Playoff / Bowl Selections

#3
Here are the remaining New Year's Six match-ups:

-Goodyear Cotton Bowl Classic: #17 Memphis (12-1) vs. #10 Penn State (10-2)
-Capital One Orange Bowl: #9 Florida (10-2) vs. #24 Virginia (9-4)
-Rose Bowl Game presented by Northwestern Mutual: #6 Oregon (11-2) vs. #8 Wisconsin (10-3)
-Allstate Sugar Bowl: #5 Georgia (11-2) vs. #7 Baylor (11-2)
 
#4
Can’t believe that our win against Wisconsin didn’t make top ten plays just shown on ESPN. The field goal changed their season to a point. That is the way I see it.
 
Likes: SouthFLILLINI
#6
Did the committee give a reason for putting LSU #1? Ohio St had the tougher schedule and bigger pt differential against top 25 teams....by a lot.
 
#8
Did the committee give a reason for putting LSU #1? Ohio St had the tougher schedule and bigger pt differential against top 25 teams....by a lot.
The SEC marketing machine strikes again. That machine has done such a great job over the years. I have lived in the South over the last 25 years and continue to see it work. GA got spanked by a very avg college football team yet, the media is trying to make it seem like LSU had to climb a mountain to win in the SEC Championship game.
 
Likes: Dude
#9
St Louis
There is nothing about LSU's body of work or play on the field that would reconcile with "very avg college football team". They won their conference, were impressive doing, and are rightly recognized with a spot in the CFP. I don't really think it matters whether their #1 or #2 or whatever, you're in and you get to play.

Good thing the media isn't part of the committee.
 
#10
There is nothing about LSU's body of work or play on the field that would reconcile with "very avg college football team". They won their conference, were impressive doing, and are rightly recognized with a spot in the CFP. I don't really think it matters whether their #1 or #2 or whatever, you're in and you get to play.

Good thing the media isn't part of the committee.
Well being ranked 1 vs 2 is very important this year. There is a non-insignificant gap between Clemson and Oklahoma. Now, you could argue if you want to be national champs, you should be able to beat anyone any day... but an easier road isn't something to turn away from.

OSU and LSU both had their own cases for making that top spot. I think recency bias is the main culprit--beating the 4th ranked team by 27 vs beating the 8th ranked team by 13, while having very similar resumes otherwise, probably propelled LSU to 1. What's curious to me is that they ranked OSU as 1 for the past couple weeks. I dont think the two games i just mentioned should've caused OSU to drop, even given how poor a first half they played.
 
#11
There is nothing about LSU's body of work or play on the field that would reconcile with "very avg college football team". They won their conference, were impressive doing, and are rightly recognized with a spot in the CFP. I don't really think it matters whether their #1 or #2 or whatever, you're in and you get to play.

Good thing the media isn't part of the committee.
1. Pretty sure he was referring to South Carolina beating Georgia
2. There is a HUGE difference between #1 and #2. You get to pick the location between the two bowls and you play #4 not #3. This year that amounted to LSU playing Oklahoma in the state of Georgia over playing Clemson
3. Everyone has an agenda. To think all the board members do not rely on the media to establish their opinions on each football team is naïve. Yes some of them watch a lot of football. But they are not watching every game that helps shape the landscape. Remember when Condoleezza Rice was on the committee? How many football games do you think she actually watched? ESPN/Disney/ABC have an SEC network. It is in their best interest financially for the SEC to be in the spotlight.

Don't take that for anything more than what I wrote. Didn't say LSU wasn't good and I didn't say they did nor did not deserve the #1 spot. But as always, if you are using human opinion as a factor to decide the National Championship, there is always going to be a high risk of manipulation
 
#12
St Louis
Gotcha on Georgia, I didn't pick up he was talking about SC.

I don't think for a minute that the committee members *rely* on media to establish their opinions. That makes no sense. These are football people; former coaches, players, administrators, etc. You think Barry Alvarez relied on the media to establish his opinions? He's one of the most hard nosed, hard headed guys out there. You think Ronnie Lott is going to form his opinions based on what ESPN is saying?

