This group of people will decide football's Final Four in 2014

[Coach34]

http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/72173/arkansas-a-d-to-lead-committee

UPig's AD Jeff Long will lead the committee


Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez
Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Gould, the former Air Force Academy superintendent
USC athletic director Pat Haden
Former NCAA executive vice president Tom Jernstedt
West Virginia athletic director Oliver Luck
Former NFL and Ole Miss quarterback Archie Manning
Former Nebraska athletic director/coach Tom Osborne
Clemson athletic director Dan Radakovich
Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Former Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese
Former USA Today reporter Steve Wieberg
Former Stanford/Notre Dame/Washington coach Tyrone Willingham

[ShotgunDawg]

http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/72173/arkansas-a-d-to-lead-committee

UPig's AD Jeff Long will lead the committee - Ok, he handled the Petrino thing well, so I'll give him a pass


Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez - Kinda of tired of him, and he's a Big 10 homer, but he is qualified
Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Gould, the former Air Force Academy superintendent - WTF?
USC athletic director Pat Haden - Same as Alvarez, but for PAC 12
Former NCAA executive vice president Tom Jernstedt
West Virginia athletic director Oliver Luck - His son is good at football
Former NFL and Ole Miss quarterback Archie Manning - His sons are also good at football, and he is an appeaser and politically sensitive guy. He'll do fine
Former Nebraska athletic director/coach Tom Osborne - Same and Haden and Alvarez
Clemson athletic director Dan Radakovich - Same as Long
Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - WTF?
Former Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese - An awful commissioner
Former USA Today reporter Steve Wieberg - WHO? and why does he get more power than other media people
Former Stanford/Notre Dame/Washington coach Tyrone Willingham - I like this guy, he'll do well.

Wish we could get Dungy -

[HoopsDawg]

I think having a committee hurts the SEC more than helps it. We are going to see 4 conference champions/Notre Dame in the playoffs more often than 2 SEC teams going forward.

[Quaoarsking]

I think having a committee hurts the SEC more than helps it. We are going to see 4 conference champions/Notre Dame in the playoffs more often than 2 SEC teams going forward.

I think the SEC will get 2 teams in any year it deserves it. So 2012, 2011, but not 2010 and probably not this year.

There isn't an anti-SEC bias in any other sport's selection committee, and there won't be one in football either. If anything, there will probably be a slight bia$ toward the SEC...

[HoopsDawg]

I think the SEC will get 2 teams in any year it deserves it. So 2012, 2011, but not 2010 and probably not this year.

There isn't an anti-SEC bias in any other sport's selection committee, and there won't be one in football either. If anything, there will probably be a slight bia$ toward the SEC...

we'll see.

[Jack Lambert]

All you have to do is average the polls and the top four teams get in. It isn't rocket science. my 10 year old could do that. This whole committee I think is crap just to make someone else feel good and to reward friends.

[dawgs]

Because polls aren't biased...

There are too many people of different allegiances on the committee for anyone to push an agenda and everyone else just let them reward their undeserving team of choice.

And as said above, the sec will get 2 teams in when they deserve it.

[Political Hack]

UPig's AD Jeff Long will lead the committee

&

Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez


that should be a fun discussion.

[cheewgumm]

be chosen. This committee will make sure that doesn't happen.

I think corruption is guaranteed.


http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/72173/arkansas-a-d-to-lead-committee

UPig's AD Jeff Long will lead the committee


Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez
Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Gould, the former Air Force Academy superintendent
USC athletic director Pat Haden
Former NCAA executive vice president Tom Jernstedt
West Virginia athletic director Oliver Luck
Former NFL and Ole Miss quarterback Archie Manning
Former Nebraska athletic director/coach Tom Osborne
Clemson athletic director Dan Radakovich
Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Former Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese
Former USA Today reporter Steve Wieberg
Former Stanford/Notre Dame/Washington coach Tyrone Willingham

[HIGHDOG]

seems like putting a herd of goats in the garden to guard the cabbages...jmho...tom

[dawgs]

I think the committee is only there for cases like the PAC 12 last year when 11-1 Oregon lost to 11-2 Stanford, and Stanford won the conference, but Oregon was still ahead of them in the polls (#3 or #4 v. #5). I think that's why the committee is there, to breakdown those situations and determine whether the 2 L team should go over the 1 L team. 95+% of the seasons, there's not gonna be much debate.

