The makeup of the Selection Committee is more than a little curious. How did there end up being two Arkansas reps as 2/3rds of the SEC-affiliated officials? Smells like Jerry Jones.

For those who don't want to research, the following affiliations are represented:
Baylor
Univ of Nevada
Nebraska
Cincinnati / Michigan State
Kansas / Arkansas
Sportswriter (college unknown)
Middle Tennessee St
Nebraska / Oregon State
Miami (Ohio)
Ole Miss
Virginia
Arkansas

Baylor thinks we have Marcus Reed playing and they're leading it all

https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/selection-committee/roster/mack-rhoades/58

The committee needs to be overhauled and truly be impartial. He has enough conflicts of interest to clearly be red flags even to a blind man

Silver lining - at least the two Arky reps sure as **** know how to pronounce Marcel's name correctly.

Even with a computer, you cannot keep out the bias of the person inputting the information deemed relevant for the ranking

If you think that committee is bad you should look at who selects them...lol. Cusa, pac 12, Acc, of course notre dame gets a full vote like a conference, Mid A, Mount west, Sun b, A.C, B12, and B10, Sec. The sec gets the president of miss st. The weakest member in the the conference.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Even with a computer, you cannot keep out the bias of the person inputting the information deemed relevant for the ranking

---

I could also see a computer doing the job pretty well. There shouldn't be much need for human input. The computer could have automatic settings for handicapping home vs away, etc. The only two variables I could see that would need any input at all would be what constitutes "garbage time" scoring during a game and the effect of high value players being injured or missing a game. The Committee could make up algorithms for the former, but the latter is always going to be an issue. I am sure I am missing something but there is so little conference parity these days, what is a two-loss SEC team who played tOSU or Notre Dame on the road compared to a two-loss Big 12 team who played only creampuffs, both in and out of conference?

Agsone said:

---

Baylor
Univ of Nevada
Nebraska
Cincinnati / Michigan State
Kansas / Arkansas
Sportswriter (college unknown)
Middle Tennessee St
Nebraska / Oregon State
Miami (Ohio)
Ole Miss
Virginia
Arkansas

---

Better context:

Baylor (Mack Rhoades) - AD & Administrator about 20 years
Nevada (Chris Ault) - 28 yrs as a football coach
Nebraska (Troy Dannen) - career AD
Cincinnati/Michigan State (Mike Dantonio) - 20+ year coach
Kansas/Arkansas (Jeff Long) - career administrator for NCAA and colleges (very small time coaching)
Sportswriter (Ivan Maisel) - covered cfb since 1987
Middle Tennessee St (Chris Massaro) - 40+ years of AD and administration
Nebraska / Oregon State (Mike Riley) - career coach
Miami (Ohio) (David Sayler) - career AD
Ole Miss (Wesley Walls) - former player - college and pro
Virginia (Carla Williams) - career as an AD (played womens CBB at Georgia)
Arkansas (Hunter Yurachek) - career AD (played CBB at Guilford College)

So:
7 administrators
1 sports writer (but a good one)
3 coaches
1 player
1/3 of the committee "knows ball". The rest are suits who love donors more than football.

He Who Shall Be Unnamed said:

---

ATL Aggie said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

The committee needs to be overhauled and truly be impartial.

---

That's impossible. There is no way to keep bias out of it.

---

Exactly. This is 2025. A computer should be doing it. Reward schools that play tough schedules (the kinds of games that foster fan interest but might hurt your overall record unlike so many of these out of conference "scheduled wins").

---

Correct. This decision does not need human interference as we've proven incapable of doing so without extreme bias.

Honestly, when they went to the playoffs they should have just kept using the BCS computers. Just have them pick the field.

Quote:

---

I could also see a computer doing the job pretty well.

---

of course it could do the job pretty well.

so can a committee

so can one person



the point is that there is still bias. You cannot get rid of that. Look at sagarin. It has Notre Dame #10. Why? Because the bias of the person inputting the numbers as to what matters and what doesn't.

Yep. It's all about politics and $$$$. Same as our government. Anyone that thinks otherwise is naive.

ElephantRider said:

---

Honestly, when they went to the playoffs they should have just kept using the BCS computers. Just have them pick the field.

