🏈 Danny Kanell speaks, Herbie says "Dude, what's happened to you...you're better than this."

[Max]

 

[ColoradoTide]

"You’re better than that!!!"

No he's not.

 

[Tidestalker]

Ironically Herbie is dead off base here and DK is right.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, outside of the ACC/B10 would want to see Clemson vs Ohio State. Last year was a joke.

The Alabama vs Clemson games have been epic. And Alabama is Alabama, everyone loves to root against.

This was a legit reason to leave Ohio State out... Sorry Herbie. You wrong playa

 

[TUSKtimes]

Kanell honestly believes that ESPN doesn't value Ohio State? Joey and Jesse have been literally locked together in a death grip spouting B1G/buckeye propaganda.

 

[Destiny's Child]

For the most part I agree with what Kirby says. He is pretty logical.. every now and then his pro big tem bias comes out but for the most part that is all.. it's not anti-sec it just Pro-big10.

Danny is desperate for whatever he can get. He is trying to copy finebaum and that skinny weasel with the hot blonde on his show who just say stuff to stir up the most hysterical fanbases and get an audience. He is hack and will end up selling insurance before next year ends or being a sports radio host in Tallahasee marking 40k a year.. Mark my words

 

[musso]

Burn! Haha.

The ESPN crew, particularly Chris Fowler, made an amazing admission during the play off reveal special: that one of the play off committee's original objectives was to help augment regional/conference dominance. In other words, they exist to keep all the non-southeastern regions of the country engaged and to "spread more opportunity" to the teams outside the Southeast. After a decade or so of BCS dominance by the SEC, culminating in the all-SEC BCS title game of 2011 (LSU vs Bama), their mission is to give the postseason more legitimacy.

Yet, they still chose to include non-champion Bama despite already having to include Georgia and Clemson. That's 3 of the 4 teams all within a few miles of each other. The question is why, when it seems so opposed to the purpose of the committee?

I think Danny's point answers this question: any system has the primary need to justify itself, above and beyond any secondary and tertiary objectives. The Big Ten champ went scoreless in 2015 (Mich St vs Bama) and also in 2016 (Oh St vs Clemson). This year they narrowly defeated Wisconsin, a team universally considered to be barely top-ten worthy. They have an injured QB who heavily relies on his mobility to move the ball. What happened when he faced Clemson last year when he was healthy? 31-0.

By choosing Bama, the play off committee is essentially telling Oh St, "Ah hell no, we ain't about to risk another blowout loss to Clemson again. Let's go with a more promising matchup." You have to believe that the committee was excited to have Ohio St's ugly loss to Iowa at their disposal, giving them the critical flexibility to prefer a non-champion over a Power Five champion. This is why their mission is to select the four "best" teams, not the four "most deserving" teams. "Best" has no objective meaning. This vague criteria gives the committee the necessary absolute power to help maximize the play-off's entertainment value.

It would be politically inconvenient for them to come out and say, "Well the starting QB for Ohio St is injured ... and their whole offense is predicated on his mobility ... and remember how badly Clemson's defense dominated Ohio St last year ... we can't risk another blowout semifinal ... we need to sell an entertaining product and justify our own existence by overriding a predictive standard, like making conference titles a prerequisite for play off consideration..

So I say Danny is right, but that doesn't mean the committee isn't also right. They made the right choice, in my opinion, but to Danny's point, let's understand what the "right choice" really means. "The right choice" has fundamental commercial underpinnings to it. Kirk reflexively has to defend the "integrity" of the system, since he works for and promotes that very system.

 

[TUSKtimes]

Burn! Haha.

The ESPN crew, particularly Chris Fowler, made an amazing admission during the play off reveal special: that one of the play off committee's original objectives was to help augment regional/conference dominance. In other words, they exist to keep all the non-southeastern regions of the country engaged and to "spread more opportunity" to the teams outside the Southeast. After a decade or so of BCS dominance by the SEC, culminating in the all-SEC BCS title game of 2011 (LSU vs Bama), their mission is to give the postseason more legitimacy.

Then I would have to conclude that Chris Fowler is under the wrong conclusion. Since the conclusion of the BCS era, the 2011 game between Bama/LSU has supposedly been the impetus for our new playoff formate. After only 4 years we have now seen on 2 separate occasions, power 5 teams get into the playoff without the benefit of winning their division or conference championship. Sounds like what's new is kinda old.

