College Football Playoff Logo

Full list of College Football Playoff recusals, protocols released

18 Comments

Earlier this month it was reported that, as expected, College Football Playoff committee member Tom Osborne would be recused when any talk turned to Nebraska.  That made sense given the former coach and athletic director’s extensive ties to the school in Lincoln.

At the same time it was reported that the CFP’s full recusal policy, including specific, individuals recusals, would be released in a week.  Just over nine days later, it has.

It was known all along the the five current athletic directors who make up the 13-person committee and will help choose the four playoff participants — Wisconsin’s Barry Alvarez, USC’s Pat Haden, Arkansas’ Jeff Long (committee chair) West Virginia’s Oliver Luck, Clemson’s Dan Radakovich — would be recused if/when the discussion came to their respective schools.  Below is the full list of committee members who, along with the five current ADs and Osborne, can neither vote on nor discuss the schools to which they are currently attached:

— Lieutenant General Mike Gould, Air Force: the former superintendent of the Colorado Springs service academy.
Archie Manning, Ole Miss, former Rebels star quarterback who still maintains deep ties to the school and the football program.
Condoleezza Rice, Stanford, current professor and former provost at the university.

That leaves just four committee members who can discuss and vote on every potential playoff contender that comes up:

— Tom Jernstedt, former NCAA executive vice president.
Mike Tranghese, former commissioner of the Big East Conference.
Steve Wieberg, former college football reporter, USA Today.
Tyrone Willingham, former head coach at Stanford, Notre Dame and Washington, the last coming in 2008 (UW).

Those 13 committee members will hold the first in-person set of meetings Oct 27 (Monday) and Oct. 28 (Tuesday), with the first set of what are described as “interim rankings) Oct. 28.  One of the biggest questions is, just how will those rankings be determined?  While offering up a bit of a qualifier amidst its protocol release…

Ranking football teams is an art, not a science. Football is popular in some measure because the outcome of a game between reasonably matched teams is so often decided by emotional commitment, momentum, injuries and the “unexpected bounce of the ball.” In any ranking system, perfection or consensus is not possible and the physical impact of the game on student athletes prevents elaborate playoff systems of multiple games. For purposes of any four team playoff, the process will inevitably need to select the four best teams from among several with legitimate claims to participate.

… the CFP did detail exactly how the committee will arrive at its weekly Top 25:

1. Each committee member will create a list of the 25 teams he or she believes to be the best in the country, in no particular order. Teams listed by three or more members will remain under consideration.

2. Each member will list the best six teams, in no particular order. The six teams receiving the most votes will comprise the pool for the first seeding ballot.

3. In the first seeding ballot, each member will rank those six teams, one through six, with one being the best. The three teams receiving the fewest points will become the top three seeds. The three teams that were not seeded will be held over for the next seeding ballot.

4. Each member will list the six best remaining teams, in no particular order. The three teams receiving the most votes will be added to the three teams held over to comprise the next seeding ballot.

5. Steps No. 3 and 4 will be repeated until 25 teams have been seeded.

It should be noted that, at no point in that five-step process, are committee members permitted to include any team from which they are recused on any of the lists mentioned above.

Of course, there were also notes attached to the five-step voting process (notes A-C dealt with recusals):

D. Between each step, the committee members will conduct a thorough evaluation of the teams before conducting the vote.

E. After the rankings are completed, any group of three or more teams can be reconsidered if more than three members vote to do so. Step No. 3 would be repeated to determine if adjustments should be made.

F. After the first nine teams are seeded, the number of teams for Steps No. 2, 3 and 4 will be increased to eight and four, respectively.

G. At any time in the process, the number of teams to be included in a pool may be increased or decreased with approval of more than eight members of the committee.

H. All votes will be by secret ballot.

So, are you getting all of this?

There’s other minutia detailed in the release, which you can read in full HERE, but there is one more important aspect of the CFP process that supersedes just about everything else mentioned thus far: criteria.  As previously noted, ranking football teams is more art than science, but there is some specific data on which the committee will lean.

The protocol states that the committee “will be instructed to place an emphasis on winning conference championships, strength of schedule and head-to-head competition when comparing teams with similar records and pedigree (treat final determination like a tie-breaker; apply specific guidelines).” Why pedigree — i.e. history — should have anything to do with a specific year is a significant unknown, one that the committee should address immediately and abolish from its guidelines. Base the selections on that year, not how storied Program X may be.

One piece of data that the committee is not permitted to take into account? Polls that are released before any games have been played, which means, technically, the Associate Press and coaches’ polls cannot be a part of the discussion. For that, we should all be thankful.

One piece of data that will be taken into account? “[R]elevant factors such as key injuries that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.” In other words, if a star quarterback goes down early and that injury contributes to a loss or two but the team finishes strong down the stretch, that team will remain under consideration for a playoff slot. Conversely, if a star player or players goes/go down with an injury late in the season, that would be a factor that would permit the committee to disregard that team regardless of the record.

I’ve said it before and I’ve said it again: anyone who thought the (rightful) end of the BCS era meant the end of postseason controversy in college football were sadly mistaken and embarrassingly naive.

Again, there’s a lot of relevant information in the protocol release, so I would urge you to click HERE to get the entire picture.

Proposal for 10th assistant coach gains support of NCAA Division 1 Council

EAST LANSING, MI - NOVEMBER 14: Interim head coach Mike Locksley of the Maryland Terrapins looks on against the Michigan State Spartans during the game at Spartan Stadium on November 14, 2015 in East Lansing, Michigan. Michigan State defeated Maryland 24-7. (Photo by Joe Robbins/Getty Images)
Photo by Joe Robbins/Getty Images
2 Comments

The NCAA’s Board of Directors is expected to approve a proposal that will allow college football programs to add a 10th assistant to the coaching staff. The proposal has received the support of the Division 1 Council in this week’s NCAA meetings, which was to be expected. There appears to be nothing else to stand in the way of passing the proposal and expanding the coaching staff at football programs across the country.