---

BCS Ranking (WHERE CFP DIFFERS IN CAPS)

1.Ohio State 0.9904
2 Indiana 0.9591
3 Texas A&M 0.9198
4 Alabama 0.8662
5 Georgia 0.8177
6 Ole Miss 0.7692
7 Oregon 0.7474---------BYU
8 BYU 0.7115------------- TEXAS TECH
9 Texas Tech 0.6292-----OREGON
10 Notre Dame 0.5857
11 Texas 0.5195
12 Oklahoma 0.5076
13 Louisville 0.4773-------UTAH
14 Virginia 0.4428
15 Vanderbilt 0.3961-------LOUISVILLE
16 Utah 0.3750--------------VANDERBILT
17 Georgia Tech 0.3716
18 Miami 0.3315
19 Michigan 0.2870---------USC
20 USC 0.2615-------------- IOWA
21 Missouri 0.2516---------- MICHIGAN
22 Tennessee 0.1465--------- MISSOURI
23 Memphis 0.1010--------- WASHINGTON
24 Washington 0.0980-------- PITTSBURGH
25 Iowa 0.0863---------------TENNESSEE


Sorry for the ugly formatting. For what really matters its pretty much the same.
And I would bet its even closer at the end of the season.

You left out 'control.' The 'public servants' in the government care about $$$$ and control. Yet their masters already have all the money they need, so they are more focused on control.

ATL Aggie said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

The committee needs to be overhauled and truly be impartial.

---

That's impossible. There is no way to keep bias out of it.

---

Very easy to keep bias out of it

Everyone understands the committee are just puppets. The networks decide the playoffs.

For instance Notre Dame has two losses. One to Miami.

Louisville only has one loss that was in OT and beat Miami.

Yet they are ranked below Notre Dame.

BeefCommander said:

---

You left out 'control.' The 'public servants' in the government care about $$$$ and control. Yet their masters already have all the money they need, so they are more focused on control.

---

Sir, this is a Wendy's

Kool said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Even with a computer, you cannot keep out the bias of the person inputting the information deemed relevant for the ranking

---

I could also see a computer doing the job pretty well. There shouldn't be much need for human input. The computer could have automatic settings for handicapping home vs away, etc. The only two variables I could see that would need any input at all would be what constitutes "garbage time" scoring during a game and the effect of high value players being injured or missing a game. The Committee could make up algorithms for the former, but the latter is always going to be an issue. I am sure I am missing something but there is so little conference parity these days, what is a two-loss SEC team who played tOSU or Notre Dame on the road compared to a two-loss Big 12 team who played only creampuffs, both in and out of conference?

---

But what he's saying is the bias is baked into the computer program because a human created the program

But, I think the bias is much less this way than if you are using human opinions over data run through a program

I remember the first iteration of the bcs that used computers pretty heavily and it had all the analysts heads spinning because it was putting out rankings that in some cases were much different than what their human brains told them they should be


So of course they changed the bcs to put way more weight on the human polls and way less weight on the computer rankings

He Who Shall Be Unnamed said:

---

ATL Aggie said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

The committee needs to be overhauled and truly be impartial.

---

That's impossible. There is no way to keep bias out of it.

---

Exactly. This is 2025. A computer should be doing it. Reward schools that play tough schedules (the kinds of games that foster fan interest but might hurt your overall record unlike so many of these out of conference "scheduled wins").

---

Define "tough" schedules. The problem with handing it to a computer can be summed up by the circle of suck. If baylol beats tard who beats cougar high who beats baylol, the computer is not going to be able to tell you who is better based on W/L. You could go point differential, but what if the "winner" edged out second place by a point in 2 home games while second place played both on the road? You started getting into subjective valuations of metrics and how the model is built real fast.

For love of all that is holy, please don't resurrect the Harris Poll…

CC00 said:

---

Agsone said:

---

Baylor
Univ of Nevada
Nebraska
Cincinnati / Michigan State
Kansas / Arkansas
Sportswriter (college unknown)
Middle Tennessee St
Nebraska / Oregon State
Miami (Ohio)
Ole Miss
Virginia
Arkansas

---

Better context:

Baylor (Mack Rhoades) - AD & Administrator about 20 years
Nevada (Chris Ault) - 28 yrs as a football coach
Nebraska (Troy Dannen) - career AD
Cincinnati/Michigan State (Mike Dantonio) - 20+ year coach
Kansas/Arkansas (Jeff Long) - career administrator for NCAA and colleges (very small time coaching)
Sportswriter (Ivan Maisel) - covered cfb since 1987
Middle Tennessee St (Chris Massaro) - 40+ years of AD and administration
Nebraska / Oregon State (Mike Riley) - career coach
Miami (Ohio) (David Sayler) - career AD
Ole Miss (Wesley Walls) - former player - college and pro
Virginia (Carla Williams) - career as an AD (played womens CBB at Georgia)
Arkansas (Hunter Yurachek) - career AD (played CBB at Guilford College)

So:
7 administrators
1 sports writer (but a good one)
3 coaches
1 player
1/3 of the committee "knows ball". The rest are suits who love donors more than football.

---

This. The majority are just old goof balls who know nothing about football. It is evidenced weekly as they explain their rationale for rankings.

Let Vegas oddsmakers do the rankings..

