Grandpa Duck No. 1 Share Posted Tuesday at 06:11 PM Who Are These People? Repeatedly I read comments by posters indicating that the Playoff Selection Committee has a bias in favor of or against a particular team or conference. Most often it is that the SEC gets unfair weight in the selection and seeding for the playoff games. BOSH! When you take a close look at what the committee members do or have done in their life work that caused them to be chosen for the thankless job they perform for all of us fans, attributing some bias to their choices makes no sense. This year’s committee has six AD’s, four former head coaches, one who has been both a head coach and an AD, a former player and a person who is both a college professor and a sports journalist. None of them are from the SEC and three have connections to the B1G. Someone you probably know of reasonably well is Mike Riley, former head coach at Oregon State and Nebraska. Really, Mike Riley, about the nicest guy I can think of who OBD fought hard when the Beavers were a serious rival. If I had to pick out someone who would be the most unlikely person to cheat in the thankless job of serving on the Playoff Selection Committee it would be Mike Riley. Thanks to Liam McKeone for his Nov 7, 2024 article in Sports Illustrated for the listing of the committee members below. NAME AGE SCHOOL ROLE Chris Ault 77 University of Nevada Former Head Coach (HC)/Athletic Director (AD) Chet Gladchuk 74 U.S. Naval Academy AD Jim Grobe 72 Ohio University, Wake Forest, Baylor Former HC Warde Manuel 56 University of Michigan AD Randall McDaniel 59 Arizona State Univeristy Former Player Gary Pinkel 72 University of Missouri, University of Toledo Former HC Mack Rhoades 59 Baylor University AD Mike Riley 71 Oregon State, Nebraska Former HC David Sayler 55 Miami University, OH AD Will Shields 53 University of Nebraska Former Player Kelly Whiteside N/A Montclair State University Professor in Sports Media & Journalism Carla Williams N/A University of Virginia AD Hunter Yurachek 56 University of Arkansas AD 2 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JabbaNoBargain No. 2 Share Posted Tuesday at 06:20 PM (edited) I think all the conspiracy theories revolve around thinking that ESPN has their thumb on the scale and that members of the committee are at their beck and call. Poor lil ole B1G can’t get a break only having 4 teams currently in the top-5. Edited Tuesday at 06:21 PM by JabbaNoBargain 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Fischer Administrator No. 3 Share Posted Tuesday at 06:26 PM Their qualifications are not in question; their method of arriving at their results is. The objections are valid, and a good topic for us to discuss and alternate viewpoints are welcome as we all learn from each other. 2 2 1 1 Mr. FishDuck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noDucknewby No. 4 Share Posted Tuesday at 06:52 PM (edited) OK I'll state the obvious, the jury's still out on this one. We should see what the final seedings are before we start screaming bias. THAT SAID, ESPN and their shills are already lobbying hard for the inclusion of a 3-loss SEC team because "the conference is so tough, blah blah blah". Never mind that while we were in a dogfight at Camp Randall, Alabama was playing Mercer (Mercer?!) at home. You've got to be kidding me. Yes the SEC is finally showing a little parity, the same trait that branded the Pac-12 as "weak". Let's face it, there's a BIG (pun intended) gap between the top four in the B1G and the rest of the 18-team conference. In the SEC you can probably make an argument for five or six teams; too bad for them, they all can't (and shouldn't) go. Edited Tuesday at 06:54 PM by noDucknewby 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Moderator No. 5 Share Posted Tuesday at 06:55 PM Thanks, Grandpa, and AMEN Charles. Much of the legitimate criticism of the Committee would disappear if it followed the Basketball Committee and revealed the metrics it uses in ranking and seeding teams. Search - Metrics Used by the College Basketball Committee for detailed descriptions of these metrics. NET - game results including where the game was played and whether it was a QUAD I, II, II, or IV win. WAB - Strength of Record Metric BP Index and KenPom Index- These metrics measure the quality of wins. Strength of Schedule, Strength of Record including where the games were played, weather at game time, injuries to key players before, and in-game and Game Control Statistics are all available to the Football Committee. So why do we have the CFB Committee Chair talking about The "Eye Test" that ipso facto makes the Committee subject to claims of bias? The Committee's 1st and 2nd rankings appear to be based solely on the number of losses a team has suffered. The No.1 reason why the B1G and the SEC will have three to four automatic qualifiers come 2026. 2 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