[smootness]

95+% of the seasons, there's not gonna be much debate.

Yeah, but this has always been the case. Most of the time, it's obvious who the 2 teams are that should play for the national title, and there isn't much debate. Yet, you still have people so seemingly outraged over the couple of times where something strange happens (3 undefeated teams, Nebraska in after getting killed by Colorado) that they demand things be 'fixed' so it changes. I'm sure that will happen at some point with this as well.

Think about it. The BCS is mocked by everyone, yet it is what everyone claimed they wanted when it was introduced, and it is a far better system for determining a national champion than existed previously. People will ultimately get upset about everything and want to change it just to change it (You actually have people claiming the NCAA Tournament doesn't have enough teams now and have already ruined the perfection of the 64-team tournament).

People act as though adding 2 teams solves a problem. It doesn't. It is pretty much the exact same system as before, yet most years you will just add two less deserving teams to the mix.

Think about years like 05 when Texas and USC were both undefeated and clearly the top two teams. You're going to make them play an extra game against two teams who haven't been as good as them all year? Why?

No matter how many teams you include, there will always be outrage that the teams left out weren't included. It's not as though people will say, 'Good, all 3 of the deserving teams got in'; no, they will say, '#5 is just as good as #4; if #4 is included, we have to include #5'. Again, look at the NCAA Tournament. The top few teams on the bubble go nuts that they are left out, yet none of them are close to actually deserving a shot at the national title. But they're about as good as the last teams in, so they feel slighted. If you moved to 128, teams 129-132 would be pissed.

[mic]

If they would get rid of preseason rankings and not rank the teams until week 5 or 6 it would work out much better..

[dawgs]

The bitching about #4 will not be anywhere near the current bitching about #2. Think about the ncaa tourney, 15 minutes after the announcement, no one gives a shit about the snubs outside of the fans of a team snubbed. Also, in a 1 off 2 team playoff we have now, anyone can win 1 game, but winning 2 games against 2 top teams is a bigger challenge and we actually get to see #2 v. #3 on the field.

[smootness]

The bitching about #4 will not be anywhere near the current bitching about #2. Think about the ncaa tourney, 15 minutes after the announcement, no one gives a shit about the snubs outside of the fans of a team snubbed. Also, in a 1 off 2 team playoff we have now, anyone can win 1 game, but winning 2 games against 2 top teams is a bigger challenge and we actually get to see #2 v. #3 on the field.

I promise you, it ultimately will be. A few years down the line, people will look up and go, 'Why do we only have 4 teams? Who came up with that arbitrary number?', and there will be another push to change the system.

There may not be widespread uproar over the NCAA Tournament 'snubs', but the media still discusses them, and it is part of what is leading to push in certain places to increase the number of teams. If it can ruin a perfect set-up like that, it is a problem, regardless of how widespread the anger seems to be.

They should have either gone to an outright playoff or kept the current system. The BCS as it stands now almost always pairs the top 2 teams in the country, and absolutely always includes the best team. I think, given a system where teams are just arbitrarily selected, it is the most fair way to decide the national champion. By increasing it to 4, you haven't changed anything about the arbitrary nature of how the teams are selected (which is apparently the biggest issue people have with the current system), yet now you will have a team that goes undefeated in the SEC, wins the SEC Championship game, but then instead of having to beat one other team (that may not themselves be deserving to play the SEC team) they now have to beat two. Not exactly fair to them.

It isn't a better to way to determine a 'true national champion'. The current system takes care of that most years. You're not really 'deciding it on the field' any more than is done now. The more teams you add, the more you water it down and risk having a team be declared national champion that doesn't actually deserve it.

