Settling it in the conference room is the new settling it on the field.

Give Bill Hancock and the rest of the BCS brain trust credit for one thing:  they’ve managed to shift the debate away from who gets picked for the playoff field to who does the picking.

About these ads

29 Comments

Filed under BCS/Playoffs

29 responses to “Settling it in the conference room is the new settling it on the field.

  1. James

    Score one for predictability.

    I’m all for the 4-team thing, but honestly who are we kidding with the expert stuff? I know this is a slightly different construct, but point to a person on the planet that is “qualified” to tell me who goes to the BCS this year if Alabama, Oregon, Clemson, Stanford and Ohio State win out? It’s inherently arbitrary.

    • The other Doug

      It’s easy. There is no way Oregon and Stanford win out.

      • AusDawg85

        Put an undefeated Big 12 winner OU or Baylor on the list, undefeated Louisville, and the SEC winner with 1 loss instead and then try to justify the “4th best” team. And now you know why Stoops has been running his mouth about the SEC…he wants to be sure that the perception of the Big 12 gets changed to knock-out a 1 loss team from any other conference.

  2. Russ

    I’m worried that in an attempt to look unbiased, they will build in a bias against the SEC. There’s already the backlash against 7 straight titles and when it comes down to a choice between a 1 loss Georgia and a 1 loss Ohio State, they will pick the non-SEC team. Oh well, I guess we’ll just have to expand to 8 teams. ;)

  3. Scorpio Jones, III

    This stuff all happens after Missouri, right?

  4. Dog in Fla

    +1 for x15

    “x15
    46 Minutes Ago
    The SEC suggested a committee made up of Paul Bryant, Jr, Joe Namath, Phyllis from Mulga, Cecil Hurt, Jim from Tuscaloosa, Jim from Crestwood, Jay Barker, Bob Baumhower, Kenny Stabler, and several pro sports agents.”

  5. uglydawg

    This is going to end badly. Instead of taking the human bias out of the formula by eliminating polls, we’re going to see a bunch of people, and “famous” people who have they’re professional reputations at stake and are therefore going to make the choice that’s best for them, deciding who gets to play for it all. Bullshit. I think the SEC gets srewed…we will see a defacto “rationning” of slots going to cerain conferences.
    To counter this, the SEC should go ahead and make their own plans for the post season…including deals with other conferences to have their champs play each other and declare th winner to be N”National Chmpion”. You don’t have to participate in a system that is going to be stacked against you. This is a basd deal for the SEC.

    • So your solution to the SEC getting screwed by other conferences in the committee… is to cut deals with those same conferences to guarantee a place for the SEC.

      • uglydawg

        Not exactly..but it would be a nice option to keep things honest. I don’t think the SEC deserves a spot every year..but if it’s going to be biased then you have to counter somehow…I just don’t see how increasing the human input makes it fairer..it’s going to cause a lot of grief. My suggestion is just a way of saying there can be recourse.

        • I’m not arguing with your point about human input. You’re right about that. But the idea that there’s going to be some sort of systemic bias against the SEC is silly, because that’s bad for business. And that’s the whole raison d’être for the selection committee.

          • uglydawg

            Maybe so. It’s hard not to be a little paranoid when you hear the poorly disguised digs at how “the SEC is down this year” or “don’t rule out Notre Dame” or “the Pac-10 is really looking strongest”…etc..and you see Michigan highly respected and ranked for weeks, even though they are a bad team,: and all of it coming from televison broadcasters and commentators who are alos part of the business. ND last year is the perfect example. What’s going to be the difference? Just changing the facesz and names of the people who select…and making it official instead of sneaky does not encourage me. Now if they will put Cojones and Hogbody and a few otheres on the committee, I might ffeel better about it.

    • uglydawg

      ….and please excuse my typing errors. The Reply Box was jumping around and I couldn’t see what I was typing. It’s very difficult when you get past the third or fouth line.

  6. DC

    The PC smokescreen is so huge now that it will be impossible to have any committee that won’t be “fair and balanced.” Hell, why not an LBGT football fan representative, or an Ivy League representative, or a Fantasy League representative? Whaddaya say, let’s just make the selection process its own Reality TV show. The only partial solution will be to expand the playoffs, but that is likely to create some huge problems of its own.

  7. 69Dawg

    Reality check. If Alabama or LSU wins the SEC they will be in even if they have one loss. Only Florida from the East with the Florida mystic stands a chance as Champs with one loss. One loss non-champions Georgia, South Carolina etc are not going to bump no loss teams with the committee. It will be easy to explain it away. The idea the SEC is ever going to get two teams in a four team payoff is a laugher.

  8. Ptc dawg

    What is wrong with the current BCS Poll?

    Why not just use it?