30Duck No. 6 Share Posted Tuesday at 06:58 PM On 11/19/2024 at 10:55 AM, Jon Joseph said: weather at game time This is even more important for football games. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Moderator No. 7 Share Posted Tuesday at 07:02 PM On 11/19/2024 at 1:58 PM, 30Duck said: This is even more important for football games. Sorry, I thought I made it clear that the 'weather' at game time is available to the Football Committee. It doesn't matter in basketball unless the games are played on the deck of an aircraft carrier. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
30Duck No. 8 Share Posted Tuesday at 07:05 PM On 11/19/2024 at 11:02 AM, Jon Joseph said: unless the games are played on the deck of an aircraft carrier These games can get interesting. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ktmguy2018 No. 9 Share Posted Tuesday at 07:59 PM To me, I think the "Eye Test" is looking for this: 2 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeotechDuck No. 10 Share Posted Tuesday at 08:08 PM (edited) On 11/19/2024 at 10:55 AM, Jon Joseph said: Thanks, Grandpa, and AMEN Charles. Much of the legitimate criticism of the Committee would disappear if it followed the Basketball Committee and revealed the metrics it uses in ranking and seeding teams. Search - Metrics Used by the College Basketball Committee for detailed descriptions of these metrics. NET - game results including where the game was played and whether it was a QUAD I, II, II, or IV win. WAB - Strength of Record Metric BP Index and KenPom Index- These metrics measure the quality of wins. Strength of Schedule, Strength of Record including where the games were played, weather at game time, injuries to key players before, and in-game and Game Control Statistics are all available to the Football Committee. So why do we have the CFB Committee Chair talking about The "Eye Test" that ipso facto makes the Committee subject to claims of bias? The Committee's 1st and 2nd rankings appear to be based solely on the number of losses a team has suffered. The No.1 reason why the B1G and the SEC will have three to four automatic qualifiers come 2026. Exactly this. There is no excuse for not having some kind of metric to measure these teams at this point. Applying the basketball criteria… Notre Dame has a Q4 loss. Texas has one Q2 win, maybe. How are either of these teams in front of Georgia, who has multiple Q1 wins and and two Q1 losses? It’s a joke. Even just applying common sense to this. If playing on a neutral field, would Georgia be an underdog to ND? Absolutley not! They would be a multiple score favorite to win that game. Edited Tuesday at 08:09 PM by GeotechDuck 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woundedknees No. 11 Share Posted Tuesday at 08:53 PM Notre Dame has been given more "Benefit of the Doubt" credits than any other team in known history... 1 2 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Duck Author No. 12 Share Posted Tuesday at 09:05 PM While the Committee does not have a "metric" that sets a mathmatical process , it does not simply apply an "eye test". There is a written Protocol that lists factors considered: " Strength of schedule, Head-to-head competition, Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory), and, Other relevant factors such as unavailability of key players and coaches that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance." Last year the Committee omitted FSU from the playoff under the "key player" relevant factor because the FSU quarterback had a season ending injury in its next to last regular season game. That decision was roundly criticized in the media and on message boards. In my opinion, that was the proper thing to do as FSU would have been beaten badly playing the replacement QB, as was shown by that players performance in the final seaslon game and in the bowl game. FSU was clearly not one of the four "best teams" without its starting QB. Here is the complete Commottee Protocol, in case you're into reading the law. if not, at least read the "voting process". I read another article a few days ago that said the first step is for each committee member to list their top three best teams. Then they total the votes and agree on a top three and move on to the next three, through #25. " CFP SELECTION COMMITTEE PROTOCOL MISSION The