College Football Playoff details coming along slowly, committee formulates recusal policy

c01-sline-logo-30_001-4_3

One hundred and forty-five days remain until the 2014 college football season arrives that will usher in the new College Football Playoff, and many details still have to be worked out.

RELATED: Meet all 13 committee members

The 13-member selection committee met Wednesday and Thursday in Grapevine, Texas, with an agenda. The committee came up with their own recommendations for the upcoming season, including how often the rankings will be released and the recusal policy. These items will be submitted to the College Football Playoff management committee, consisting of 10 conference commissioners and Notre Dame’s athletic director, which will meet later this month to approve them.

The recusal policy determines which committee members can participate in team discussions, which includes ties to a particular university or not, etc. It is believed to be similar to the way the NCAA men’s basketball teams are chosen for the tournament.

Committee chairman (and Arkansas’ AD) Jeff Long met with the media, and he didn’t allow much information on the recusal policy, but he confirmed the committee is considering various voting methods, along with determining which data they will use to help them rank the teams accurately. Again, the details are coming along…slowly.

The selection committee isn’t expected to meet again until August.

Here are details we do know:

  • The committee will rank the top 25 teams, but they won’t be transparent. We will not know first-place votes or the total number of points like the AP makes available now.
  • The data will be evaluated individually before the committee comes together to make a collective decision.
  • The first poll will be released sometime during the middle of the season, much like the initial BCS rankings.
  • It is not known the frequency of the top 25 rankings after the initial rankings are released.

Photo Credit: Kirby Lee-USA TODAY Sports

COMMENTS

You must be logged in to post a comment. Please sign in or register

  • The committee didn’t get off to a very good start. As Jon Cooper pointed out, they have yet to configure a computer (non-human, non-political measuring device, in fact they went the opposite way by picking a politician to sit on the committee). What they should be looking for to populate the committee are the smartest football people who have resumes with multiple NCAA leagues. This would not eliminate bias but it could dilute it to non-factor strength. The most trusted unbiased refs should be on this committee. Anyone who has financial stakes should be eliminated, especially financial-media combination stakes. Proven unbiased media should be represented and this can be scientifically tested by examining the content of their recorded dialogue. Defining the targets still hasn’t been published. Are they looking for the 4 best season records, or the 4 hottest teams of November-December, or the four healthiest rosters at the time the play-offs start, or the four best records x strength of schedule. At some point strength of schedule is going to have to be defined by way more than winning records of opponents. Finally football fans are not going to put up with the strong-slient type. All the talk is going to have to be justified in the media (this is the media’s job). Fans should demand to know exactly what NCAA play-off champion means. Because for all the flaws in the old political media system fans knew what those popular votes meants. And to a lesser extent in the BCS system fans kinda knew what that hybird meant.