There appears to be a widespread show of support for the addition of a coach to the staff from head coaches, which makes sense. With many programs adding on special assistants as analysts, some programs would benefit from being able to promote an analyst to a coaching role and get them more involved in the program. Just within the last week, Alabama hired Mike Locksley to a full-time coaching role after he had been helping the program out as an analyst. Alabama also picked up Steve Sarkisian as an analyst and promoted him to offensive coordinator following the awkwardly timed decision to push Lane Kiffin on his way out the door to take the FAU head coaching job.

The concern is this would lead to a greater divide between the haves and the have-nots in college football, as the addition of an extra coach will increase the payroll. This is hardly a concern for programs like Alabama and Ohio State, but perhaps more of a concern for a program like UMass or UAB (yes, UAB is back this year), for example.

Regardless, Donald Trump will happily take credit for the creation of potentially 128 new jobs in college football.

The Division 1 Council did scrap the idea of having an early signing period in the summer but there does still appear to be momentum for an early signing period in December. Another proposal receiving support from the council include the option for high school seniors to make official visits starting April 1 until the end of June (official visits currently cannot take place until September 1). The Council has also discussed organizing a 14-week season to play 12 games, thus providing two bye weeks for each team and push the start of the season into August.

Colorado adds defensive coordinator DJ Eliot from Kentucky

PALO ALTO, CA - OCTOBER 22:  Jordan Carrell #92 of the Colorado Buffaloes reacts after he sacked Ryan Burns #17 of the Stanford Cardinal at Stanford Stadium on October 22, 2016 in Palo Alto, California.  (Photo by Ezra Shaw/Getty Images)
Photo by Ezra Shaw/Getty Images
Leave a comment

Colorado has a new defensive coordinator, but that means Kentucky is now shopping the market. DJ Eliot will leave his job as defensive coordinator at Kentucky to take on the same role at Colorado. The news was first reported by FootballScoop.com and The Courier-Journal has followed that initial report with confirmation.

Eliot has ben Kentucky’s defensive cooridnator for the past four seasons and leaves Mark Stoops in need of hiring a new coordinator after years having Eliot working with him. It remains to be seen where Kentucky will look for their new defensive coordinator, but it is worth noting that two current assistants — defensive backs coach Steve Clinkscale and linebackers coach and special teams coordinator Matt House — have prior defensive coordinator experience.

Colorado had a vacancy to fill at defensive coordinator after losing Jim Leavitt after two seasons to Oregon to be a part of the new staff working under Willie Taggart.

 

Oklahoma State OC Mike Yurcich no longer candidate for Auburn

NEW ORLEANS, LA - JANUARY 02:  Head coach Gus Malzahn of the Auburn Tigers talks with the officials during the Allstate Sugar Bowl at the Mercedes-Benz Superdome on January 2, 2017 in New Orleans, Louisiana.  (Photo by Matthew Stockman/Getty Images)
Photo by Matthew Stockman/Getty Images
Leave a comment

As Auburn looks to fill its vacancy on the football staff at offensive coordinator (previously filled by UConn-bound Rhett Lashlee), it appears that search will no longer include Oklahoma State’s Mike Yurcich. Yurcich, according to reports out of Stillwater, has pulled his name off the table for the Auburn job.

Yurcich reportedly interviewed with Auburn this week. Other candidates supposedly in the mix for the job include former Oregon head coach Mark Helfrich and Arizona State offensive coordinator Chip Lindsey.

If Yurcich is to be the guy, Auburn will hope he can bring some of the same offensive production he ha shad at Oklahoma State with him. Oklahoma State had the nation’s 14th-best total offensive production in 2016 with an average of 494.8 yards per game (Auburn was 42nd with 440.8 ypg) and the 17th-best scoring average with 38.6 points per game (Auburn averaged 31.2 ppg). Of course, the Big 12 is not exactly known for playing solid defense, at least that is how the narrative goes, but the Tigers could benefit from a spark on the offensive side of the football in 2017.

NCAA Division 1 Council turns down proposed June signing period

ATLANTA, GA - APRIL 05:  A detail of giant NCAA logo is seen outside of the stadium on the practice day prior to the NCAA Men's Final Four at the Georgia Dome on April 5, 2013 in Atlanta, Georgia.  (Photo by Streeter Lecka/Getty Images)
Photo by Streeter Lecka/Getty Images
Leave a comment

The fight for an early signing period will continue, but a proposed rule to open up a signing period in the month of June has been rejected by the NCAA’s Division 1 Council.

According to the Associated Press, the council modified the proposal for flexibility of the recruiting calendar. The June signing day proposal was removed after a recommendation from the NCAA’s football oversight committee. The stripping of the June signing period proposal was not to be unexpected, and the overall push for an early signing day continues with the focus shifting more to a period after the regular season but still before the typical February signing period.

While the proposed summer signing day may have been eliminated, the council will continue to leave the option of a possible December signing period on the table. A final vote on the December signing period is scheduled for April. The Collegiate Commissioners Association must approve the change before it can go into action. If the April vote allows for an early signing period, it could potentially be put in place for the Class of 2018, meaning high school players could begin signing with their desired college programs this December.

As a reminder, national signing day is the first Wednesday of each February, with this year’s signing day falling on February 1.