committee’s task will be to select the best teams, rank the teams for inclusion in the playoff and then assign the teams to the playoff bracket and their game sites. PRINCIPLES The committee will select the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering: Strength of schedule, Head-to-head competition, Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory), and, Other relevant factors such as unavailability of key players and coaches that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance. VOTING PROCESS The voting process generally will include seven rounds of ballots through which the committee members first will select a small pool of teams to be evaluated, then will rank those teams, with the teams being placed in the rankings in groups of three for three rounds, then four for the other four rounds. Individual committee members’ rankings will be compiled into a composite ranking for each round. Each committee member will independently evaluate an immense amount of information during the process. This evaluation will lead to individual qualitative and quantitative opinions that will inform each member’s votes. NUMBER OF TEAMS TO BE RANKED The committee will rank 25 teams. The five highest-ranked conference champions and the next seven highest-ranked teams will be in the playoff. CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS RANKINGS If fewer than five conference champions are among the top 25 on Selection Day, then the committee will rank the remaining conference champions. The highest ranked of those teams will be added to the playoff until five conference champions are included in the playoff. A conference champion(s) from outside the top 12 will be placed at the bottom of the 12-team seeding in rank order. MEETING SCHEDULE The committee will meet in person weekly beginning generally at mid-season to produce interim rankings before selection weekend. The dates for the fall of 2024 are as follows: Monday and Tuesday, November 4-5 Monday and Tuesday, November 11-12 Monday and Tuesday, November 18-19 Monday and Tuesday, November 25-26 Monday and Tuesday, December 2-3 Friday through Sunday, December 6-8 POINT PERSONS FOR GATHERING INFORMATION The committee has assigned two members to be the “point persons” to gather material about the teams in each conference and the independent teams. The process will ensure that the committee fully reviews each team and that no information is overlooked. The point persons will ensure that (1) the committee has complete, detailed information about each team, and (2) the conferences and independent institutions have an effective and efficient channel for providing facts to the committee. The committee wishes to be clear about the role of the point persons. They are not and will not be advocates for teams in any conference or for any independent institution. They will not speak on behalf of any conference or institution during the committee’s deliberations or represent any conference’s or independent institution’s interests during those deliberations. Their function is to gather information and ensure that it is available to the committee. Their role as a liaison to a particular conference or independent institution is purely for the purpose of objective fact-gathering. The point persons will communicate with conference staff members on three information-gathering teleconferences during the regular season: one before the first ranking, one before the fourth ranking and one the week before Selection Day. Outside of these teleconferences, there will be no contact between the point persons and any conference staff member, or vice-versa, but the conference may relay information to the committee through the CFP staff. Following are the point persons for the 2024 season: CONFERENCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS American: Chris Ault Gary Pinkel Atlantic Coast: Will Shields Mike Riley Big 12: Kelly Whiteside Gary Pinkel Big Ten: Jim Grobe Carla Williams Conference USA: Randall McDaniel Kelly Whiteside Mid-American: Mike Riley Chet Gladchuk Mountain West: Hunter Yurachek David Sayler Pac-12: Chet Gladchuk Jim Grobe Southeastern: David Sayler Randall McDaniel Sun Belt: Carla Williams Will Shields Independents: Mack Rhoades Chris Ault METRICS There will not be one single metric to assist the committee. Rather, the committee will consider a wide variety of data and information. PARTICIPANTS There shall be no limit on the number of teams that may participate in the CFP from one conference. PAIRINGS The four highest-ranked conference champions will be seeded 1, 2, 3 and 4 and will receive byes in the first round. The