Individually, we have watched even the strongest advocate of conference championships cave like a house of cards to justify his pet non-champion conference team. If I recall correctly, B1G commissioner Delany's reasoning went something like, " that was then, this is now." How profound. So if this was the strategy for originating the 4 team playoff, it sure didn't take long for one of the strongest advocates, Delany, to be happy and thrilled to stray from those valued and scared principles.

As for the playoff committee and what I have heard from the beginning, their criteria has been stated publicly many times that they would take into consideration conference championships, but not at the expense of leaving out those teams who they consider being the BEST team. Perhaps Fowler was elsewhere on assignment.

 

[musso]

Then I would have to conclude that Chris Fowler is under the wrong conclusion... Perhaps Fowler was elsewhere on assignment.

You are conflating the ostensible purpose with its actual purpose. I've listened to Fowler and followed him since his beginning at ESPN. The dude isn't naive. He knows the business in and out.

Not to get political (although it's impossible to see the play off committee as anything but political), 99% of all governing bodies inevitably contradict their stated mission. It's simply in the nature of monopolistic behavior and organizational/group psychology. Monopolies just aren't natural phenomena. What is natural is constant change, evolution, creation and then entropy, order and chaos and then order again, etc. Monopolies can only maintain themselves by force or deception. That's why secrecy is integral to their function. If we admit then that monopolies are inherently unnatural, then you realize they must exist, first and foremost, for their own preservation and their favored patrons. Have you EVER seen a political body experience the epiphany of its own irrelevance? Have you ever seen busy-bodies awaken to the sudden realization that society has progressed in such a manner that it no longer benefits from the "service" of the busy-bodies?

Again, I direct your attention to my earlier point about the significance of selecting "the best" teams rather than "the most deserving" teams. To select "the most deserving" begs the obvious question, "Well then can you tell the public the formula you use to determine the most deserving teams?" But they can't do that. To publicize and surrender the details of objective criteria and protocol would necessarily undermine the committee's importance and limit their power to override at their discretion any customary norms. You risk giving "the keys to the castle" to everyone. If everyone has access to the castle, then there effectively is no castle anymore. Hierarchy requires exclusion and secrecy. And you need secrecy if your primary mission is anything other than what you have publicly stated.

They simply can't admit to the public that their existence is actually to sell the illusion of equity while continuing to prioritize revenue over all other considerations.

 

[TerryP]

Ironically Herbie is dead off base here and DK is right.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, outside of the ACC/B10 would want to see Clemson vs Ohio State. Last year was a joke.

The Alabama vs Clemson games have been epic. And Alabama is Alabama, everyone loves to root against.

This was a legit reason to leave Ohio State out... Sorry Herbie. You wrong playa

So the nation, and the media, have Bama fatigue. But, they chose a team everyone is fatigued with for ratings.

 

[Tidestalker]

So the nation, and the media, have Bama fatigue. But, they chose a team everyone is fatigued with for ratings.

Where did I say they have Bama fatigue?

Same idea with the Yankees and Patriots (formerly Lakers and Bulls)... People love rooting against the bully. Especially when the previous 2 games were barn buners and the Ohio State game was a joke.

If you really believe that ratings and matchups have nothing to do with the selection, you probably believe in Santa Clause and professional wrestling as well.

 

[musso]

So the nation, and the media, have Bama fatigue. But, they chose a team everyone is fatigued with for ratings.

Those aren't mutually exclusive propositions. I see Bama fatigue everywhere I go, both online and in the real world. However, everyone I have heard express an opinion believes Bama would provide a more entertaining contest and storyline/hype.

 

[TUSKtimes]

You are conflating the ostensible purpose with its actual purpose. I've listened to Fowler and followed him since his beginning at ESPN. The dude isn't naive. He knows the business in and out.

Not to get political (although it's impossible to see the play off committee as anything but political), 99% of all governing bodies inevitably contradict their stated mission. It's simply in the nature of monopolistic behavior and organizational/group psychology. Monopolies just aren't natural phenomena. What is natural is constant change, evolution, creation and then entropy, order and chaos and then order again, etc. Monopolies can only maintain themselves by force or deception. That's why secrecy is integral to their function. If the existence of monopolies are inherently unnatural, then you realize they exist, first and foremost, for their own sake and their primary patrons. Have you EVER seen a political body experience the epiphany of its own irrelevance? Have you ever seen busy-bodies awaken to the sudden realization that society has progressed in such a manner that it no longer benefits from the "service" of the busy-bodies?

