CFP Committee: Big X replaces Big X

[ryan_sublett]

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.

Not just that but even though I know there can be conspiercy seen in everything it's not like they are going to choose a team way out of left field. I mean for example if the committee had chosen penn state over Washington I'm sure the PAC 12 fans out there would of shouted bias, conspiercy and all that. You can make a reasonable argument that penn state is a better team. So just because someone sees bias doesn't mean there is bias.

 

[diadevic]

So just because someone sees bias doesn't mean there is bias.

Likewise, just because someone says there is no bias doesn't mean there is no bias. To you and Top Deck - I'll agree to strongly disagree. I am not an employee of Baylor, but I have ties (a degree) from Baylor. And that has no influence on how I see things?

 

[topdecktiger]

Likewise, just because someone says there is no bias doesn't mean there is no bias. To you and Top Deck - I'll agree to strongly disagree. I am not an employee of Baylor, but I have ties (a degree) from Baylor. And that has no influence on how I see things?

That question shows how thoroughly you misunderstand my point. I'm not telling you that there is no bias. I'm making two points:

1) The bias has not manifested itself in a significant way. That's proven by the fact that the committee's results have been consistent with the results from the AP and Coaches polls. If there was significant bias in the committee's decisions, then there should be more divergence from the polls.

2) There is no effective way to eliminate the bias. As I have pointed out repeatedly, you don't know from year to year which teams will be good or not. Again, when Dan Radakovich was appointed to the committee, Clemson was not even in the Top 10. Nobody knew that two years later they would end up making the playoffs, or winning the title three years later.

The whole point is, you don't know who to eliminate from the committee (on the grounds of bias), because you don't know which teams will be in the running from year to year. There is no realistic way to form a committee without members who have ties to certain schools or conferences. You haven't suggested a single alternative.

 

[ryan_sublett]

Likewise, just because someone says there is no bias doesn't mean there is no bias. To you and Top Deck - I'll agree to strongly disagree. I am not an employee of Baylor, but I have ties (a degree) from Baylor. And that has no influence on how I see things?

By that standard you can't have anyone with any alegence to any university.

 

[outhereincali]

I've said all along no more ad's. No more "diversity" appointments. No more writers.

Two players from each P5 conference. 3 more from non P5 schools. Pefererably under 45 years old.

The AP writers have to make their votes known. Make the pc do the same thing.

Of course it will never happen.

 

[topdecktiger]

I've said all along no more ad's. No more "diversity" appointments. No more writers.

Two players from each P5 conference. 3 more from non P5 schools. Pefererably under 45 years old.

The AP writers have to make their votes known. Make the pc do the same thing.

Of course it will never happen.

You have complained about certain schools having former players on the committee.

Now you want former players on the committee.

So it was a problem before, but not now. Got it.

----By the way, do you know where the AP ranked Ohio St this year? #2. Where did the committee rank Ohio St? #3.

In 2014, do you know where the AP ranked TCU? #6. Where did the committee rank TCU? #6.

In fact, there's even more to it than that. In 2014, both the AP and Coaches polls ranked TCU #3 in Week 15. In Week 16, after winning 55-3, both the AP and Coaches polls dropped TCU to #6. Where did the committee rank TCU? #6. You get all bent out of shape about the committee, and yet the AP poll (which you frequently tout) did the same thing. So, it sounds to me like the committee isn't really all that different than any of the other polls or mechanisms used in college football.

 

[ryan_sublett]

I've said all along no more ad's. No more "diversity" appointments. No more writers.

Two players from each P5 conference. 3 more from non P5 schools. Pefererably under 45 years old.

The AP writers have to make their votes known. Make the pc do the same thing.

Of course it will never happen.

Doesn't solve the supposed biased issues that some beleive is out there. You don't think the players will be loyal to their schools? Hell they'd be more loyal then ADs

Let me ask you this if there is so much wheeling and dealing and biased by these ADs how come Kirby Hulcut is at tech? Why isn't Michigan, Texas, etc paying whatever it takes to make the chairman of the committee their AD?

 

[outhereincali]

You have complained about certain schools having former players on the committee.

Now you want former players on the committee.

So it was a problem before, but not now. Got it.

----By the way, do you know where the AP ranked Ohio St this year? #2. Where did the committee rank Ohio St? #3.

In 2014, do you know where the AP ranked TCU? #6. Where did the committee rank TCU? #6.

In fact, there's even more to it than that. In 2014, both the AP and Coaches polls ranked TCU #3 in Week 15. In Week 16, after winning 55-3, both the AP and Coaches polls dropped TCU to #6. Where did the committee rank TCU? #6. You get all bent out of shape about the committee, and yet the AP poll (which you frequently tout) did the same thing. So, it sounds to me like the committee isn't really all that different than any of the other polls or mechanisms used in college football.

Archie Manning was the only former player on the committee since it was formed. But he bowed out midway throught the first year because he was to busy doing other things.

I tout the AP? Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't care for them anymore than I do the pc.

 

[outhereincali]

Likewise, just because someone says there is no bias doesn't mean there is no bias. To you and Top Deck - I'll agree to strongly disagree. I am not an employee of Baylor, but I have ties (a degree) from Baylor. And that has no influence on how I see things?

Diadevic there may be some good news with the new members. Chris Howard. As I said above the man is academically gifted, and accomplished. He also had a distinguished career in the Air Force. But he also played football at the AFA. He won the Dradd Trophy as the top scholar athlete. It gets better. He's from Plano. Since you went to Baylor dyk that he was on the BOR in 2013?
The Big XII finally gets to have two members with ties to the Big XII. Good. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

As far as diversity? Fine just no more Condoleeza Rice's or General Gould's. At least Chris Howard played college fb. And I don't question Gene Smith's accomplishments. They're certainly an improvement over Rice and Tyrone Willingham.

 

[topdecktiger]

Archie Manning was the only former player on the committee since it was formed. But he bowed out midway throught the first year because he was to busy doing other things.

I tout the AP? Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't care for them anymore than I do the pc.

You really have a problem with facts. Arching Manning was not the only former player on the committee. You have been complaining about Bobby Johnson because he was a former player at Clemson. Now you are saying Archie Manning was the only former player. It's amazing how you don't see these contradictions.

Not only that, you are incredibly wrong about Arching Manning being the only player. Here are some of the others:

Kirby Hocutt -played at Kansas St
Tom Jernstedt -played for Oregon
Jeff Long -played at Ohio Wesleyan
Dan Radakovich -played at Indiana-Penn
Pat Haden -played for Southern Cal
Oliver Luck -played at West Virginia

And yes, you have touted the AP. You have mentioned several times that the committee should operate like the AP. Yet, you complain, even though the committee produces the same results as the AP.

It's funny how when presented with facts that contradict your position, you just ignore them and move on to something else.

 

[diadevic]

The whole point is, you don't know who to eliminate from the committee (on the grounds of bias), because you don't know which teams will be in the running from year to year. There is no realistic way to form a committee without members who have ties to certain schools or conferences. You haven't suggested a single alternative.

That's not my job, and that's not the point of the thread, but since you asked -- DECIDE IT ON THE FIELD. Conference champions only! How can you be a national champ when you aren't even the king of your own conference? You have a bad day? Too bad, it was decided on the field! BTW - I give you credit for one point - CFP has always been a beauty pageant i.e. voters crowned the national champ, and the current system is closer to determining a true champion. But eliminate bias altogether!

 

[topdecktiger]

That's not my job, and that's not the point of the thread, but since you asked -- DECIDE IT ON THE FIELD. Conference champions only! How can you be a national champ when you aren't even the king of your own conference? You have a bad day? Too bad, it was decided on the field! BTW - I give you credit for one point - CFP has always been a beauty pageant i.e. voters crowned the national champ, and the current system is closer to determining a true champion. But eliminate bias altogether!

Yes, it is your job, for this reason. You are complaining about the selection committee. Well, the BCS didn't do any better. The poll system didn't do any better. You blame the committee, but the other systems didn't produce any better results. You can't make the case that the committee is the problem, because the committee just puts out results similar to the previous systems. You can't make a valid argument if all you do is blame the committee.

I have no problem with the argument that conference champions should make the playoffs. I've said the playoffs should go to 8 teams, with the P5 champs getting automatic bids. However, that decision was made before the committee was even formed. Here's what you don't understand. The same organization that ran the BCS runs the CFP. I highlighted organization for are reason. The organization is not the same thing as the committee. The president of the CFP is Bill Hancock. Do you know who the president of the BCS was? Bill Hancock. See the point? The same organization that operated the BCS operates the CFP. All the committee does is go by the guidelines given to them by the CFP organization.