remaining eight teams, including the fifth conference champion, will be seeded 5 through 12 based on their final ranking. If the fifth conference champion is not ranked among the top 12 teams, it will be seeded at No. 12. Teams seeded 5, 6, 7 and 8 will host first-round games against teams seeded 12, 11, 10 and 9, respectively. In the Playoff Quarterfinals, the team seeded No. 1 will meet the winner of the game between seeds 8 and 9. No. 2 will meet the 7 vs. 10 winner; No. 3 will meet the 6 vs. 11 winner; No. 4 will meet the 5 vs. 12 winner. In the Playoff Semifinals, the winner of the game between No. 1 vs. 8/9 will meet the winner of No. 4 vs. 5/12. The winner of the game between No. 2 vs. 7/10 will meet the winner of No. 3 vs. 6/11. Traditional contract-bowl relationships will be the top priority when the committee assigns teams to Play Quarterfinal sites, but such priority cannot be guaranteed because of the bracket. For example, if the Big 12 Conference champion were ranked No. 1 and the Southeastern Conference champion were ranked No. 2, then the Big 12 champion would be assigned to the Sugar Bowl. The committee will use geographic proximity for the No. 1 seed when assigning the Playoff Semifinal sites GAMES PLAYED AFTER SELECTION DAY The committee will establish the final rankings on Selection Day; as a result, the committee will not consider the results of games played after Selection Day. SELECTION SEQUENCE The committee will adhere to the following sequence: Rank the teams 1-25. Identify the conference champions that will be seeded Nos. 1 through 4 and receive byes. Seed the remainder of the field. Assign the No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 seeds to Playoff Quarterfinal games in sequential order by ranking as noted herein. The No. 4 seed will play in the remaining Playoff Quarterfinal game. Assign the group containing the No. 1 seed to the Playoff Semifinal game as noted herein. Assign the No. 2 seed’s group to the other Playoff Semifinal game. Place Seed Nos. 5 through 12 in the bracket per the policies herein. There will be no reseeding after any round of the CFP. RECUSAL POLICY If a committee member or an immediate family member (e.g., spouse, sibling or child) (a) is compensated by a school, (b) provides professional services for a school or (c) is on the coaching staff or administrative staff at a school or is a football student-athlete at a school, that member will be recused. Such compensation shall include not only direct employment, but also current paid consulting arrangements, deferred compensation (e.g., contract payments continuing after employment has ended) or other benefits. The committee will have the option to add other recusals if special circumstances arise. A recused member shall not participate in any votes involving the team from which the individual is recused. A recused member is permitted to answer only factual questions about the institution from which the member is recused but shall not be present during any deliberations regarding that team’s selection or ranking. Recused members shall not participate in discussions regarding the placement of the recused team into a bowl game. Following are the recusals for the 2024 season: TEAM COMMITTEE MEMBER Arkansas: Hunter Yurachek Baylor: Mack Rhoades Marshall: Jim Grobe Miami (OH): David Sayler Michigan: Warde Manuel Missouri: Gary Pinkel Navy: Chet Gladchuk Nevada: Chris Ault Oregon State: Mike Riley Rutgers: Kelly Whiteside SMU: Hunter Yurachek South Carolina: Hunter Yurachek Texas A&M: Chet Gladchuk UCLA: Chris Ault Virginia: Carla Williams TERMS Members shall serve three-year terms. Members will not be eligible for reappointment, but a member’s term may be extended by one year (1) if the member would serve as chair in what otherwise would be his/her final year or (2) if other circumstances warrant. Further, a member appointed to serve an unexpired term may be appointed to serve a full three years. TERMS EXPIRE IN FEBRUARY 2025 TERMS EXPIRE IN FEBRUARY 2026 TERMS EXPIRE IN FEBRUARY 2027 Chet Gladchuk Jim Grobe Warde Manuel Will Shields Kelly Whiteside Chris Ault David Sayler Randall McDaniel Gary Pinkel Mack Rhoades Mike Riley Carla Williams Hunter Yurachek COMMITTEE CHAIR The management committee selects the chair of the committee." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Fischer Administrator No. 13 Share Posted Tuesday at 09:23 PM Strength of Schedule? Really? Thank you for posting this, as the real discussion begins at the end of the season. They can have a process, but do they follow it? 2 1 2 Mr. FishDuck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Ducky No. 14 Share Posted Tuesday at 09:24 PM On 11/19/2024 at 11:02 AM, Jon Joseph said: Sorry, I thought I made it clear that the 'weather' at game time is available to the Football Committee. It doesn't matter in basketball unless the games are played on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Wonder how many balls would go over the side. Interesting bet in Vegas. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