So if you're going to water it down, then make it a true playoff. Let the 11 conference champs get an automatic invite, then include 5 at-large teams. Everyone who legitimately has a claim to the national title will get in, and you will ensure it actually is 'decided on the field'.

We're headed down that path anyway, at least to more teams. It won't stay at 4 for long, so go all out now. 4 is just a worse version of the current system.

[curmudgeon]

Elitedawgs Committee Time.

Team A is #1 in polls, 12-0 and ranked #1 in all computer polls (Conference Champion)
Team B is #2 in polls, 11-1 and averages a #3 ranking in computer poll, as high as #2, as low as #4 (Conference Champion)
Team C is #3 in polls, 11-1 and averages a #6 ranking in computer polls, but is #4 in one computer poll
Team D is #4 in polls, 11-1 and averages a #2 ranking in computer polls, but is #6 in one computer poll
Team E is #6 in polls, 11-1 and averages a #5 ranking in computer polls, as high as #3, as low as #8 (Conference Champion)
Team F is #7 in polls, 11-1 and also averages a #5 ranking in computer polls, as high as #3, as low as #6 (Conference Champion)

Pick four and seed them.

[FlabLoser]

Swap Wieberg for Dan Wetzel.

[dawgs]

The reason the ncaa tourney expanded if there's been a couple of new autobids from new conferences and the coaches association and major conferences didn't want to lose at large bids. It had nothing to do with media/fan bitching and everything to do with $$ and coaches fighting for job security since for most programs, an at large tourney spot is job security.

[FlabLoser]

Elitedawgs Committee Time.

Team A is #1 in polls, 12-0 and ranked #1 in all computer polls (Conference Champion)
Team B is #2 in polls, 11-1 and averages a #3 ranking in computer poll, as high as #2, as low as #4 (Conference Champion)
Team C is #3 in polls, 11-1 and averages a #6 ranking in computer polls, but is #4 in one computer poll
Team D is #4 in polls, 11-1 and averages a #2 ranking in computer polls, but is #6 in one computer poll
Team E is #6 in polls, 11-1 and averages a #5 ranking in computer polls, as high as #3, as low as #8 (Conference Champion)
Team F is #7 in polls, 11-1 and also averages a #5 ranking in computer polls, as high as #3, as low as #6 (Conference Champion)

Pick four and seed them.

Not enough info.

For the record, I would decide based on quality wins. Not points scored, but who you beat and how. No juice points for beating a team because the other guy missed a gimmie field goal at the end or because of some BS officiating.

[dawgs]

Elitedawgs Committee Time.

Team A is #1 in polls, 12-0 and ranked #1 in all computer polls (Conference Champion)
Team B is #2 in polls, 11-1 and averages a #3 ranking in computer poll, as high as #2, as low as #4 (Conference Champion)
Team C is #3 in polls, 11-1 and averages a #6 ranking in computer polls, but is #4 in one computer poll
Team D is #4 in polls, 11-1 and averages a #2 ranking in computer polls, but is #6 in one computer poll
Team E is #6 in polls, 11-1 and averages a #5 ranking in computer polls, as high as #3, as low as #8 (Conference Champion)
Team F is #7 in polls, 11-1 and also averages a #5 ranking in computer polls, as high as #3, as low as #6 (Conference Champion)

Pick four and seed them.

When was the last time we had 6 11-1 major conference teams AND a 12-0 consensus #1?

You'd have to have the 12-0 team beat an undefeated team in a conf CG. Then you'd have to have 2 or 3
of the ACC, PAC 12, sec, and big 10 CGs be a 1 L teams beating a 12-0 team. Or the big 12 champ being 11-1. Just hasn't been a situation with that many 11-1/12-1 or better major conference teams.

[smootness]

The reason the ncaa tourney expanded if there's been a couple of new autobids from new conferences and the coaches association and major conferences didn't want to lose at large bids. It had nothing to do with media/fan bitching and everything to do with $$ and coaches fighting for job security since for most programs, an at large tourney spot is job security.