Why do I bring that up? Well, here's why. You have complained about Ohio St making the playoffs, even though they didn't even win their conference or division. Well, that happened before in the BCS. In 2011, Alabama made the BCS title game, even though they didn't win their conference or division. In 2001, Nebraska made the title game, and they didn't win their conference or division either.

So, the BCS selected teams that weren't conference champs for the title game. Now the same organization that operated the BCS runs the CFP. Well, guess what? The CFP selected a team that didn't win its conference for the playoffs. Wow, what a coincidence!! Who would have guessed that two systems run by the same organization would produce the same results???

My point is, you and the other guy are going all ape shit over the committee, but the problem is way higher than the committee. I don't care if you put Jesus Christ and Mother Teresa on the committee. The results would still be screwed up, because of the way the governing organization is constructed.

Edit: I forgot to make one other point. All this stuff you are talking about is not the topic of the thread. The OP thought there was something fishy about Gene Smith replacing Barry Alvarez. There isn't. The CFP openly acknowledges that they replace members of one conference with someone from the same conference. Rob Mullens (Oregon) replaced Pat Haden (Southern Cal). Kirby Hocutt (Texas Tech) replaced Oliver Luck (West Virginia). This is no secret. That was the OP's point, and it is easily disproven by past evidence.

 

[outhereincali]

You really have a problem with facts. Arching Manning was not the only former player on the committee. You have been complaining about Bobby Johnson because he was a former player at Clemson. Now you are saying Archie Manning was the only former player. It's amazing how you don't see these contradictions.

Not only that, you are incredibly wrong about Arching Manning being the only player. Here are some of the others:

Kirby Hocutt -played at Kansas St
Tom Jernstedt -played for Oregon
Jeff Long -played at Ohio Wesleyan
Dan Radakovich -played at Indiana-Penn
Pat Haden -played for Southern Cal
Oliver Luck -played at West Virginia

And yes, you have touted the AP. You have mentioned several times that the committee should operate like the AP. Yet, you complain, even though the committee produces the same results as the AP.

It's funny how when presented with facts that contradict your position, you just ignore them and move on to something else.

I was referring to people who were only players!!!!

I was not referring to former players who are now ad's or whatever. That's what these players on your special list are.

And Archie Manning was not an ad!!!!!!

Comprende?

 

[outhereincali]

Yes, it is your job, for this reason. You are complaining about the selection committee. Well, the BCS didn't do any better. The poll system didn't do any better. You blame the committee, but the other systems didn't produce any better results. You can't make the case that the committee is the problem, because the committee just puts out results similar to the previous systems. You can't make a valid argument if all you do is blame the committee.

I have no problem with the argument that conference champions should make the playoffs. I've said the playoffs should go to 8 teams, with the P5 champs getting automatic bids. However, that decision was made before the committee was even formed. Here's what you don't understand. The same organization that ran the BCS runs the CFP. I highlighted organization for are reason. The organization is not the same thing as the committee. The president of the CFP is Bill Hancock. Do you know who the president of the BCS was? Bill Hancock. See the point? The same organization that operated the BCS operates the CFP. All the committee does is go by the guidelines given to them by the CFP organization.

Why do I bring that up? Well, here's why. You have complained about Ohio St making the playoffs, even though they didn't even win their conference or division. Well, that happened before in the BCS. In 2011, Alabama made the BCS title game, even though they didn't win their conference or division. In 2001, Nebraska made the title game, and they didn't win their conference or division either.

So, the BCS selected teams that weren't conference champs for the title game. Now the same organization that operated the BCS runs the CFP. Well, guess what? The CFP selected a team that didn't win its conference for the playoffs. Wow, what a coincidence!! Who would have guessed that two systems run by the same organization would produce the same results???

My point is, you and the other guy are going all ape shit over the committee, but the problem is way higher than the committee. I don't care if you put Jesus Christ and Mother Teresa on the committee. The results would still be screwed up, because of the way the governing organization is constructed.

