Primary tabs

Who do you least want to see on the College Football Playoff selection committee

Comments

Oyster's picture

I would bet that there would be some agendas for current athletic directors to promote their school/conference.  Then again, many in the media promote favored schools to get the best matchup possible in their interest so that their 'business trip' to cover a game is more of a benefit for them, rather than the best teams playing each other.  Hopefully the playoff will continue to expand and the decision of who plays is made on the field, where it should be decided in the first place.

Buckeyevstheworld's picture

"Media members" is winning? Why? :/

"YOLO" = I'm about to do something extremely ignorant/stupid & I need an excuse to do it.

BME_Buckeye's picture

The decision for "media members" is probably winning because they are the most likely to be the most unbias in regards to schools, geography (meaning Big Ten country, SEC country, etc.) or conference affiliation. This is not to say that there can't be bias in media members because their can be if you select a guy like Austin Ward (ESPN BuckeyeNation writer), but there are enough of media members to filter out any true bias during the selection process. 
Note: Maybe one of the 11W staff member/user can explain to me what an official media member is so that I have a clear definition on the matter.
 

Look closely, because the closer you think you are, the less you will actually see.

 

cplunk's picture

Think you read the poll wrong BME- media members winning means most people are saying they do NOT want media members on the committee.

BucksfanXC's picture

I read it wrong too.

“Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect.”  - Woody

Unky Buck's picture

I read that wrong as well. I'd be with the media members... #WantMyVoteBack

...

Buckeyevstheworld's picture

Same. lol

"YOLO" = I'm about to do something extremely ignorant/stupid & I need an excuse to do it.

BME_Buckeye's picture

Sorry, I typed my comments after working late at night. It wasn't the first time I misread something and then replied. 

Look closely, because the closer you think you are, the less you will actually see.

 

cplunk's picture

I would rather have orphan children from Senegal or members of Al Qaeda on the committee than media members.
Media members are:
1) Incredibly biased, even more so than former coaches. Not only do they carry their own personal biases regarding conferences or teams, but they also are paid by networks, most of whom have vested interests in a given conference due to tv rights.
2) Lazy. Take a preseason poll. Move down any team that losses. Move up or keep stationary any team that wins. That's the media. Almost nobody bothers to re-evaluate the teams throughout the year and realize maybe that team that started the year ranked 15 is better than the one that started the year ranked 2, and should move over the #2 team even if neither ever lost. 
3) Not very knowledgeable about football. Most media guys are great fans of the game- they know who beat whom, who had what stats, what coaches say, what players say...in short, they have about the same level of football knowledge as a truly dedicated fantasy football player. The vast majority of media guys could never write the type of articles that, for example, Ross writes for this site. They wouldn't have a clue how to. I don't want guys that know stats picking the playoff, I want guys that know football. The two are not the same.
A media member is basically just me or one of my friends, given the time and salary to watch even more football and then talk about it. No thanks.
 

Hovenaut's picture

I voted media members*.

(* - not least wanted, but not wanted period)

I am not very smart, but I recognize that I am not very smart.

Buckeyevstheworld's picture

According to Mark May it George Bush should be on the committee. lol

"YOLO" = I'm about to do something extremely ignorant/stupid & I need an excuse to do it.

steensn's picture

Former coaches, IMO to biased.

BucksfanXC's picture

I would argue former means less biased than current, and probably more informed on the other teams.

“Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect.”  - Woody

DJRoss926's picture

Media members seems like the least of the evils here. I think it would be incredibly hard for any former coach or administrator to admit there is no bias to their former institutions. 

BucksfanXC's picture

A lot of people are saying former coaches are most biased. I would say far far far less biased than current admins and coaches. Current employees of the AD would get extra money for the school, and therefore higher income, by going to a playoff game. Former coaches don't have a salary from the school anymore and wouldn't get any financial incentive to vote the team in.
Also, former coaches have the knowledge base to know good teams and the time to watch multiple games a week. Current employees will go off what they read in the media as they are too busy to watch other games.

“Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect.”  - Woody

Seabass1974's picture

Holy crap there really needed to be an all of the above option for this. :) I don't want any of those on the selection committee.

The harder you work, the harder it is to surrender. - Woody Hayes

9Route's picture

I least want to see the PC appointees, I'm talking about a women's arts professor who knows nothing about football, who is just put on the panel for "diversity" and an intended feel good moment for society.

I'm just happy to be here

lljjgg's picture

I'd prefer they just keep the BCS Standings and slot teams in that poll ranked #1-4 in the playoff. Last year (if seeded) it would have been:
Notre Dame vs Oregon
Alabama vs Florida

Or if OSU was eligible (ala the AP Poll):
Notre Dame vs Florida
OSU vs Bama

^That's good enough for me. If we throw in Current ADs or Media Members, you start dealing with a lot of very specific interests. Which could help non-SEC teams or hurt them, depending on who's deciding. I realize that the BCS standings factor in the Coaches Poll and Harris Poll -- but the fact that it includes computer rankings to me is a good thing and not a bad thing, considering how in love human voters are with the SEC these days. The playoff committee is going to be entirely up to human deliberation, which in my mind means likely even more SEC-love than we're already getting with the BCS rankings.
 

chicagobuckeye's picture

The issue with the computers is that no one has any idea what's involved in them.

Grant Edgell's picture

Josh Kendall from The State (South Carolina) has ruined every ounce of respect I have for media votes. Dude doesn't take the responsibility that comes with having a vote seriously (as seen every week in last year's AP football polls). No thanks.
I don't know of a group that can be trusted to be unbiased. Make the computer ranking 100% TRANSPARENT and give me a dozen of those ahead of the human vote. Humans are sketchy. Computers are just stupid. I'll take stupid.
Hell, hire R2D2. That dude can figure anything out if tasked correctly.

CentralFloridaBuckeye's picture

Well, I'd go for media members if they were from the Columbus Dispatch.  Just kidding. 
I went with excluding current ADs and administrators.  I just think there is too much temptation for them to vote their best interests, while they are currently in power. 

Golden Buckeye's picture

I goofed up and read it wrong. I voted for media members on accident. Who else read it as "who do you want?"

Doesntwork's picture

how about asking current/retired NFL coaches / assistants? would that be less biased than any of the above options?

OSU_ALUM_05's picture

I'll probably catch hell for this, but wouldn't major college football be better off it if completely seceded from the NCAA, made its own modern era rule book, policed itself, created its own 4 conference power league (16 teams per conference let's say), and then have the 4 conference champions play in a 4 team playoff?  Seed the teams by record or, if records are the same, flip a damn coin for seeding for all I care.  Then, settle it on the field.
But what about ND?  Get over yourselves and join a conference.  What about Boise St.?  Burn the blue turf, act like a real university, join a conference and start beating Oregon and USC every year - problem solved.
But I need the coaches poll and BCS formula so I can sleep at night.  No you don't.  Plus, Urkel will be doing power rankings every other day anyway so he can make money off of trolling fan bases.  Nothing really changes - except that Urkel probably at least watches some of the games (same can't be said for coaches poll participants).
But Mark Emhert is my hero.  If that's true, I'm guessing you haven't seen a woman in your home for at least 10+ years.  Put on some pants and leave your basement once in awhile.
But what about the good teams that don't win their conference, i.e., wild cards?  As Chris Spielman would say:  "take a tough pill."  Plus, it's not like the other bowl events won't be standing around waiting to take people's money for high profile January matchups.
But I hate change.  <--- reason we have this mess on our hands.