Again, I direct your attention to my earlier point about the significance of selecting "the best" teams rather than "the most deserving" teams. To select "the most deserving" begs the obvious question, "Well then can you tell the public the formula you use to determine the most deserving teams?" But they can't do that. To publicize and surrender the details of objective criteria and protocol would necessarily undermine the committee's importance and limit their power to override at their discretion any customary norms. You risk giving "the keys to the castle" to everyone. If everyone has access to the castle, then there effectively is no castle anymore. Hierarchy requires exclusion and secrecy. And you need secrecy if your primary mission is anything other than what you have publicly stated.

They simply can't admit to the public that their existence is actually to sell the illusion of equity while continuing to prioritize revenue over all other considerations.

Dude, you just went a hell of a long way to say that all imperfect human nature is selfish. That it's impossible for humans to do anything without a preconceived bias. I agree wholeheartedly, it is our nature and our failings. But know this, whether you decide the correct formula is BEST or MOST DESERVING, humans will always, selfishly, cum it up.

Now, tell me something really important like, what you plan on doing about imperfect human nature?

 

[musso]

Dude, you just went a hell of a long way to say that all imperfect human nature is selfish. That it's impossible for humans to do anything without a preconceived bias. I agree wholeheartedly, it is our nature and our failings. But know this, whether you decide the correct formula is BEST or MOST DESERVING, humans will always, selfishly, cum it up.

Now, tell me something really important like, what you plan on doing about imperfect human nature?

Ha well, I'm just trying to demystify the process. Fans get emotional and try to defend the "legitimacy" of their team being included or the "injustice" of their team being excluded. Fans shouldn't think in those terms. I do however think it's more fair now than the BCS. I think expanding it to 8 teams would create more problems than solutions, unless they "trimmed the fat" by reducing FBS member schools, thus effectively rebooting the system and imposing more parity.

We've had many threads over the many years about what sort of reforms are needed to improve the game. I've always replied with the same proposal: make the conditions of postseason participation more objective and normative. The NFL does this well. Every team knows what they must do (and not do) to survive. No need for a cabal to "manage" outcomes. The power is with each team to determine its destiny. When rules are transparent, then everyone is treated fairly.

 

[musso]

Meant to include, that of course, we have legacy institutions (bowls) who refuse to surrender their primacy and allow for such reforms. They want to keep getting their share of the money. Just another example of my earlier points about how power never voluntarily surrenders.

 

[TUSKtimes]

Ha well, I'm just trying to demystify the process. Fans get emotional and try to defend the "legitimacy" of their team being included or the "injustice" of their team being excluded. Fans shouldn't think in those terms. I do however think it's more fair now than the BCS. I think expanding it to 8 teams would create more problems than solutions, unless they "trimmed the fat" by reducing FBS member schools, thus effectively rebooting the system and imposing more parity.

We've had many threads over the many years about what sort of reforms are needed to improve the game. I've always replied with the same proposal: make the conditions of postseason participation more objective and normative. The NFL does this well. Every team knows what they must do (and not do) to survive. No need for a cabal to "manage" outcomes. The power is with each team to determine its destiny. When rules are transparent, then everyone is treated fairly.

You know @musso, in truth, you're just a metrics kind of guy. The only metric that seems to matter with the 13 committee members these days is the "eye test." That sounds complicated to you, but in my world, it's as close to perfection as you can get.

Many of the media can't move beyond the mass data of the BCS computer era. You say you're happy to move beyond the BCS but many of the measurables you speak about are a lot of what the computers were spitting out.

If folks continue to insist on these metrics, these same folks will be wearing the same silly look the ESPN crew had on their face when pick #4 was being revealed. As Booger said, it's simpler than that, it's what you see.

 

[musso]

We've had many threads over the many years about what sort of reforms are needed to improve the game. I've always replied with the same proposal: make the conditions of postseason participation more objective and normative. The NFL does this well. Every team knows what they must do (and not do) to survive. No need for a cabal to "manage" outcomes. The power is with each team to determine its destiny. When rules are transparent, then everyone is treated fairly.

Another thought just occurred to me. To completely publicize and objectify the terms of post-season participation would reduce the suspicion and suspense of the season's conclusion.

To reduce the suspense of who is in/out, empowers the players with more knowledge about their team's highest possible ceiling for the season. If more teams know sooner rather than later they can't go to the play off, then the players, especially blue chips, will "shut it down" sooner in the season. Delaying knowledge of the fate of the nation's best teams functions as a "carrot" which the NCAA dangles in front of the players, only to yank it away at the final moment.