Edit: I forgot to make one other point. All this stuff you are talking about is not the topic of the thread. The OP thought there was something fishy about Gene Smith replacing Barry Alvarez. There isn't. The CFP openly acknowledges that they replace members of one conference with someone from the same conference. Rob Mullens (Oregon) replaced Pat Haden (Southern Cal). Kirby Hocutt (Texas Tech) replaced Oliver Luck (West Virginia). This is no secret. That was the OP's point, and it is easily disproven by past evidence.

Look Mr southern fb dude You can justify that the pc is just golden until you're 99 years old for all I care. Well see how much you like it and defend it when it works against the southern schools.

 

[topdecktiger]

I was referring to people who were only players!!!!

I was not referring to former players who are now ad's or whatever. That's what these players on your special list are.

And Archie Manning was not an ad!!!!!!

Comprende?

Right. So now, I'm going to wait for you to tell my why a guy who was both a player and coach (Bobby Johnson) is biased, but a guy who was just a player isn't.

Look Mr southern fb dude You can justify that the pc is just golden until you're 99 years old for all I care. Well see how much you like it and defend it when it works against the southern schools.

The exact kind of response I'd expect from someone who can't back up his argument with facts.

 

[diadevic]

Yes, it is your job, for this reason. You are complaining about the selection committee. Well, the BCS didn't do any better. The poll system didn't do any better. You blame the committee, but the other systems didn't produce any better results. You can't make the case that the committee is the problem, because the committee just puts out results similar to the previous systems. You can't make a valid argument if all you do is blame the committee.

I have no problem with the argument that conference champions should make the playoffs. I've said the playoffs should go to 8 teams, with the P5 champs getting automatic bids. However, that decision was made before the committee was even formed. Here's what you don't understand. The same organization that ran the BCS runs the CFP. I highlighted organization for are reason. The organization is not the same thing as the committee. The president of the CFP is Bill Hancock. Do you know who the president of the BCS was? Bill Hancock. See the point? The same organization that operated the BCS operates the CFP. All the committee does is go by the guidelines given to them by the CFP organization.

Why do I bring that up? Well, here's why. You have complained about Ohio St making the playoffs, even though they didn't even win their conference or division. Well, that happened before in the BCS. In 2011, Alabama made the BCS title game, even though they didn't win their conference or division. In 2001, Nebraska made the title game, and they didn't win their conference or division either.

So, the BCS selected teams that weren't conference champs for the title game. Now the same organization that operated the BCS runs the CFP. Well, guess what? The CFP selected a team that didn't win its conference for the playoffs. Wow, what a coincidence!! Who would have guessed that two systems run by the same organization would produce the same results???

My point is, you and the other guy are going all ape shit over the committee, but the problem is way higher than the committee. I don't care if you put Jesus Christ and Mother Teresa on the committee. The results would still be screwed up, because of the way the governing organization is constructed.

Edit: I forgot to make one other point. All this stuff you are talking about is not the topic of the thread. The OP thought there was something fishy about Gene Smith replacing Barry Alvarez. There isn't. The CFP openly acknowledges that they replace members of one conference with someone from the same conference. Rob Mullens (Oregon) replaced Pat Haden (Southern Cal). Kirby Hocutt (Texas Tech) replaced Oliver Luck (West Virginia). This is no secret. That was the OP's point, and it is easily disproven by past evidence.

WTF? You asked how I would change it and I gave you my response. Your point eludes me - you seem to be saying the system works fine because the committee had the same results as the polls, but now you are saying the system blows because of the organization. Is the system good or bad? And please, my simple mind can't handle another 6 paragraph response.

 

[outhereincali]

Right. So now, I'm going to wait for you to tell my why a guy who was both a player and coach (Bobby Johnson) is biased, but a guy who was just a player isn't.



The exact kind of response I'd expect from someone who can't back up his argument with facts.

Neither can you. You've dodged even more fact than you say I have.

 

[topdecktiger]

WTF? You asked how I would change it and I gave you my response. Your point eludes me - you seem to be saying the system works fine because the committee had the same results as the polls, but now you are saying the system blows because of the organization. Is the system good or bad? And please, my simple mind can't handle another 6 paragraph response.

It's not that complicated.

I'm not saying the system works fine. I'm saying the system isn't biased. The Big 12 isn't getting screwed, the Big Ten isn't rigging the system, etc.

