. Basically a former Clemson fb player is replaced by an ACC coach.
The other two members
Gene Smith current ad at tOSU. I'm all for diversity. But Condoleeza Rice and Tyrone Willingham are a joke. Imo, Gene Smith is eminently qualified to be on the committee. He is ad at a school that has the three biggest ad's. By that I mean the school with the most teams, and the biggest budgets. And tOSU has one of the very best athletic programs in the country. He hired Urban Meyer.
*ftr, the other two schools are UT and Stanford
Chris Howard the current president at Robert Morris. From what I've read the man is academically gifted. Had a distinguished career in the Air Force. Ok he's not a former fb player but how much does he know about college fb? Will he be easily led like CR was? I hope he will be his own man. Also unlike CR he doesn't seem to have any ties to a political party.
I'm just plain confused about Kirby Hocutt is he on the pc for another year or not? I keep reading conflicting reports. But when he is replaced it will be another Big XII guy.
This committee has shown it will replace a conference guy with somebody from the same conference. What this tells me is that when Dan Radokovich steps down next year he will be deplored with another ACC guy.
Oh the joys and privileges that go with being the national champion. I can't wait to hear the pc apologists opinons on these coaches.
I just don't think in this system one person on the committee could infulance others in to choosing their school and even if they tried it's likely to backfire and work the other way. There just isn't much room for manipulation at the end of the day 2 of the 4 teams are usually pretty obvious. The 3rd is usually largely agreed upon. Often times it comes down to just the 4th team. There just isn't a lot of room for people to influlsnce anything.
Kind of like the TV Show Survivor. Where seemingly unrelated people form alliances to strengthen their position. Favors are done with expectation of repayment down the road. Where strong personalities dominate weaker personalities.
You would do a lot better if you would get out of your own head and pay attention to things that are actually said.
--Each P5 conference gets a representative on the committee. Each conference has an AD on the committee. The additional members may have ties to various schools and conferences.
--When one of the P5 ads leaves, he is replaced by a member from the same conference. Barry Alvarez (Wisconsin) is being replaced by Gene Smith (Ohio St). Pat Haden (Southern Cal) was replaced by Rob Mullens (Oregon). You are acting like you discovered some big secret, but CFP has made no secret that they replace on AD with another from the same conference. They do that intentionally, so each P5 conference will have a member on the committee.
--I don't know why you are confused about Kirby Hocutt. It has been clearly stated. Kirby Hocutt is on the committee until 2020. He will be the chairman again in 2017, but will remain on the committee until 2020.
I'll again point out, the AP and Coaches poll produced similar results. If the polls were choosing the participants, Ohio St would still have gotten in over Penn St. If the polls were choosing participants, TCU still wouldn't have gotten into the playoffs in 2014.
Last edited:
Similar threads
