This video from the JC and Morgan College Football Podcast with Mike Morgan and JC Shurburtt criticizes the inclusion of athletic directors on the College Football Playoff Committee, arguing they lack necessary expertise and face conflicts of interest. The hosts suggest using media professionals who cover college football extensively instead.
In a recent discussion about the College Football Playoff Committee, some concerning additions have been made that are raising eyebrows among college football enthusiasts. Troy Dannon, the athletic director at Nebraska, has been added to the committee, and Jeff Long has made a surprising return. The hosts express their disappointment with Long’s previous performances in various roles, including his work with the basketball tournament, the playoff, and his tenure as athletic director at Kansas.
The main point of contention, however, is the inclusion of athletic directors (ADs) on the committee in general. The hosts strongly agree with Barrett Sallee’s stance that ADs should be removed from the committee entirely. They argue that most ADs are bureaucrats who lack the necessary coaching or playing experience to make informed decisions about team rankings.
One of the primary concerns raised is the potential for conflicts of interest. The hosts cite an example from the basketball tournament where a team that arguably didn’t deserve a spot got in, coincidentally when their AD was heading the committee. Although the AD supposedly recused himself during the final selection process, the hosts skeptically suggest that informal discussions and lobbying likely occurred outside the boardroom.
The video emphasizes that having acting ADs on the committee is particularly problematic, but even former ADs without current program affiliations are seen as unnecessary. Instead, the hosts propose a panel composed of individuals who extensively cover college football, such as:
Media personalities (Josh Pate, Pete Thamel, Andy Staples) Broadcasters (Tim Brando, Tony Barnhart) Analysts (Phil Steele, Heather Dinich) Journalists (Dan Wetzel)The hosts argue that these professionals spend countless hours watching and analyzing college football every Saturday, making them more qualified to assess team performance than former players or NFL Hall of Famers who may be out of touch with the current college football landscape.
While the hosts don’t object to having a committee in principle, they stress the importance of selecting the right people for the job. They express frustration with the current system, describing the inclusion of ADs and other potentially biased individuals as “garbage in, garbage out.”
The video concludes by reiterating the need for a more transparent and knowledgeable selection process for the College Football Playoff Committee. By removing ADs and bringing in dedicated college football experts, the hosts believe the committee could make more informed and unbiased decisions, ultimately benefiting the sport and its fans.
This discussion highlights the ongoing debate about the structure and composition of the College Football Playoff Committee, emphasizing the need for expertise, impartiality, and a deep understanding of the current college football landscape in determining postseason rankings and selections.
The Take: There are simply more qualified people that know more about the sport than what we have been getting. Last season’s disaster of a first 12-team bracket is proof that we need to abolish the folks that have no qualifications to pick a football playoff field and get more people that do have them. In a sport that rarely uses common sense to make decisions, this one is beyond obvious.