The problem is that there isn't a qualification process. There is only a selection process. If you just select teams (rather than letting them qualify on their own), you end up with results like Ohio St this year, Alabama in 2011, Nebraska in 2001, etc.

 

[topdecktiger]

Neither can you. You've dodged even more fact than you say I have.

No, I haven't dodged. I've offered plenty of facts to contradict your position, and you have ignored them. I'll list the for you:

Arkansas lost to Auburn 56/3 and they also stayed in the top 20.

Not true. Arkansas was not ranked in the CFP when they lost to Auburn. Arkansas was only ranked for one week (at #25), which was after they beat Florida in Week 10. Arkansas lost the next week to LSU, and dropped out of the polls.

There was no way that Wisconsin deserved to be in the Cotton Bowl. It should have been Louisville.

Both the AP and Coaches polls had Wisconsin ranked ahead of Louisville. Both had Wisconsin #8, and Louisville #15. The CFP actually had Louisville ranked higher, at #13.

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.

As mentioned before, you were incorrect about Arkansas. Aside from that, let's put your statement to the test. The final CFP poll had 4 teams from the Big Ten: Ohio St, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Penn St. Compare that to the polls. The AP and Coaches each had SIX Big Ten teams that same week: Ohio St, Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn ST, Nebraska, and Iowa. The committee had dropped Nebraska from the polls two weeks earlier, and Iowa never appeared in the CFP. In fact, the most Big Ten teams the CFP ranked in one week was 5.

So, that blows the lid off your theory that the committee kept as many Big Ten teams in the ranking as possible. If anybody did that, it was the AP and Coaches polls, not the committee.

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

You leave out this inconvenient fact. Oklahoma was 6-3 when they lost to Baylor. Nebraska was 7-2. When Nebraska lost 3 games, they dropped out of the poll as well.

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.

Again, incorrect. Arkansas did not stay in the rankings after losing. Nebraska did, until they lost a 3rd game, same as Oklahoma in 2014.

OK did not get back the following week.

Completely false. Oklahoma dropped out of the ranking in Week 12 of 2014, after losing to Baylor. In Week 13, they got back into the ranking (at #21) after beating Texas Tech.

And Stanford does not have two people.

Stanford has Condoleeza Rice (current professor) and Tyrone Willingham (former coach) on the committee. If Bobby Johnson (former player) counts for Clemson, then Tyrone Willingham counts for Stanford.

So spare me the bs about each conference only having one member

Nobody every said each conference only has one member. Each conference has at least one member. Some conferences have additional members who have indirect ties (former player/coach). The Pac 12 is the only conference with two members who are currently employed by member schools.

Archie Manning was the only former player on the committee since it was formed.

As I pointed out, that's not true. You amended that to mean former players who were never ADs or coaches. Now, I'll still wait for you to tell me why Bobby Johnson is biased, but Archie Manning isn't.

So yeah, I have plenty of instances where you were factually incorrect. Some of them were outright lies. You also haven't offered any actual facts to back up your positions.

 

[diadevic]

It's not that complicated.

I'm not saying the system works fine. I'm saying the system isn't biased. The Big 12 isn't getting screwed, the Big Ten isn't rigging the system, etc.

The problem is that there isn't a qualification process. There is only a selection process. If you just select teams (rather than letting them qualify on their own), you end up with results like Ohio St this year, Alabama in 2011, Nebraska in 2001, etc.

Bingo! Every time the committee holds their weekly press conference they give out conflicting signals as to what they are looking at/how they weigh things.

 

[outhereincali]

Why was AR even ranked at all? Explain that then.

Why did NB stay in the polls for a month?

There were two 4 loss teams from the SEC in the top 20 and one of them, Auburn got in the Sugar Bowl. Justify the pc reasoning on this one I'd love to hear it.

And one more time. Tyrone Willingham can count for Stanford, Washington, MSU and ND take your pick. Two can play your silly little game.

The greater point about OK is this. Why were they completely dropped out when NB wasn't. Btw, in case you have forgotten NB lost by a far bigger margin. And don't even try with caliber of competition the Baylor team that OK lost to was higher ranked at the time they played.

