|
Title: "Jim Delany does a playoff 180, supports four best teams" TRUE! Post by: Chechem on June 04, 2012, 01:51:58 PM http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/06/04/jim-delany-does-a-playoff-180-supports-four-best-teams/
:tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: :tinfoil: Quote Someone pinch me. It seems Jim Delany, easily the most conservative power broker in college football, has pulled an audible a month or so before the BCS committee is supposed to decide on the details of a four-team playoff. How so? During a Big Ten conference call this morning, Delany said he supported a playoff field consisting of the four best teams. Wait, wait, wait. Wait… wait. Didn’t Delany previously support a playoff field that featured, at least in some form or fashion, conference champions? Yes he did, and it was a good idea too.... Title: Re: "Jim Delany does a playoff 180, supports four best teams" TRUE! Post by: cbbama99 on June 04, 2012, 02:08:37 PM I think it was Brady Hoke called up JD and screamed "Stop pi**ing him off!!"
Title: Re: "Jim Delany does a playoff 180, supports four best teams" TRUE! Post by: Leroy on June 04, 2012, 02:16:54 PM I think it was Brady Hoke called up JD and screamed "Stop pi**ing him off!!" :lol: Title: Re: "Jim Delany does a playoff 180, supports four best teams" TRUE! Post by: BAMAWV on June 04, 2012, 03:37:30 PM I think it was CP that pointed this out (paraphrased) a couple of days ago:
"The Big12 is the only other conference with a non-conference champion making the BCSCG. Actually the Big12 has placed a non-conference champion twice in the BCSCG, 2001 Nebraska and 2003 Oklahoma. Neither of those teams won the Big12, but they competed in the BCSCG. Nebraska lost to Miami (2001 season) and Oklahoma lost to LSU (2003 season)." So the Big 12 lined up with the SEC on allowing 2 or more conference teams in the playoffs. The Big 10 and Pac 10/12 were for conference champs only. They figured they should be satisfied with automatically getting 1 team in the playoffs. They also must be giving up on the +1 idea. But now the problem exists as to how to select the teams. The Pac 10 and Big 10 are both convinced they are getting a raw deal out of the BCS process and the human polls. They say a GA makes the picks for CNS and also they feel a preseason poll is crazy. [This ignores the fact that the BCS poll doesn't come out until the 4 or 5th week and also that it is extremely rare for a team ranked #1 preseason to run the table and end up #1] So now they can't just give up without some kind of fight so they (Pac12 and Big 10) want to just count Ws and Ls so that'll make the playing field more level. I'd like for Slive to propose: 1) SECCG be made for NC and playoffs to decide who(m) gets #3 and #4. 2) They use defensive stats to decide tie breakers. Lowest PPG allowed or lowest YPC given up. 3) Notre Dame given 15 minutes to make up their mind. 4) ACC in a late breaking development given the playoff "auto-berth" instead of the Big or Pac 10. 5) New rule that people have to call the fans of the NC team "Sir" until a new champ is crowned. 6) Coaches with "Coach's Poll" votes have to put up $100,000 and that money is forfeited if you have your team more than 3 spots of what the poll ends up saying or you say your team is #1 and they don't end up in Top 5. 7) All non-SEC coaches must go on TV and admit that the SEC is by far better than any other conference and the reason things are being changed is primarily out of the goodness of the SEC's heart. 8) Cheerleaders from non-SEC schools must admit they shop at Ho-Mart when buying clothes. Title: Re: "Jim Delany does a playoff 180, supports four best teams" TRUE! Post by: cbbama99 on June 04, 2012, 03:41:54 PM I think it was CP that pointed this out (paraphrased) a couple of days ago: "The Big12 is the only other conference with a non-conference champion making the BCSCG. Actually the Big12 has placed a non-conference champion twice in the BCSCG, 2001 Nebraska and 2003 Oklahoma. Neither of those teams won the Big12, but they competed in the BCSCG. Nebraska lost to Miami (2001 season) and Oklahoma lost to LSU (2003 season)." So the Big 12 lined up with the SEC on allowing 2 or more conference teams in the playoffs. The Big 10 and Pac 10/12 were for conference champs only. They figured they should be satisfied with automatically getting 1 team in the playoffs. They also must be giving up on the +1 idea. But now the problem exists as to how to select the teams. The Pac 10 and Big 10 are both convinced they are getting a raw deal out of the BCS process and the human polls. They say a GA makes the picks for CNS and also they feel a preseason poll is crazy. [This ignores the fact that the BCS poll doesn't come out until the 4 or 5th week and also that it is extremely rare for a team ranked #1 preseason to run the table and end up #1] So now they can't just give up without some kind of fight so they (Pac12 and Big 10) want to just count Ws and Ls so that'll make the playing field more level. I'd like for Slive to propose: 1) SECCG be made for NC and playoffs to decide who(m) gets #3 and #4. 2) They use defensive stats to decide tie breakers. Lowest PPG allowed or lowest YPC given up. 3) Notre Dame given 15 minutes to make up their mind. 4) ACC in a late breaking development given the playoff "auto-berth" instead of the Big or Pac 10. 5) New rule that people have to call the fans of the NC team "Sir" until a new champ is crowned. 6) Coaches with "Coach's Poll" votes have to put up $100,000 and that money is forfeited if you have your team more than 3 spots of what the poll ends up saying or you say your team is #1 and they don't end up in Top 5. 7) All non-SEC coaches must go on TV and admit that the SEC is by far better than any other conference and the reason things are being changed is primarily out of the goodness of the SEC's heart. 8) Cheerleaders from non-SEC schools must admit they shop at Ho-Mart when buying clothes. All very reasonable suggestions. Title: Re: "Jim Delany does a playoff 180, supports four best teams" TRUE! Post by: 2Stater on June 04, 2012, 05:16:43 PM Quote Cheerleaders from non-SEC schools must admit they shop at Ho-Mart when buying clothes. :lol: :lol: :lol: #+ Title: Re: "Jim Delany does a playoff 180, supports four best teams" TRUE! Post by: Catch Prothro on June 05, 2012, 09:25:45 PM Delaney says he also wants the best 4 teams, but he is still speaking out of the side of his mouth. He doesn't mean based on computer rankings or human polls, he means the "real" four best teams, which undoubtedly is picked by a select committee and includes the Big10 champion.
Title: Re: "Jim Delany does a playoff 180, supports four best teams" TRUE! Post by: ricky023 on June 05, 2012, 10:15:51 PM :lol: some loud suggestions here. :bf: Why can't we just elect CNS to decide this stuff and get it over. :catsmile: now let's get real. Really the SECCG winner should auto be in NCG. :popcorn: Aight you know back to real life, we will wait to see what happens. :deadhorse: RTR!
Title: Re: "Jim Delany does a playoff 180, supports four best teams" TRUE! Post by: McBaman on June 06, 2012, 10:35:30 AM I wouldn't like a selection committee having 100% carte blanche to decide who are the "four best teams." Too much opportunity for political crap. Perhaps the committe's role could be limited to resolving differences between the BCS rankings system and the AP poll which is not part of the BCS computations. That would give the committee some latitude but not so much that they could easilyoverturn the broad collective judgment of all the voters in the Harris & Coaches polls.
You'll never be able to eleminate all politics from a Committee, but you can work to minimize it. |