I know that's the reason they initially added the extra team to make it 65, but it's not the reason why they have expanded it further and why some are pushing for 128.

A lot of it may be from coaches motivated to be able to add more tourney appearances to their resume, but people are buying into that because of their argument, which is that teams 66-68 also deserved to be in just as much as #64-65.

You think the same won't happen with this? Regardless of where the push begins (it's reasonable to think it will also be from coaches who want to be able to get in more easily), people will buy into it because it makes sense logically...if team 4 and team 5 are basically equal, why should one have a shot and the other have none?

So once you start down that slope, it's not going to stop.

[DawgInMemphis]

When was the last time we had 6 11-1 major conference teams AND a 12-0 consensus #1?

You'd have to have the 12-0 team beat an undefeated team in a conf CG. Then you'd have to have 2 or 3
of the ACC, PAC 12, sec, and big 10 CGs be a 1 L teams beating a 12-0 team. Or the big 12 champ being 11-1. Just hasn't been a situation with that many 11-1/12-1 or better major conference teams.

Last year, ND and OSU were undefeated (OSU was disqualified from post season play though), and Bama, Florida, Oregon, and Kansas State all had one loss. I would give ND, OSU, Bama, and Oregon the nod - but Oregon and Kansas State are worthy as well. Bottom line, there isn't a perfect formula.

[Quaoarsking]

Once it gets to 8, that's enough. There have been a few #5s who may have deserved a shot, but no one's gonna feel sorry for #9

[Todd4State]

I really don't like Archie being on the committee. That pretty much guarantees that we are going to get screwed in the unlikely event that we go 13-0 and win the SEC and a 9-3 Ole Miss team led by his grandson is going to get in.

[smootness]

Once it gets to 8, that's enough. There have been a few #5s who may have deserved a shot, but no one's gonna feel sorry for #9

You would think 64/65 would be enough in basketball, too. This is just the way things work; the teams left out always complain, it becomes a story, and once it's been a story long enough, people feel like there should be a solution.

Once everyone becomes used to 4, or 8, there will a push to expand, guaranteed. Because there always is.

And again, I don't think 4 is better than 2, and I don't think 8 is better than 4. I think if you're going to use the system that has been, and will continue to be, used then 2 is perfect. Adding more teams doesn't solve a problem except in rare cases, and more often than not it creates one.

[I seen it dawg]

seems like putting a herd of goats in the garden to guard the cabbages...jmho...tom

That is an outstanding analogy.

[Quaoarsking]

You would think 64/65 would be enough in basketball, too. This is just the way things work; the teams left out always complain, it becomes a story, and once it's been a story long enough, people feel like there should be a solution.

Once everyone becomes used to 4, or 8, there will a push to expand, guaranteed. Because there always is.

And again, I don't think 4 is better than 2, and I don't think 8 is better than 4. I think if you're going to use the system that has been, and will continue to be, used then 2 is perfect. Adding more teams doesn't solve a problem except in rare cases, and more often than not it creates one.

Nobody cares about #66 (now 69) in basketball. We of all fanbases should be aware of that -- sure, we were pissed in 2010 after being 0.1 seconds away, but nationally, nobody cared, and once the Tournament games start, no one even thinks about the teams that got left out.

In football, there have been a few #5s that were undefeated or had only 1 loss (like 2009 Florida) that probably would have been left out but could have legitimate beef about being denied the chance. There aren't any #9s that would have legitimate beef, and while the names of #9 would be upset, there would be no national outrage, at least once the playoff games got going.

10 years later, people are still mad that USC got left out in 2003, Auburn in 2004, Boise State/TCU/Utah several times, etc. Nobody outside of those specific fanbases would still be mad about #9 even just a few months later.

[smootness]

Nobody cares about #66 (now 69) in basketball. We of all fanbases should be aware of that -- sure, we were pissed in 2010 after being 0.1 seconds away, but nationally, nobody cared, and once the Tournament games start, no one even thinks about the teams that got left out.