Hill08 said:

---

ATL Aggie said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

The committee needs to be overhauled and truly be impartial.

---

That's impossible. There is no way to keep bias out of it.

---

Very easy to keep bias out of it

---

I'd love to hear your thoughts on how.

Agsone said:

---

The makeup of the Selection Committee is more than a little curious. How did there end up being two Arkansas reps as 2/3rds of the SEC-affiliated officials? Smells like Jerry Jones.

For those who don't want to research, the following affiliations are represented:
Baylor - hates TAMU
Univ of Nevada - probably agnostic
Nebraska - hates TAMU
Cincinnati / Michigan State - likely pro Big Ten bias
Kansas / Arkansas - hates TAMU
Sportswriter (college unknown) - probably agnostic
Middle Tennessee St - probably agnostic
Nebraska / Oregon State - hates TAMU
Miami (Ohio) - likely pro Big Ten bias
Ole Miss - possibly pro-SEC
Virginia - probably agnostic / pro-ACC
Arkansas - hates TAMU

---

Maisel went to Stanford

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

He Who Shall Be Unnamed said:

---

ATL Aggie said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

The committee needs to be overhauled and truly be impartial.

---

That's impossible. There is no way to keep bias out of it.

---

Exactly. This is 2025. A computer should be doing it. Reward schools that play tough schedules (the kinds of games that foster fan interest but might hurt your overall record unlike so many of these out of conference "scheduled wins").

---

Define "tough" schedules. The problem with handing it to a computer can be summed up by the circle of suck. If baylol beats tard who beats cougar high who beats baylol, the computer is not going to be able to tell you who is better based on W/L. You could go point differential, but what if the "winner" edged out second place by a point in 2 home games while second place played both on the road? You started getting into subjective valuations of metrics and how the model is built real fast.

---

I get it. And there is obviously no perfect system. For it to work well, there needs to be more inter-conference play. Perhaps the Committee could set up an initial ranking, or rely on an average of AP and Coaches Polls for week one and then let the computer take over from there.
As an aside, I have a nerdy friend who does the same thing on his own and he does a pretty good job of coming up with rankings. His week one formula relies heavily on returning starters, with more points awarded to "key" roles such as WR.
Let's see how much *****ing whoever is number 13 does when the final poll is released and the pairings are made.

Jimbo4win said:

---

The majority are just old goof balls who know nothing about football.

---

Like the Zoo

He Who Shall Be Unnamed said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

He Who Shall Be Unnamed said:

---

ATL Aggie said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

The committee needs to be overhauled and truly be impartial.

---

That's impossible. There is no way to keep bias out of it.

---

Exactly. This is 2025. A computer should be doing it. Reward schools that play tough schedules (the kinds of games that foster fan interest but might hurt your overall record unlike so many of these out of conference "scheduled wins").

---

Define "tough" schedules. The problem with handing it to a computer can be summed up by the circle of suck. If baylol beats tard who beats cougar high who beats baylol, the computer is not going to be able to tell you who is better based on W/L. You could go point differential, but what if the "winner" edged out second place by a point in 2 home games while second place played both on the road? You started getting into subjective valuations of metrics and how the model is built real fast.

---

I get it. And there is obviously no perfect system. For it to work well, there needs to be more inter-conference play. Perhaps the Committee could set up an initial ranking, or rely on an average of AP and Coaches Polls for week one and then let the computer take over from there.
As an aside, I have a nerdy friend who does the same thing on his own and he does a pretty good job of coming up with rankings. His week one formula relies heavily on returning starters, with more points awarded to "key" roles such as WR.
Let's see how much *****ing whoever is number 13 does when the final poll is released and the pairings are made.

---

That is the benefit of 12 over 4 or 2. First team out is way further down the list and while their fans might be upset, it is unlikely to matter concerning who wins the NC.

Bill Superman said:

---

He Who Shall Be Unnamed said:

---

ATL Aggie said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

The committee needs to be overhauled and truly be impartial.

---

That's impossible. There is no way to keep bias out of it.

---

Exactly. This is 2025. A computer should be doing it. Reward schools that play tough schedules (the kinds of games that foster fan interest but might hurt your overall record unlike so many of these out of conference "scheduled wins").

---

Correct. This decision does not need human interference as we've proven incapable of doing so without extreme bias.

---

Agree, im even ok programming a little 'profitability' weighting in to account for viewership and past big game performance.

The advantage of a computer rank is that while there may be bias in determining what factors matter, the bias would generally be independent of the school name.

Better yet, you could take all the stats and all the games played and use principle component analysis to have the computer identify key data and the weightings without relying on the bias from the programmer in picking which stats are important.

You could also factor in key injuries by looking at the production of the injured player and the relative production of the other players at that position that will need to step up.

They should just let me decide