And what the bfd about Archie Manning? I clarified it. I know all these people played fb numb nuts. Well General Gould only played hs fb and CR, well need I say anything else in that regard? Wait a minute I want to say something else. Archie Manning has a well known and its justified reputation for his love of all college fb. I've listened to him talk with respect for all the conferences when they were going good.

And no from the get go you said that each conference only had one member.

Actually I'm happy now that the Big XII has two reps with connections to our schools. It's about time.

And the new selections are a dramatic upgrade over the ones they replaced.

But we will still have to deal with Long and Willingham. TW is an insult to a committee of this magnitude. No 0/12 coach should be on this committee. Ever.

 

[topdecktiger]

Bingo! Every time the committee holds their weekly press conference they give out conflicting signals as to what they are looking at/how they weigh things.

And here is the reason for that. When the CFP executives created the CFP, they did not create any standardized criteria. They just say, "pick the 4 best teams," and don't have any regulations. That different from the NFL. In the NFL, you have a standardized qualification process, and it goes in order:
1.Best overall record
2. Head to head
3. Best conference
4. Best division record, etc.

The CFP executives didn't create any rules, so the selection committee basically has to guess. That's why you get the conflicting signals.

 

[topdecktiger]

Response embedded:

Why was AR even ranked at all? Explain that then.

Arkansas was ranked (#25, for one week) because they beat Florida, who was #11. Arkansas got in for beating a highly ranked team. When Arkansas lost the next week, they dropped completely from CFP ranking.

Now, before you bitch about that, Florida was #10 in the AP poll, and #9 in the Coaches poll. I mention that for this reason. Florida was ranked higher by the AP and Coaches polls than the committee had them. I say that to make two points

1) You can't claim the committee is overranking Florida, when the AP and Coaches both had Florida ranked higher.

2) It shows the committee isn't showing the SEC or Big Ten favoritism, because the AP and Coaches are doing the same thing. Are you to try to claim that Jeff Long and Barry Alvarez are rigging the AP and Coaches polls also?

Why did NB stay in the polls for a month?

Because Nebraska had a 7-2 record. Oklahoma had a 6-3 record when they lost to Baylor. You are getting hung up on margin of victory. That is not the only metric in play. There are others as well, such as overall record. You are trying to compare to situations as they are the same, and they aren't.

There were two 4 loss teams from the SEC in the top 20 and one of them, Auburn got in the Sugar Bowl. Justify the pc reasoning on this one I'd love to hear it.

Well, if you did a little research, you would understand. The committee, by contract, has to send an SEC team to the Sugar Bowl. It's in the contract with the bowl. The committee has to rank someone from the SEC in order to fulfill their obligation to the Sugar Bowl. They CANNOT substitute a team from another conference. It HAS to be an SEC team. Therefore, you get Auburn in the rankings.

And one more time. Tyrone Willingham can count for Stanford, Washington, MSU and ND take your pick. Two can play your silly little game.

You are the one playing a "silly little game." Bobby Johnson can also count for Vanderbilt, but you want to overlook that. You want pin Bobby Johnson 100% on Clemson, but you don't want Tyrone Willingham to count 100% for Stanford. That's cherrypicking. If you want to count Tyrone Willingham for multiple teams, then you have to do the same for Bobby Johnson. You can't just limit him to Clemson.

The greater point about OK is this. Why were they completely dropped out when NB wasn't. Btw, in case you have forgotten NB lost by a far bigger margin. And don't even try with caliber of competition the Baylor team that OK lost to was higher ranked at the time they played.

I explained this. Nebraska was 7-2 and Oklahoma was 6-3. With more losses, it was easier for other teams to jump Oklahoma that it was Nebraska.

Again, you are way too hung up on margin of victory. That's not the only thing that counts.

To your last point, it is hilarious how much you lie! Baylor was #12 when they beat Oklahoma in 2014. Ohio St was #6 when they beat Nebraska this year. All you are doing is making up things that are easily checked out. But yeah, it's the coaches that have no honor.

And what the bfd about Archie Manning? I clarified it. I know all these people played fb numb nuts. Well General Gould only played hs fb and CR, well need I say anything else in that regard? Wait a minute I want to say something else. Archie Manning has a well known and its justified reputation for his love of all college fb. I've listened to him talk with respect for all the conferences when they were going good.

