Why should the coaches have all the fun?

Conflicts of interest have been one of the more enduring features of the Coaches Poll, so why should we be the least bit surprised if the new, improved College Football Playoff ponders going down the same road?

Current athletic directors will be used on the committee, an industry source told Sporting News Wednesday – a direct reversal from public statements made in May by CFP executive director Bill Hancock.

It now appears as the though the selection committee will consist of one athletic director from each of the five power conferences, former coaches and players and possibly former media members.

Gee, a backtrack from a Bill Hancock statement… that’s different.

This is about protecting the money trail.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Those of you who still think the playoffs are about settling things on the field, you may think you’re romantics, but there’s a more accurate term to describe you.  You’re suckers.

Oh, and this:

While current polls won’t be used in the process, there is concern among some in the working CFP group that failing to release a weekly ranking will allow the Associated Press and coaches polls – two polls that had defined the game for decades – to direct the narrative and therefore minimize the CFP poll.

Har de har har.  My bet is that transparency will be the next backtrack and they’ll tell the coaches to bring the Coaches Poll to an end.  Bonus points if Hancock hints that it’s necessary to do that to kill the perception of bias and conflicts of interest.  It’s for the good of the game, you know.


Filed under BCS/Playoffs

11 responses to “Why should the coaches have all the fun?

  1. James

    That second block quote is the most State of College Football thing ever.


  2. Bulldawg165

    Former players? Really? Geeze. Also, including only ADs from the big 5 doesn’t do too much to quell the complaints from the mid majors about fairness.

    How long do you think it will be until we eliminate the SEC championship game because it would allow us to get more teams into the final four? Heck, we could’ve gotten 3 in this past year!


  3. Cojones

    This sucker has always maintained that choosing teams by committee to represent in the NC falls short. They will always have this problem of bias. I say that an 8-team playoff chosen from all polls and other inputs will reduce the bias everyone is working overtime to prevent. Dilution of bias may be the only way. You can say what you want about the bias to determine the 7th and 8th team, but that too will be diluted by the large number of opinions to be dealt with.

    Choosing two and now Choosing four is for the hard-core suckers.


    • Chopdawg



    • Macallanlover

      Yes, the true suckers are those who prefer letting pollsters of any make-up select just two teams and call that adequate. When the 5 (maybe 6) conference champions have a spot in a play off, the impact of any group selecting the other 2-3 is minimized. That is earning it on the field.

      This does not endorse the proposal of selection being provided, I feel a compilation of several polls is the best way to minimize the bias factor (including the Mumme Poll.)


  4. paul

    Like we’ve been saying all along, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.


  5. Cousin Eddie

    I really expect ESPN to broadcast the final voting/discussion in a couple of years “to allow for transparency” well that and bigger bucks for the NCAA. Better yet just let ESPN select who they want, that is what will happen behind closed doors.


  6. Cosmic Dawg

    I wish they’d have just left this alone, I really do.


  7. Mayor of Dawgtown

    This whole thing is to prevent what happened in 2011 from ever happening again-2 teams from the SEC playing for the MNC. The books will be cooked to prevent this by the “impartial” committee. Also, there is so much SEC fatigue out there from other conferences look for the committee to leave out a 1 loss SEC Champion in favor of any teams that go through the season undefeated. It is very hard for the SEC Champion to go through the season (including the SECCG) undefeated. Imagine how much harder it will be when the SEC schedule expands to 9 games (a 9 game conference schedule plus the SECCG=10 games). We’re screwing ourselves and Slime is helping them do it-all for filthy lucre.


  8. 69Dawg

    The only way to unbias this mess is to let a computer do it. The BCS or whatever they call themselves now should meet and decide the criteria they want to have in ranking the teams. Hire a computer firm or audit agency to write a program to rank them based on this criteria and let her rip. To do it any other way is just a joke.