Yet it's still used as a reason to expand to 128, and they're constantly adding an extra slot here or there. It's just the way the media works now...they will cover the teams left out 24/7 for a few days, and it will seem to be a much bigger story than it is. Then they will ask how to fix it, as though it's actually a problem, and eventually you'll hear it enough that the push to expand won't seem like a big deal.

It's really driven more by the 'players' within the sport than the fans, but they try to drum up outrage by fans so they can pretend to be solving a problem.

The key question is, will it make more money to add 4 more teams, or 8 more teams? If the answer is yes, it'll ultimately happen.

[dawgs]

Yet it's still used as a reason to expand to 128, and they're constantly adding an extra slot here or there. It's just the way the media works now...they will cover the teams left out 24/7 for a few days, and it will seem to be a much bigger story than it is. Then they will ask how to fix it, as though it's actually a problem, and eventually you'll hear it enough that the push to expand won't seem like a big deal.

It's really driven more by the 'players' within the sport than the fans, but they try to drum up outrage by fans so they can pretend to be solving a problem.

The key question is, will it make more money to add 4 more teams, or 8 more teams? If the answer is yes, it'll ultimately happen.

i think you are mistaking who is calling for an expansion of the ncaa tourney to 96 or 128 teams. i haven't seen a single media member call for it, but i have seen several coaches/ADs call for it and then the media reports on what the coaches/ADs said. from what i have always read and overwhelming % of the media wishes it was still just at 64.

just like currently i haven't seen many media members calling for anything larger than an 8 team playoff. there's been a few that floated ideas for a 10 or 12 or 16, but absolutely no one calling for anything bigger than 16, and even those 16 team ideas are usually tied to including every conf champion, even the non-BCS champs. no one is all that excited to include an 8-4 pac 12 south 3rd place team. and even most of those state they'd be completely content with an 8 team playoff.

[smootness]

i think you are mistaking who is calling for an expansion of the ncaa tourney to 96 or 128 teams. i haven't seen a single media member call for it, but i have seen several coaches/ADs call for it and then the media reports on what the coaches/ADs said. from what i have always read and overwhelming % of the media wishes it was still just at 64.

just like currently i haven't seen many media members calling for anything larger than an 8 team playoff. there's been a few that floated ideas for a 10 or 12 or 16, but absolutely no one calling for anything bigger than 16, and even those 16 team ideas are usually tied to including every conf champion, even the non-BCS champs. no one is all that excited to include an 8-4 pac 12 south 3rd place team. and even most of those state they'd be completely content with an 8 team playoff.

True, but the media and its now constant 24-hour coverage of the most mundane things is used to get people used to the idea.

The media may simply say, 'So-and-so wants the NCAA Tournament to expand to 128 teams. Is that a good idea?' and then write an article bashing the idea, but if enough people write/talk about it, and the complaints about the 'problems' of the current system are heard enough, it becomes easier for them to push to expand.

[dawgs]

True, but the media and its now constant 24-hour coverage of the most mundane things is used to get people used to the idea.

The media may simply say, 'So-and-so wants the NCAA Tournament to expand to 128 teams. Is that a good idea?' and then write an article bashing the idea, but if enough people write/talk about it, and the complaints about the 'problems' of the current system are heard enough, it becomes easier for them to push to expand.

but there's no push to expand by anyone right now. in fact if you polled CBB fans, i'd bet most would prefer to go back to a straight 64 teams.

regardless, you can't make decision because of uninformed "fans" potentially demanding something in 10-20 years.

[TDawg52]

Can someone explain to me how some of these people are qualified to be on this committee? Start with Archie Who? Condoleezza? Gen. Gould?

[FlabLoser]

Can someone explain to me how some of these people are qualified to be on this committee? Start with Archie Who? Condoleezza? Gen. Gould?

Condi's dream job is to be NFL commish. She is a huge football fan, follows football intently, is well educated, and well versed in politics. There has been a desire to get people on there who haven't worked on a football staff (ie: no built in bias), so she is perfect.