Should the playoff committee do the selction blind?

[rmilia1]

Should teams names be left off of the resumes?? Ie should the only info the committee be privy to be scores, SOS, computer rakings of the teams you played etc. For example Lets say

Team A

vs #116 W by
@ #28 W by 16
vs #121 W by 41
vs #81 W by 24
vs #6 W by 24
@ #29 W by 28
vs #42 W by 34
@ #103 W by 45
vs #50 W by 31
vs #1 L by 2
@ #31 W by 17
@ #33 W by 28

Team B

vs #82 W by 27
vs #64 W by 26
@ #35 W by 26
@ #14 W by 1
vs #91 W by 42
@ #17 W by 12
@ #16 W by 21
vs #13 W by 35
vs #19 W by 7
@ #53 W by 60
@ #41 L by 5
vs #4 W by 34

- That seems like a pretty reasonable question and seems like you have all the info you need. You know where the games were, the strength of the team played, the MOV. You could include info on injuries if you wanted etc but by not naming teams and just assigning them a numerical value dont you get a truer, less biased selection process?? They do this to an extent in CBB but its probably less needed in that sport since so many teams make the tourney.

 

[4down20]

No, because all that "blind" stuff people do is pretty stupid usually and typically involves people who cherry pick a few games/stats in order to force a conclusion they want.

Even your list above doesn't say much of anything about who they played, how they played or anything else. It's extremely narrow data and if you want to go that route the computers are able to do the same things with many more stats.

Every time someone makes one of those blind lists, I want to throat punch them for wasting space.

 

[outofyourmind]

Yeah, just put them all in a dark room for the season with no TV or Radio's.
That ought to work out good.

 

[Brasky]

Yeah, just put them all in a dark room for the season with no TV or Radio's.
That ought to work out good.

right?

I mean I get where the OP is coming from completely. I do.

Really though, it could end up just as ugly going off of pure numbers. What would you call a system that goes off of strictly numbers?? Oh yeah that's right, the BCS.

 

[Rolltide94]

Should teams names be left off of the resumes?? Ie should the only info the committee be privy to be scores, SOS, computer rakings of the teams you played etc. For example Lets say



- That seems like a pretty reasonable question and seems like you have all the info you need. You know where the games were, the strength of the team played, the MOV. You could include info on injuries if you wanted etc but by not naming teams and just assigning them a numerical value dont you get a truer, less biased selection process?? They do this to an extent in CBB but its probably less needed in that sport since so many teams make the tourney.

Why have a committee at all then, just use a computer and give it whatever variables you want...that should work out well.

 

[rmilia1]

No, because all that "blind" stuff people do is pretty stupid usually and typically involves people who cherry pick a few games/stats in order to force a conclusion they want.

Even your list above doesn't say much of anything about who they played, how they played or anything else. It's extremely narrow data and if you want to go that route the computers are able to do the same things with many more stats.

Every time someone makes one of those blind lists, I want to throat punch them for wasting space.

Well you could use more data I suppose. I just think doing it blind is a better solution but of course I can see why a Bama fan may disagree LOL. I think it could 100% work if you just had the committee pick what data they needed and provide them with that. HOW a team played is extremely subjective and can be skewed based on bias and feelings.

 

[4down20]

Well you could use more data I suppose. I just think doing it blind is a better solution but of course I can see why a Bama fan may disagree LOL. I think it could 100% work if you just had the committee pick what data they needed and provide them with that. HOW a team played is extremely subjective and can be skewed based on bias and feelings.

1. You are basically talking about a computer ranking.
2. Everyone is going to know which team is which anyway.
3. It's the exact opposite of why they formed a committee(which btw I don't even care for).
4. All the data is needed, which includes....watching the games.
5. Subjective is the reason they have more than 1 person on the committee.

 

[rmilia1]

Why have a committee at all then, just use a computer and give it whatever variables you want...that should work out well.

Actually Id be fine with that but I assume most wouldnt. I just never know how to use the "eye test" as part of the equation when all of us have inherent bias towards a team, a conference, a region of the country etc etc. Plus you cant really use the eye test if you dont watch every second of every game that ALL the teams even in remote consideration play in. I mean that is a shit ton of work and even then you cant get a true idea since there is no way to watch that much football and not be mentally exhausted thus skewing your opinion on what you saw. Numbers are really the only sure fire common theme we could use.

 

[rmilia1]

1. You are basically talking about a computer ranking.
2. Everyone is going to know which team is which anyway.
3. It's the exact opposite of why they formed a committee(which btw I don't even care for).
4. All the data is needed, which includes....watching the games.
5. Subjective is the reason they have more than 1 person on the committee.

I dont know man. Maybe, maybe not. Even if they do know the data may opem their eyes. I do think they need to watch the games but I think it may be necessary for the committee to watch games with commentary or something. I feel like a lot of the time networks or ESPN carry too much weight as well.

 

[4down20]

I dont know man. Maybe, maybe not. Even if they do know the data may opem their eyes. I do think they need to watch the games but I think it may be necessary for the committee to watch games with commentary or something. I feel like a lot of the time networks or ESPN carry too much weight as well.

