"BCS executive director Bill Hancock said the selection committee would consist of between 14-20 members, including at least one individual representing each of the 10 FBS conferences."
http://espn.go.com/college-football...off-selection-committee-consist-14-20-members
Let's be clear on what they are doing here. They are telling the MWC, MAC, Sun Belt, etc... they have an equal say in this process.
This isn't the worst part though:
"The selection committee will receive a "jury charge" from the commissioners. In ranking the teams, the committee will consider strength of schedule, where the games were played, conference championships and whether teams lost games because of injuries to key players."
I've been over the conference champions part, and by adding the football welfare conferences, they are only reinforcing that notion. The MWC or MAC is going to argue on behalf of conference champions because they know that is their in. If they want to sneak one of their teams in one of these years, they need strong precedent for showing favor to conference champions. Likewise, it is entirely possible that the Sun Belt and the SEC have the same amount of representation on this committee. The SEC won 7 straight in a fairly objective process, so the only way to fix it is to make it a subjective process.
I knew it would get worse though, and it does. Now, they have the Colt McCoy clause introduced. You might have lost a couple games, but if a key player was hurt, you get a do over.
I could go on, but why bother? We're witnessing a train wreck and I just hope Alabama gets three in a row, because after that they'll have the means to make it much more difficult.
http://espn.go.com/college-football...off-selection-committee-consist-14-20-members
Let's be clear on what they are doing here. They are telling the MWC, MAC, Sun Belt, etc... they have an equal say in this process.
This isn't the worst part though:
"The selection committee will receive a "jury charge" from the commissioners. In ranking the teams, the committee will consider strength of schedule, where the games were played, conference championships and whether teams lost games because of injuries to key players."
I've been over the conference champions part, and by adding the football welfare conferences, they are only reinforcing that notion. The MWC or MAC is going to argue on behalf of conference champions because they know that is their in. If they want to sneak one of their teams in one of these years, they need strong precedent for showing favor to conference champions. Likewise, it is entirely possible that the Sun Belt and the SEC have the same amount of representation on this committee. The SEC won 7 straight in a fairly objective process, so the only way to fix it is to make it a subjective process.
I knew it would get worse though, and it does. Now, they have the Colt McCoy clause introduced. You might have lost a couple games, but if a key player was hurt, you get a do over.
I could go on, but why bother? We're witnessing a train wreck and I just hope Alabama gets three in a row, because after that they'll have the means to make it much more difficult.
Last edited: