Mouse is at it again. AD's will select CollegePlayoff.

[slick1ru2]

 

He's saying that no spots should be reserved for any conference, they should all be earned and all teams have an equal chance at earning them, not automatically be given them because of their conference.

 

Fair 'nuff. And we will not grouse and complain should the best G(5) team, as determined by The Committee, is found somewhere around spot #13 or #15 on the end-of-season totem pole, thus not being included in any playoff nor BCS bowl, right? 

 

There are 13 1aa conferences. 2 don't compete in the playoffs. The Ivy leagues chooses not to due to academics, the SWAC doesn't because of scheduling conflicts. Next year every conference gets at least one automatic bid and there will be 24 teams going to the playoffs for 11 conferences. Playoff games start in November. See the difference?

[BDYZR]

 

 

The ONLY way this is going to be stopped is through the federal government. There are public schools involved and what you have is one set of school admins controlling an enormous amount of money, denying the public schools of 5 conferences left out a chance at competing. The threat of government intervention was the reason that the playoffs came about and the P5 ADs have appeared to have forgotten that the whole idea was better access to non-BCS schools to the championship. What is needed is a Czar appointed to straighten this mess out and make it fair for all involved.

 

We live in a free country, and our economy is based on capitalism.  If you want "fair" for all involved, you want communism.  With capitalism, everyone is free to make whatever agreements they wish.

 

 

 

Problem is you forgot the word OPEN. free and OPEN market. In Capitalism, everyone should have the same opportunity, not chance, but opportunity. If the P5 limits the # of teams that are allowed from the G5, then they do not have the same opportunity as the P5 teams. As many have said, I don't think that it's a legal issue. 

 

and this is different from the old BCS system how? Since when has any team other than the one from the original power conferences had a real chance at competing for a NC?

[slick1ru2]

 

 

 

The ONLY way this is going to be stopped is through the federal government. There are public schools involved and what you have is one set of school admins controlling an enormous amount of money, denying the public schools of 5 conferences left out a chance at competing. The threat of government intervention was the reason that the playoffs came about and the P5 ADs have appeared to have forgotten that the whole idea was better access to non-BCS schools to the championship. What is needed is a Czar appointed to straighten this mess out and make it fair for all involved.

 

We live in a free country, and our economy is based on capitalism.  If you want "fair" for all involved, you want communism.  With capitalism, everyone is free to make whatever agreements they wish.

 

 

 

Problem is you forgot the word OPEN. free and OPEN market. In Capitalism, everyone should have the same opportunity, not chance, but opportunity. If the P5 limits the # of teams that are allowed from the G5, then they do not have the same opportunity as the P5 teams. As many have said, I don't think that it's a legal issue. 

 

and this is different from the old BCS system how? Since when has any team other than the one from the original power conferences had a real chance at competing for a NC?

 

Uh, that's why the playoffs were put it, for the 2006 situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCS_controversies#Non-AQ_Bowl_Selection_Controversy

 

Non-AQ Bowl Selection Controversy

Unrelated to the title game was the controversy regarding the bowl selections. While at No. 6, Boise State was able to earn an at-large berth, the announcement that they would be playing No. 4 TCU in the Fiesta Bowl caused a massive outcry and also focused the controversy on the broader issue of truly fair access to Bowl opportunities, rather than just appearances. As the two "BCS Busters" would be matched up against each other and would thereby be denied the opportunity to face a top team from one of the six BCS conferences, instead providing a rematch of a non-BCS bowl from the previous year (see above), the BCS came off looking " at best, a cowardly cartel".^[47] Placing two teams from non-AQ conferences in the same bowl also contradicted the previous assertion that non-AQ schools are less likely to receive at-large bids because the bowls prefer the superior drawing power of the big schools and their highly mobile fanbases—hence undefeated Boise State's omission from the BCS the previous year in favor of two-loss Ohio State. For this reason, some are calling this match up the "Separate but Equal Bowl," or the "Fiasco Bowl."

The issue of far more consequence brought to the fore as a result of this game was that of access to equal and fair competition, the access to the chance to compete for and win the "Big Game" in the first place. There was a tremendous amount of criticism surrounding the 2010 Fiesta Bowl team pairing. Many argued that the BCS was terrified of a non-BCS team defeating a BCS team and bringing into question ever more starkly the entire premise of the BCS's existence, that teams from BCS Conferences are somehow superior to non-BCS teams and are therefore more deserving to play for the "National Championship". A defeat of a top ranked BCS team would help affirm that this premise was false – as the impressive record of non-BCS teams in BCS Bowls (4–2 against BCS AQ teams) already hints at. Consequently, the BCS paired TCU and BSU together so that the possibility of an embarrassment of an AQ school, and by extension the entire system's validity, was eliminated.^[48][49]

 

Edited July 18, 2013 by slick1ru2

[Bull-by-Marriage]

 

He's saying that no spots should be reserved for any conference, they should all be earned and all teams have an equal chance at earning them, not automatically be given them because of their conference.

 

Fair 'nuff. And we will not grouse and complain should the best G(5) team, as determined by The Committee, is found somewhere around spot #13 or #15 on the end-of-season totem pole, thus not being included in any playoff nor BCS bowl, right?  The reason I say that is last year, the first G(5) teams I found were Utah State @ 16 and Boise State @ 18 (AP Top 25). 

 

 

Yes, while that would truly suck, it would be a truly equitable system. No guaranteed seats at the bar.

[Triple B]

 

 

He's saying that no spots should be reserved for any conference, they should all be earned and all teams have an equal chance at earning them, not automatically be given them because of their conference.

 

Fair 'nuff. And we will not grouse and complain should the best G(5) team, as determined by The Committee, is found somewhere around spot #13 or #15 on the end-of-season totem pole, thus not being included in any playoff nor BCS bowl, right?  The reason I say that is last year, the first G(5) teams I found were Utah State @ 16 and Boise State @ 18 (AP Top 25). 

 

 

Yes, while that would truly suck, it would be a truly equitable system. No guaranteed seats at the bar.

 

 

If the "bar" is the 4 team playoffs, there are no guaranteed seats now  ... but if you're talking Access Bowls, there are some.

[Triple B]

 

 

 

The ONLY way this is going to be stopped is through the federal government. There are public schools involved and what you have is one set of school admins controlling an enormous amount of money, denying the public schools of 5 conferences left out a chance at competing. The threat of government intervention was the reason that the playoffs came about and the P5 ADs have appeared to have forgotten that the whole idea was better access to non-BCS schools to the championship. What is needed is a Czar appointed to straighten this mess out and make it fair for all involved.

 

We live in a free country, and our economy is based on capitalism.  If you want "fair" for all involved, you want communism.  With capitalism, everyone is free to make whatever agreements they wish.

 

 

 

Problem is you forgot the word OPEN. free and OPEN market. In Capitalism, everyone should have the same opportunity, not chance, but opportunity. If the P5 limits the # of teams that are allowed from the G5, then they do not have the same opportunity as the P5 teams. As many have said, I don't think that it's a legal issue. 

 

and this is different from the old BCS system how? Since when has any team other than the one from the original power conferences had a real chance at competing for a NC?

 

 

It's not any different except in the fact that there are 4 possible opportunities to play for the MNC rather than 2 ....

[gibbsak]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9485441/college-football-playoff-selection-committee-include-ads-sources-say

 

"The "working concept" is to have one athletic director representing each of the five power conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC), sources said. It is unknown whether any current athletic directors from the remaining conferences (American, Conference USA, Mid-American, Mountain West and Sun Belt) would be on the committee".

 

When you have AD'S and a ton of money involved along with ESPN you know that those NOT in the so called Power 5 will be excluded.  

 

Aresco, Doug this is where you need to step up and earn your money.  Time to fight the EVIL EMPIRE!!!

 

Fight the "Empire?"  Thought we wanted Doug to fight our way in.  

 

Not sure how they can only let Power 5 ADs choose and this be any more "fair" than the current BCS.  Then again, I don't think the change in the system was based on fairness, just money.

 

[slick1ru2]

 I am kinda fuzzy on this new system. So the 4 non Power 5 slots, Are they in a true playoff that if they go undefeated they can win the NC or just in the top tier of bowl games?

[Triple B]

 

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9485441/college-football-playoff-selection-committee-include-ads-sources-say

 

"The "working concept" is to have one athletic director representing each of the five power conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC), sources said. It is unknown whether any current athletic directors from the remaining conferences (American, Conference USA, Mid-American, Mountain West and Sun Belt) would be on the committee".

 

When you have AD'S and a ton of money involved along with ESPN you know that those NOT in the so called Power 5 will be excluded.  

 

Aresco, Doug this is where you need to step up and earn your money.  Time to fight the EVIL EMPIRE!!!

 

Fight the "Empire?"  Thought we wanted Doug to fight our way in.  

 

Not sure how they can only let Power 5 ADs choose and this be any more "fair" than the current BCS.  Then again, I don't think the change in the system was based on fairness, just money.

 

 

 

There would be 7 to 15 other members on the committee but who knows how pliable they'll be ....

[Joe]

That's where the antitrust dies. In the playoff there are no reserved seats. Multiple p5 conferences can be left out too...