Recusal policy on committee for playoffs...

[roddo518]

I don't like that 9 of the 13 will recuse themselves on any talk of seeding or selecting their respective teams. They must leave the room regarding any discussion of the fore mentioned situation. This could lead to under the table deals I think. My feelings are if you respect the members enough to elect them, you should respect their decisions regardless of their team alliances. Could this lead to some anti SEC biases gaining the upper hand? I'm not sure.

 

[Rock33]

The whole thing was formed (in part) due to the outrage over 2 SEC teams playing for the BCSC, that should help you form your own opinion.

 

[Special Ed]

I don't like that 9 of the 13 will recuse themselves on any talk of seeding or selecting their respective teams. They must leave the room regarding any discussion of the aforementioned situation. This could lead to under the table deals I think. My feelings are if you respect the members enough to elect them, you should respect their decisions regardless of their team alliances. Could this lead to some anti SEC biases gaining the upper hand? I'm not sure.

fyp

 

[tn4elvis]

The whole thing was formed (in part) due to the outrage over 2 SEC teams playing for the BCSC, that should help you form your own opinion.

Best 2 teams that year.

 

[volboy81]

I don't like that 9 of the 13 will recuse themselves on any talk of seeding or selecting their respective teams. They must leave the room regarding any discussion of the fore mentioned situation. This could lead to under the table deals I think. My feelings are if you respect the members enough to elect them, you should respect their decisions regardless of their team alliances. Could this lead to some anti SEC biases gaining the upper hand? I'm not sure.

Agree
If they can't be trusted to be fair & just they don't need to be on the committee & if they can't be fair & just they don't need to be there.

 

[cgbtn]

I don't like that 9 of the 13 will recuse themselves on any talk of seeding or selecting their respective teams. They must leave the room regarding any discussion of the fore mentioned situation. This could lead to under the table deals I think. My feelings are if you respect the members enough to elect them, you should respect their decisions regardless of their team alliances. Could this lead to some anti SEC biases gaining the upper hand? I'm not sure.

I surely do not understand your suspicions. The recusal policy makes as much sense here as it does when a judge recuses his/her self from hearing a court case. As Condi Rice said, "There is no way I should be allowed to vote when Stanford is being considered." I don't understand how the mechanism established to preclude bias could lead to under-the-table deals. The only other mechanism that might work is to have members who never attended a university and are not citizens of any of the 50 states.

 

[thebjd]

Best 2 teams that year.

Oklahoma State should have played LSU that year. The regular season and conference title should have mattered.

 

[roddo518]

I surely do not understand your suspicions. The recusal policy makes as much sense here as it does when a judge recuses his/her self from hearing a court case. As Condi Rice said, "There is no way I should be allowed to vote when Stanford is being considered." I don't understand how the mechanism established to preclude bias could lead to under-the-table deals. The only other mechanism that might work is to have members who never attended a university and are not citizens of any of the 50 states.

I agree about the vote, but do not think they should have to leave the room. Discussions should be heard! This is not a court case. I just think that they should be in the room. After all, I doubt the discussions will be recorded for public perusal.