Case in point, without the lingering possibility of Ohio St's play off eligibility, does JT Barrett risk further injury to his knee by playing valiantly against Wisconsin a mere 6 days after surgery? Without Barrett's gritty performance, does the back up QB do enough to beat Wisconsin? If Wisconsin wins, the committee can't exclude them, and they get blown out.

Another example: if the committee publicizes sooner rather than later that Ohio St's 30-point loss to Iowa can potentially keep them out of the play-off EVEN IF they continuing winning and become conference champs, does Ohio St in fact win out? Or does their talented roster follow FSU's example and say screw it? If Ohio St doesn't continue to win out, does the venerable Ohio St-Michigan game sell tickets and earn TV ratings, since Michigan was no longer a play off contender?? Think of that rivalry as a "Too Big To Fail" event for the whole system.

Just another example how the role of a play-off committee functions to deceive and exploit players for their own benefit and for the benefit of all the corporate play-off partners.

 

[musso]

You know @musso, in truth, you're just a metrics kind of guy. The only metric that seems to matter with the 13 committee members these days is the "eye test." That sounds complicated to you, but in my world, it's as close to perfection as you can get.

Many of the media can't move beyond the mass data of the BCS computer era. You say you're happy to move beyond the BCS but many of the measurables you speak about are a lot of what the computers were spitting out.

If folks continue to insist on these metrics, these same folks will be wearing the same silly look the ESPN crew had on their face when pick #4 was being revealed. As Booger said, it's simpler than that, it's what you see.

You're misunderstanding me. I don't think "eye test" is complicated. It's simple, but more importantly it is subjective. And subjectivity gives power to committees. Objectivity gives power to the teams and players themselves. Like I already stated, when teams know more clearly exactly what they must do (and avoid doing), their destiny becomes theirs. But the powers that be don't want to give "amateur" players any more leverage. They need to keep them in a fog for as long as possible in order to make the game more entertaining and profitable for the profiteers.

 

[musso]

Here's another example illustrating my point and also to better understand Kirk's response to Danny.

After we escaped the Miss St game with a win, I recall talking to friends and family about the upcoming Iron Bowl. Of course the media began building the game up two weeks prior. But I instantly thought to myself, "Actually Bama doesn't need this win." Moreover, I told people that I prefered us to lose to Auburn, to avoid playing an additional physical game when our defense was already in terrible health and we literally didn't need another quality win. I figured that we would be a much better team in the play off after a few weeks of R&R than one week later against a grinding Georgia running game.

Now I'm sure this occurred to many of you too. But my point is NO ONE IN THE MEDIA DISCUSSED THIS until Gary Danielson finally began to openly address this possibility late in the Iron Bowl. And we know why. Like with the Ohio St-Michigan rivalry, there is no financial benefit for pundits and networks to diminish the importance of the games, especially iconic rivalries. They need fans to stay in the dark for as long as possible to stay interested. And they need players to remain engaged for as long as possible to put out the best possible product on TV every week.

What happens when teams are better informed? Maybe coaches begin job searching sooner in the season. What happens when college players are better informed? Maybe they look out for themselves more, maybe they put in more effort in their classes rather than on the practice field, or maybe they avoid excessive physical risks to protect their future NFL earnings. And then college football no longer remains "more exciting" than the NFL.

 

[TUSKtimes]

You're misunderstanding me. I don't think "eye test" is complicated. It's simple, but more importantly it is subjective. And subjectivity gives power to committees. Objectivity gives power to the teams and players themselves. Like I already stated, when teams know more clearly exactly what they must do (and avoid doing), their destiny becomes theirs. But the powers that be don't want to give "amateur" players any more leverage. They need to keep them in a fog for as long as possible in order to make the game more entertaining and profitable for the profiteers.

Then you realize that "some of this fog" from the committee is just smoke. They do it for the entertainment factor. In the early polls, they aren't above moving teams around for better TV ratings. And they can shoot some serious crapola propaganda in their weekly ranking shows. But I have failed to see them totally screw this thing up in the final poll.

Other teams may eventually be invited to the dance and I honestly think that is about all the committee can do to make the playoffs more equitable for all. I think that's what you want too. But the eye test is still the answer, even if it goes to 8, and sooner than later everyone else will eventually catch up with how they are going to do it.

 

[XXL TideFan]

If you really believe that ratings and matchups have nothing to do with the selection, you probably believe in Santa Clause and professional wrestling as well.

I saw Santa rassel before