If they don't, then they obviously don't watch college football enough to make an informed decision anyway.

At any rate, it doesn't even matter because what you've basically suggested with this entire topic is that a computer should decide who goes, only you've failed to properly label it as a computer and just ask the human to do the computer thing.

 

[theboardref]

Should teams names be left off of the resumes?? Ie should the only info the committee be privy to be scores, SOS, computer rakings of the teams you played etc.



- That seems like a pretty reasonable question and seems like you have all the info you need. You know where the games were, the strength of the team played, the MOV. You could include info on injuries if you wanted etc but by not naming teams and just assigning them a numerical value dont you get a truer, less biased selection process?? They do this to an extent in CBB but its probably less needed in that sport since so many teams make the tourney.

In theory, I think that would be a great idea. In practice, it would never work. It takes 2 seconds of research to figure out which team is which. If they are doing their job as good as they should be doing they should know the majority of this stuff even without truly knowing which team is which. It is rare that I ever fail the "blind resume test" when it pops up ESPN. I doubt these people would be too fooled. I agree with the idea, but in practice it really is pointless.

 

[theboardref]

If they don't, then they obviously don't watch college football enough to make an informed decision anyway.

At any rate, it doesn't even matter because what you've basically suggested with this entire topic is that a computer should decide who goes, only you've failed to properly label it as a computer and just ask the human to do the computer thing.

Notice everyone complained about the "Eye Test" back in 2011, yet what is a committee doing.... it isn't facts it is putting people in a room and discussing their eye tests.

 

[4down20]

Notice everyone complained about the "Eye Test" back in 2011, yet what is a committee doing.... it isn't facts it is putting people in a room and discussing their eye tests.

Yeah that playoff commercial they have going on the SEC network with Rudy blames computers for all the problems of the BCS and makes out like the committee is the solution to it all.

I thought it odd because 2011 was such a big reason for the playoffs, yet the computers had OSU ahead of Alabama for the most part, but the humans had Alabama ahead. Yet, they completely removed that element now, and the real fix to the entire thing is not computers vs committee, but just the simply addition of more teams.

 

[TigerBait1971]

How can you do the all important "eye test" when you are blind?!?!

 

[4down20]

How can you do the all important "eye test" when you are blind?!?!

Put me in a room with a bunch of naked girls and I can show you my method.

 

[theboardref]

Yeah that playoff commercial they have going on the SEC network with Rudy blames computers for all the problems of the BCS and makes out like the committee is the solution to it all.

I thought it odd because 2011 was such a big reason for the playoffs, yet the computers had OSU ahead of Alabama for the most part, but the humans had Alabama ahead. Yet, they completely removed that element now, and the real fix to the entire thing is not computers vs committee, but just the simply addition of more teams.

I think the idea of them releasing weekly polls is brain dead to be blunt. There will be a lot more scrutiny with their selection/ranking process.

 

[rmilia1]

Yeah that playoff commercial they have going on the SEC network with Rudy blames computers for all the problems of the BCS and makes out like the committee is the solution to it all.

I thought it odd because 2011 was such a big reason for the playoffs, yet the computers had OSU ahead of Alabama for the most part, but the humans had Alabama ahead. Yet, they completely removed that element now, and the real fix to the entire thing is not computers vs committee, but just the simply addition of more teams.

Yeah this was my biggest issue with a committee. The computers were, for the most part, the least biased of the 2 options yet they abandoned them altogether for the selection process. Now hopefully the process involves the computers but I have a feeling it will generally just be a small group of good old boys voting for the teams they have some sort of bias or affiliation with. I suppose MOST years itll be relatively easy but there will be years where an unbeaten Non Power 5 gets passed up for a 2 loss Power 5 team or a 1 loss West Virnia/Iowa/Oregon St/Texas Tech type team gets passed up for a 2 loss Bama/Oklahoma/Ohio State/USC type team. Then the conjecture will begin anew. LOL.

 

[rmilia1]

I think the idea of them releasing weekly polls is brain dead to be blunt. There will be a lot more scrutiny with their selection/ranking process.

Yeah can you imagine the NCAA CC committee releasing a weekly update or their brackets??? LOL, kind of would lose the excitement of the announcements.

 

[963BUSC]

If they don't, then they obviously don't watch college football enough to make an informed decision anyway.

At any rate, it doesn't even matter because what you've basically suggested with this entire topic is that a computer should decide who goes, only you've failed to properly label it as a computer and just ask the human to do the computer thing.

If they know enough to be on the committee then they should know who the teams are even labeled A,B, and C.

 

[Rolltide94]

I vote for not just blind, but blindfolded...

The Selection Show will feature committee members pulling team names printed on tails and an elaborate donkey wall hanging...4 closest to the BH are in...

Of course their will be controversy, peeking, pin placement angle, tails that fall off, 4 AAC teams in the semis, improper disorientation of members before setting them loose...but, at least it will be fair and unbiased.

Seriously though, I might actually prefer this to a computer based selection.