insist that the playoff committee only use the criteria of won/ loss record tempered by strength of schedule. And have an agreement or understanding about how strength of schedule is determined and how it will be used.
The recent statement by chairman Jeff Long that the committee considered offensive / defensive balance in their first rankings is very, very troubling. This statement suggests that some members of the committee not only are looking at won/loss records and SOS but have a ‘look’ in mind for the eventual champion. Is there any kind of criteria for determining and using the offensive/defensive balance criteria? If the committee can use offensive/defensive balance, could they also use run/pass balance? Could they use special teams balance? Are there limits to where this ‘look of the champion’ could go? Taken to the extreme, does this eventually lead back to how it is decided who ‘wins’ a football game in order to be consistent with what the playoff committee is doing? Does it lead back to not only do you have to win but win a certain way?
Slippery, slippery slope …..
The recent statement by chairman Jeff Long that the committee considered offensive / defensive balance in their first rankings is very, very troubling. This statement suggests that some members of the committee not only are looking at won/loss records and SOS but have a ‘look’ in mind for the eventual champion. Is there any kind of criteria for determining and using the offensive/defensive balance criteria? If the committee can use offensive/defensive balance, could they also use run/pass balance? Could they use special teams balance? Are there limits to where this ‘look of the champion’ could go? Taken to the extreme, does this eventually lead back to how it is decided who ‘wins’ a football game in order to be consistent with what the playoff committee is doing? Does it lead back to not only do you have to win but win a certain way?
Slippery, slippery slope …..
