Category Archives: BCS/Playoffs

The continuing saga of settling it on the field

I don’t know if this is a matter of semantics, or if these guys are serious about the distinction, but the selection committee continues its weekly mission of making me scratch my head.

In wide-ranging interviews with four committee members last week — Arkansas athletic director Jeff Long, Clemson athletic director Dan Radakovich, Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez and former NCAA executive vice president Tom Jernstedt — none cared to compare conferences.

“At this point in the process, I don’t think in terms of conference strength,” Long said. “I think at the end of the day that’s something we’ll look back on and say [how relevant conference strength was.] … The balloting process we do will compare teams against each other and who they’ve played, and I think that’s less about conference than it is who they’ve played, even within a conference.”

Jernstedt agreed.

“I don’t think there’s any need to make a judgment as to this conference is better than that conference,” he said. “You sit there and evaluate this team versus that team. Our obligation is to select the four best teams.”

If the SEC West plays out as the meat grinder it appears to be and those schools eat each other while continuing to destroy outside competition (no SEC West team has a loss outside the division yet), how is the strength of the conference not relevant to the selection committee’s deliberations?

Well, if the committee members are concerned about something other than spreading the wealth around to the power conferences, that is.

About these ads


Filed under BCS/Playoffs

Thank yew, college football playoffs.

Nail, meet Rick Neuheisel’s hammer:

It’s only September, but we’re all talking about playoffs.

“It’s kind of sad,” says Neuheisel, who has taken part of the discussion in his role with the Pac-12 Network. “We’ve now created everything where I look at Georgia, and in Week One I say they’re a ‘final four’ team. Week Two, they’re out. Neither one of those premises are true. There’s still so much to be played.”

I know ESPN’s gotta ESPN, but he’s right.  There is so much playoff noise in the system now and I suspect that’s played a part in contributing to our level of disappointment this week.  Which is a shame, because as clichéd as it is for Georgia’s players and coaches to talk about their goals being unchanged, it’s still true, especially given that Georgia’s overcome losses to South Carolina before to get to the SECCG.


Filed under BCS/Playoffs

ADs of a feather…

You will no doubt be shocked, shocked to learn that Jeff Long is totally fine with the idea that Pat Haden’s partisan behavior at the USC-Stanford game has no bearing on his ability to serve dispassionately on the playoff selection committee.

“Well, you know, Bill Hancock from the College Football Playoff issued a statement. But my view is very similar. You know, we can all get passionate about our teams, and you know, I’m passionate about the Arkansas Razorbacks. Matter of fact, I was at the volleyball game last night, and I was excited about some calls. But, you know, the Pac-12 handled it as they should. I think that it doesn’t affect the way that Pat Haden’s going to evaluate teams, make tough decisions when we come down to making tough decisions in the selection process. So, you know, I don’t think his actions affect his ability to serve extremely well on the Playoff Committee.”

Even if he did, I doubt he’d tell us.  In any event, once you start questioning one athletic director’s impartiality, where will it end?  Not at volleyball games, that’s for sure.


Filed under BCS/Playoffs

“This doesn’t affect his capability as a committee member.”

Face it, if Bill Hancock had declared Pat Haden’s conduct to be a problem for the selection committee, it’s hard to see how he could have stopped there and not gone on to question having any active AD serving on the committee.  That, of course, is the real issue being swept under the rug.

Eh, we’ll probably all have a good laugh about it the day the playoffs expand to sixteen teams.


Filed under BCS/Playoffs

They’ll always have transparency.

Remember this?

“The members of the selection committee are an outstanding group of people with high integrity and excellent judgment, and ultimately the decision will be theirs,” Hancock said when the College Football Playoff released selection details.

That Bill… what a card.

Yesterday, Pat Haden, selection committee member and USC athletic director (as we are about to see, not necessarily in that order), freaked out during the Southern Cal-Stanford game in response to a complaint by Steve Sarkisian about the officials throwing too many penalty flags, and, well

Haden jogged across Stanford Stadium field between the third and fourth quarters of USC’s 13-10 victory after he said he received a text message saying USC Coach Steve Sarkisian wanted to talk to him…

Television cameras showed Haden as he stood next to Sarkisian on the sideline, engaged in an animated conversation with officials.

