[stupac2]

(influenced by hopelessly biased media types)

OutsiderFan, you don't know what you are talking about. There are three components to the BCS rankings: the coaches' poll, the computer rankings, and the Harris Interactive poll. Only the last group has anything at all to do with "media types," and they are a tiny minority among the other members, who include former players, coaches and administrators. (An even tinier minority when you filter out people like Gil Brandt, whose media position -- NFL.com analyst -- is the result of a long career in football itself, as a personnel guy for the Dallas Cowboys.)

Here's a New York Times story on half a dozen Harris voters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/sports...d=all&_r=0

Obviously that's anecdotal. But here's a link to the entire list of voters.** Clearly the New York Times story is a lot closer to capturing the essence of these voters than the idiotic dismissal of them as "hopelessly biased media types."

http://collegefootball.rivals.com/conten...CID=869530

It is comically stupid to say this BCS selection process is biased and the new playoff selection system won't be. What makes Ty.rone Will.ingham or Condi Rice or Archie Manning or Pat Haden immune to bias? Anything that involves voting by human beings entails bias. And the idea that a newspaper reporter is more biased than the University of Second Choice. athletic director is patently absurd.


** This list may be a year out of date -- it doesn't include Tommy Vardell, for instance, who I think I read is a voter now -- but there's no reason to think the Harris composition is materially different now.

You're correct to first order, but the problem is that to second order those people's opinions are influenced by the drivel coming out of ESPN about "OMG SEC SO GOOD" with no balance about SOS or anything. The problem, of course, is that you're also correct that the committee is just as likely to be influenced by that sort of thing. However, my guess is that discussion and debate will tend to wash it out more than just voting on placement will,  but who knows?

Anyway I don't think OF is entirely wrong but he's not entirely right either. There's a lot of lazy bias out there in the CFB world and it mostly works against the PAC.

[stupac2]

(influenced by hopelessly biased media types)

OutsiderFan, you don't know what you are talking about. There are three components to the BCS rankings: the coaches' poll, the computer rankings, and the Harris Interactive poll. Only the last group has anything at all to do with "media types," and they are a tiny minority among the other members, who include former players, coaches and administrators. (An even tinier minority when you filter out people like Gil Brandt, whose media position -- NFL.com analyst -- is the result of a long career in football itself, as a personnel guy for the Dallas Cowboys.)

Here's a New York Times story on half a dozen Harris voters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/sports...d=all&_r=0

Obviously that's anecdotal. But here's a link to the entire list of voters.** Clearly the New York Times story is a lot closer to capturing the essence of these voters than the idiotic dismissal of them as "hopelessly biased media types."

http://collegefootball.rivals.com/conten...CID=869530

It is comically stupid to say this BCS selection process is biased and the new playoff selection system won't be. What makes Ty.rone Will.ingham or Condi Rice or Archie Manning or Pat Haden immune to bias? Anything that involves voting by human beings entails bias. And the idea that a newspaper reporter is more biased than the University of Second Choice. athletic director is patently absurd.


** This list may be a year out of date -- it doesn't include Tommy Vardell, for instance, who I think I read is a voter now -- but there's no reason to think the Harris composition is materially different now.

You're correct to first order, but the problem is that to second order those people's opinions are influenced by the drivel coming out of ESPN about "OMG SEC SO GOOD" with no balance about SOS or anything. The problem, of course, is that you're also correct that the committee is just as likely to be influenced by that sort of thing. However, my guess is that discussion and debate will tend to wash it out more than just voting on placement will,  but who knows?

Anyway I don't think OF is entirely wrong but he's not entirely right either. There's a lot of lazy bias out there in the CFB world and it mostly works against the PAC.