I would wager that Condoleezza Rice watched way more games than you give her credit for. Being on the committee is not a country club gig where you roll out some rankings and then get drinks. It's a serious job and for the integrity of the sport I do believe they take it seriously.

From Rice, after leaving the committee

"I've been on a lot of committees -- government, corporate, university -- and I've said many times, I think it's the best committee I've ever served on," Rice said Monday. "We had this thing of checking our hats at the door. Everybody really did. Everybody was there for a common goal and really working really hard toward it. There weren't agendas in the room, and I really enjoyed it tremendously."

and...

"There was a real sense we were trying to set a high bar, and a bar where people could have trust in the decisions, even if they didn't agree," she said. "That sense of joint purpose, it's really inspiring and I've really enjoyed it."
 
Last edited:
#13
Cary, IL
Gotcha on Georgia, I didn't pick up he was talking about SC.

I don't think for a minute that the committee members *rely* on media to establish their opinions. That makes no sense. These are football people; former coaches, players, administrators, etc. You think Barry Alvarez relied on the media to establish his opinions? He's one of the most hard nosed, hard headed guys out there. You think Ronnie Lott is going to form his opinions based on what ESPN is saying?

I would wager that Condoleezza Rice watched way more games than you give her credit for. Being on the committee is not a country club gig where you roll out some rankings and then get drinks. It's a serious job and for the integrity of the sport I do believe they take it seriously.
Well, then I would like to remove my name from future consideration. :)
 
#14
Gotcha on Georgia, I didn't pick up he was talking about SC.

I don't think for a minute that the committee members *rely* on media to establish their opinions. That makes no sense. These are football people; former coaches, players, administrators, etc.
Or are they? I can't let that comment slide since the good professor's only qualification is that before being a professor, she was... in the media.

As an aside, I didn't catch he was talking about the South Carolina win over Georgia, either.
 
Likes: Dude
#15
Gotcha on Georgia, I didn't pick up he was talking about SC.

I don't think for a minute that the committee members *rely* on media to establish their opinions. That makes no sense. These are football people; former coaches, players, administrators, etc. You think Barry Alvarez relied on the media to establish his opinions? He's one of the most hard nosed, hard headed guys out there. You think Ronnie Lott is going to form his opinions based on what ESPN is saying?

I would wager that Condoleezza Rice watched way more games than you give her credit for. Being on the committee is not a country club gig where you roll out some rankings and then get drinks. It's a serious job and for the integrity of the sport I do believe they take it seriously.

From Rice, after leaving the committee

"I've been on a lot of committees -- government, corporate, university -- and I've said many times, I think it's the best committee I've ever served on," Rice said Monday. "We had this thing of checking our hats at the door. Everybody really did. Everybody was there for a common goal and really working really hard toward it. There weren't agendas in the room, and I really enjoyed it tremendously."

and...

"There was a real sense we were trying to set a high bar, and a bar where people could have trust in the decisions, even if they didn't agree," she said. "That sense of joint purpose, it's really inspiring and I've really enjoyed it."
Wait so she came out and said she did a wonderful job along with all her fellow members??? Ok I guess I'm sold now

And if she watched more than 1 game every week, that is more than I give her credit for. So not a very high bar
 
#16
Or are they? I can't let that comment slide since the good professor's only qualification is that before being a professor, she was... in the media.

As an aside, I didn't catch he was talking about the South Carolina win over Georgia, either.
I assume you are talking about our very own UI grad Paula Boivin... shame on you!

AZ sports HOF
23 years as a sports reporter in AZ
Prez AWSM

Can't say as those qualifications mean she is incapable of making educated decisions.
 
#17
I assume you are talking about our very own UI grad Paula Boivin... shame on you!

AZ sports HOF
23 years as a sports reporter in AZ
Prez AWSM

Can't say as those qualifications mean she is incapable of making educated decisions.
It is not about whether people can or cannot make educated decisions. It is about personal agenda's, preferences, and the scope of how they gather their information pertaining to every college football program significant in the playoff picture.
 
#18
It is not about whether people can or cannot make educated decisions. It is about personal agenda's, preferences, and the scope of how they gather their information pertaining to every college football program significant in the playoff picture.
I guess I just don't understand how you can be concerned about a lifelong female sports reporter's agenda, preferences, etc... yet not be concerned about the males on the committee who likely have much much stronger connections to various programs/agents/players/etc..... IMO she has reason to be LESS biased in her picks than the others do.... Speaking solely about this year, I think most everyone on this board could have picked the top 4 teams for the playoffs so the discussion is somewhat moot (I really wanted to put mute in there just to rile up some UI English Majors and revive an older IL topic of discussion). We might be split 50/50 on who is #1 perhaps.... but the reasoning for either team is solid....
 
Last edited:
#19
I assume you are talking about our very own UI grad Paula Boivin... shame on you!

AZ sports HOF
23 years as a sports reporter in AZ
Prez AWSM

Can't say as those qualifications mean she is incapable of making educated decisions.
Well, our very own Paola, not Paula (for shame!), Boivin, yes. I made no comment about her decision making capabilities, simply that she is not a "football person" and that her qualifications, which you listed, are all media related.
 
#21
Some of you must be apoplectic that sports writers get to vote for admission into the MLB HOF!!! Cuz those 'media guys' they certainly know nothing about sports, right?????
 
#22
I guess I just don't understand how you can be concerned about a lifelong female sports reporter's agenda, preferences, etc... yet not be concerned about the males on the committee who likely have much much stronger connections to various programs/agents/players/etc..... IMO she has reason to be LESS biased in her picks than the others do.... Speaking solely about this year, I think most everyone on this board could have picked the top 4 teams for the playoffs so the discussion is somewhat moot (I really wanted to put mute in there just to rile up some UI English Majors and revive an older IL topic of discussion). We might be split 50/50 on who is #1 perhaps.... but the reasoning for either team is solid....
Sir I am not concerned about any one individual at all. It is the process that I disagree with.
 
Likes: KevinC
#23
Some of you must be apoplectic that sports writers get to vote for admission into the MLB HOF!!! Cuz those 'media guys' they certainly know nothing about sports, right?????
It is well reported that more than a handful of media members vote unfavorably toward players that were not "nice" to the media. So thank you for giving me my perfect example. Human's with agendas
 
#24
It is well reported that more than a handful of media members vote unfavorably toward players that were not "nice" to the media. So thank you for giving me my perfect example. Human's with agendas
In regards to MLB HOF admission, there are many people who believe that personal conduct is, or should be, part of the criteria. Others do not.

Humans cannot be removed from the process, whether we are talking MLB HOF or NCAA FB playoff selection/seeding or any other sports selection committee. Therefore, there will always be opportunities for someone to claim bias of some sort in one form or another, whether its actually present or not. It all depends on one's perspective I suspect. Anyways, I've not seen any negative feedback on the 4 teams selected this year, outside of the 1-2 slot. And while I personally would have picked OSU as #1 since they were there before this last weekend, and won, I can't fault the reasoning for making the switch.

So you don't like the process? Great, maybe start a thread and we can flesh it out. I don't think it can be changed in a way that pleases everyone. If they make a change of some sort that satisfies you, it will tick someone else off who was happy before the change, so things basically wouldn't have changed, big picture.
 
Likes: Dude
#25
There is nothing about LSU's body of work or play on the field that would reconcile with "very avg college football team". They won their conference, were impressive doing, and are rightly recognized with a spot in the CFP. I don't really think it matters whether their #1 or #2 or whatever, you're in and you get to play.

Good thing the media isn't part of the committee.
I was not talking about LSU. Georgia got spanked by another very average football team.