At one point, a broadcaster said Sarkisian had to pull a “fired up” Haden back from the discussion.

The optics, to say the least, are terrible.

The decision by Haden to run to the sideline to assist his coach is now raising eyebrows — not just because of its bizarre nature — but because Haden is part of the 13-member College Football Playoff selection committee…

Haden is recused from voting for USC in the selection process, but his actions Saturday bring into question the biases committee members take into the selection process.

Ya’ think?  Maybe not, if you’re Pat Haden.

Asked after the game if he was concerned about the appearance created by a member of the selection committee on the field engaging the officials, Haden shook his head and said, “I’m the athletic director of my team as well.”

As long as you’ve got your priorities straight, I guess that makes it okay.  Even if Bill Hancock’s gone all Stacey Osburn on us.

Through a spokeswoman, College Football Playoff executive director Bill Hancock declined to comment on Haden’s sideline incident because he had not had a chance to see it.

Maybe he can wait until next February to watch it.


Filed under BCS/Playoffs

Playoff selection committee to America: trust us!

Year2 picks up a revealing quote from Stewart Mandel’s column on Michigan State-Oregon.

“When [committee members] are comparing and contrasting teams, part of it will be the elements that go into a schedule,” he said. “It’s probably not going to be very satisfying to a lot of the analytics community that wants formulas. ‘We looked at Stanford’s schedule and it was 46.45 and Alabama’s was 46.34, so then Stanford’s is better.’ We’re not looking at it that way, and the committee’s not looking at it that way.

“… We could build a fancy algorithm, but kind of how the Supreme Court said you know pornography when you see it, you just know a hard schedule when you see it.”

That quote isn’t from Bill Hancock, or one of the committee members.  It’s from Stephen Prather, the guy who’s providing the committee with its data.  The stat geek, in other words.

We’ve gone from relying on computer models for which the specifics were kept undisclosed to relying on people for whom we’ll never really know what specific data swayed them in deciding on which four football teams are most deserving of appearing in a national semi-final.  (Notice I didn’t use the word “best”.)  I’m not seeing where that’s really much of an improvement.  And at least you can’t lobby a computer.

I mockingly noted in a Twitter discussion today that it’s all good because Jeff Long has repeatedly assured us that the selection process will be transparent.  There’s a certain sense of being detached from reality for a guy with his management track record to insist that he knows everything will work.


Filed under BCS/Playoffs

“There’s so much information out there.”

Despite all the assurances about the members’ college football smarts and the wealth of information to be made available to each selection committee person, somebody’s worried about the dissemination of information, or something, because here’s the next genius move:

The College Football Playoff selection committee has finalized what it calls “point persons” to gather material about teams in each conference and independent schools.

In an attempt to make sure no facts go overlooked, the 13-member selection committee assigned two people to fully review each conference and the independents…

Bill Hancock, executive director of the playoff, said conferences will designate someone — most likely their commissioner — to funnel information to their selection-committee contacts. Schools can also choose to provide information to the selection-committee contacts.

The point-person process is similar to what the NCAA basketball tournament selection committee uses. Examples of information that football playoff committee point persons may collect include injury updates, Hancock said.

Other types of information “could be things like this team maybe has played better in the last two games because the left tackle is developing,” Hancock said. “Or things like, ‘Hey, remember this team won all of its nonconference games by relying on the run and now they’ve become more diversified.'”

So what we’ve got here is people set up to receive spin from the conferences who in turn can spin the spin to the committee.

“They will not speak on behalf of any conference or institution during the committee’s deliberations or represent any conference’s or independent institution’s interests during those deliberations,” the statement said. “Their function is to gather information and ensure that it is available to the committee. Their role as a liaison to a particular conference or independent institution is purely for the purpose of objective fact-gathering.”

Yeah, right.  You can sense the oncoming train wreck, can’t you?


Filed under BCS/Playoffs