The point is, you act like Archie Manning has no bias, even though he played at Ole Miss. Meanwhile, you claim Bobby Johnson has bias because he played at Clemson. You can't have it both ways.

And no from the get go you said that each conference only had one member.

Again, a lie. Here is my original post:

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

Sorry, no. I said every P5 league has one direct representative (except the Pac 12). I then said they had other indirect members, and I listed how many each conference had.

Bottom line, you can't just make up things because you want them to be true. You have to stick with the facts. You can't make claims that are false.

 

[outhereincali]

Response embedded:

And I have made numerous charges that you haven't answered. Like Joel Klatt's saying that some of the pc members did nothing but play golf on Saturday and Monday morning and then voted.

And also how the AP votes doesn't mean s**t. The pc and the pc alone decides who goes to the playoffs and who goes to the other NYS bowl games.

Things like this SEC dominance always runs in cycles and if last year was any indication the SEC success story is about to end. Last year it was Bama and 13 average teams.

And it is a fact that TN, LSU, and Auburn were still ranked at the end of the season even though they all lost four games. KSU only lost only four games how come they didn't get to be in top 25?

You're making claims that pleases you. More and more I get the impression that you're an SEC fan which would explain why you like the polls.

 

[topdecktiger]

Response embedded:

And I have made numerous charges that you haven't answered. Like Joel Klatt's saying that some of the pc members did nothing but play golf on Saturday and Monday morning and then voted.

And also how the AP votes doesn't mean s**t. The pc and the pc alone decides who goes to the playoffs and who goes to the other NYS bowl games.

Things like this SEC dominance always runs in cycles and if last year was any indication the SEC success story is about to end. Last year it was Bama and 13 average teams.

And it is a fact that TN, LSU, and Auburn were still ranked at the end of the season even though they all lost four games. KSU only lost only four games how come they didn't get to be in top 25?

You're making claims that pleases you. More and more I get the impression that you're an SEC fan which would explain why you like the polls.

No, I've answered all the charges you made. Let's take Joel Klatt. I haven't found the quote where Joel Klatt claimed the committee members played golf with each other before voting. I did find this:
Last week on The Herd with Colin Cowherd, Fox Sports 1 analyst Joel Klatt made a case that the College Football Playoff committee had a bias against the Big 12 and Pac-12: He explained that the committee ranks the teams from those conferences lower than the media members do in the Associated Press poll.

The narrative became this: Committee members Barry Alvarez and Tom Osborne, the former coaches who preached the ground-and-pound style at Wisconsin and Nebraska, have something against the uptempo modern games played in those other conferences. They are dinosaurs.

It was an interesting theory. Wrong, but interesting. The truth is that at this same point last year, the same committee was ranking the Big 12 way above where the media polls did.

So what I have found is the Joel Klatt claimed the committee was biased because the AP and Coaches polls had Big 12/Pac 12 teams ranked higher than the committee. However, as the article points out, Klatt is incorrect.

I'm using the AP poll for two reasons: 1) Your guy Klatt used them to make his bias argument. If you are going to cite Klatt, then you can't dismiss the polls. 2) If the committee was biased, then their rankings should be different from the AP and Coaches polls. They are not. All three rankings are similar. This disproves your bias theory.

Here's the answer to your Kansas St question. There were several other 4 loss teams ranked in the final committee poll: Utah from the Pac 12, Pitt and Virginia Tech from the ACC. Ok, according to you, the committee is rigged for the Big Ten and SEC. Well, then you are left to explain how the Pac 12 and ACC got three 4-loss teams into the rankings. That's shouldn't happen if this bias existed.

You complain that Kansas St got left out. Well, guess what? Nebraska (from the Big Ten) only had THREE losses, and they got left out also. So explain that to me. The committee is biased for the Big Ten, and wants to get as many Big Ten teams in as possible. Ok, then why did Nebraska, with only 3 losses, not get in? If the committee is trying to get as many Big Ten teams in as possible, then Nebraska should be in, but they weren't. You are complaining that the Big 12 couldn't get a 4 loss team into the ranking, but the Big Ten couldn't even get a 3 loss team into the rankings.

You can get as many impressions as you want. You simply have your facts wrong, and you won't admit it when you do. Then, you turn around and accuse me of not answering your charges, and that's not true. You simply can't support your argument with facts, and there's no other way around it.