30Duck No. 15 Share Posted Tuesday at 09:53 PM On 11/19/2024 at 1:23 PM, Charles Fischer said: Strength of Schedule? Really? AMEN!!! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haywarduck Moderator No. 16 Share Posted Tuesday at 10:42 PM I reserve the right to complain about anything for any reason, or no reason at all. This is especially true when passion and admitted biases are involved ;)! 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeotechDuck No. 17 Share Posted Tuesday at 10:49 PM On 11/19/2024 at 12:53 PM, woundedknees said: Notre Dame has been given more "Benefit of the Doubt" credits than any other team in known history... The question is how does that continue to happen? They have not won a major bowl game in 30 years. Every time they get into a big time post season game, they get run off the field like a bad G5 school. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeotechDuck No. 18 Share Posted Tuesday at 10:52 PM (edited) On 11/19/2024 at 1:23 PM, Charles Fischer said: Strength of Schedule? Really? Thank you for posting this, as the real discussion begins at the end of the season. They can have a process, but do they follow it? Agree . If they even slightly valued or considered any portion of SOS, Georgia would not be behind Texas, Indiana, or Notre Dame. Edited Tuesday at 10:54 PM by GeotechDuck 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
30Duck No. 19 Share Posted Tuesday at 11:15 PM (edited) On 11/19/2024 at 2:52 PM, GeotechDuck said: Agree . If they even slightly valued or considered any portion of SOS, Georgia would not be behind Texas, Indiana, or Notre Dame. Absolutely. This is the result of "Eye Test" and everybody has the chart memorized anyway. Lanning is undefeated against unranked teams; that's all Indiana has played. Edited yesterday at 12:04 AM by 30Duck 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan2785 No. 20 Share Posted Tuesday at 11:16 PM There is no right method, there will always be controversy, the beauty of the playoffs now is that in the end the teams will be able to fight it out on the field. The problem that football has compared to basketball is that there aren't many games, so schedule of strength is always going to be an issue, some years in the future Georgia will have an easy schedule over Texas, this year it just so happens that Georgia has a gauntlet. Indiana will in the future get a hard schedule compared to this year, it comes and goes. This has gotten worse with expansion since you can't play even close to everyone in your league. The second problem is that while there are always those that complain about how so and so got screwed in who got into march madness, in the end very few people talk about how the 69th or 70th placed team would have won it all if they had just gotten in. With football you could make that argument, one of the top SEC team is going to be left out, I don't think Texas, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Georgia, and Bama all get in. One of those team will have a somewhat valid argument that they could win it all. I really don't envy the people that make up these committees who make the various brackets for post season play. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeotechDuck No. 21 Share Posted yesterday at 12:41 AM On 11/19/2024 at 3:16 PM, spartan2785 said: With football you could make that argument, one of the top SEC team is going to be left out, I don't think Texas, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Georgia, and Bama all get in. One of those team will have a somewhat valid argument that they could win it all. If Texas loses again, they should be the team that gets left out of this group. SEC needs to schedule 9 conference games and all BIG and SEC teams should only be allowed to play on G5 team a year max. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Ducky No. 22 Share Posted yesterday at 12:42 AM Amazing! I’ll bet we could have a 40 team playoff and someone would still be but hurt about the playoffs or who they will play. Heck let’s let everyone in. Even Beavus. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MicroBurst61 No. 23 Share Posted 16 hours ago Metrics, tiebreakers, "perceived" eye tests or strength of schedule ALL take a secondary consideration when it comes to generating the max "eyeballs" and "revenue generation" to the TV execs. You could have all the credentials, position, and experience in the world but 12 teams ARE going to be part of a playoff and in the hearts and minds of the power brokers in this new NFL-lite, what could it hurt to "nudge" the way the selections are seeded to maximize the revenue that this event generates. Yes. Four B1Gs in the top 5, but that Will change as the rest of the conference schedules play out. Next week, primarily because of the SEC, beat down a G5 "bye" weeks, we will see movement Up of all the SEC teams with a cooresponding drop for at least 1, if not 2 B1G teams. This will be used, as it always is during the final two weeks of each football season, to "pimp" the SEC once again as such an "overwhelming" tough conference that, of course, they "deserve" one more team in the playoffs than any other conference. I hope I am wrong and that there is no "influence" by the TV/Streaming powers that be on the directions the selection committee takes in selecting and seeding. But then I would be being Naive. Not that it matters to OBD for they will win, anytime, anyplace, just give em the chance! Go Ducks! 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
30Duck No. 24 Share Posted 16 hours ago "CFP committee is saying they don’t care about your schedule as long as you win. The head-to-head rankings don’t make sense. UGA beat the #7 team in the country and moved up two spots while Alabama (who Tennessee beat) moved up 3 spots after beating Mercer. This is a joke." 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Moderator No. 25 Share Posted 14 hours ago Playoffs? PLAYOFFS! "... we certainly consider SOS in all conversations that we have." Warde Manuel - Playoff Committee Chairman - And then we use the Eye Test. No. 10 Georgia - No. 1 SOS. No. 1 Strength of Record. 2-2 versus the Week 3 top 25 including a win over No. 3 Texas in Austin. Texas 1 Loss. Georgia 2 Losses. Nine football teams are better than Georgia? Hey, Brigham, do you think the Committee members are Young enough to stay up and watch our games? A late loss to Kansas on a ricocheted pooch punt = an 8-spot drop to No. 14 and a first-round game for BYU if these rankings were final. 1 loss BYU has a top 25 win in Gerald Ford Stadium in Dallas, Texas vs. No. 13 SMU. What in the HAY is this Committee's criteria? They're raising Cain in Miami. As 30 Duck noted above a No Mercy beat down of FCS Mercer on a Saturday when the Canes were MIA, logically leads to Bama moving up to No. 7 and jumping the No. 8 Canes. Right? The Ducks did pick up a 3rd top 25 win with Illinois sneaking into the 25 slot, behind FOUR. QUATRO, QUATRE, FOUR! G5 teams. The Illini have a win over the Kansas team that just dropped BYU 8 spots. Team Rankings SOS - 11/20/24 - ILLINOIS 51/ Tulane 65/ UNLV 71/ Army 120. Play Army's schedule and the Illini would also be undefeated. These rankings are brought to you by Dimwitz. We know Sark has photos. Photos he must have shared with 7-3 No. 23 Missouri HC Eli (after seeing this I need a drink) Drinkwitz. But Mizzou did beat Vandy in Como in OT, which is nice. These are all Honorable People. Right, Marc Antony? Seriously the people are solid, but the methodology is vapid. CFP Anger Index: Who should be most angry in Week 13? - ESPN WWW.ESPN.COM Breaking down which teams have the most to be angry about with this week's CFP rankings. 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ktmguy2018 No. 26 Share Posted 14 hours ago On 11/19/2024 at 2:49 PM, GeotechDuck said: The question is how does that continue to happen? They have not won a major bowl game in 30 years. Every time they get into a big time post season game, they get run off the field like a bad G5 school. But they look SO good against Grand Canyon Online University, ITT Tech, and Detroit School of the Blind. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Moderator No. 27 Share Posted 13 hours ago WOOF! Georgia fans are not happy with the CFP committee's comments DAWNOFTHEDAWG.COM It's becoming a weekly tradition now to see fans complain about the updated College Football Playoff rankings. Does anyone really expect anything different from Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Moderator No. 28 Share Posted 13 hours ago WOOF! WOOF! Georgia football has some major changes to make based on the CFP rankings DAWNOFTHEDAWG.COM One thing is becoming more and more clear as the weeks go by and the College Football Playoff committee releases new updates to their rankings. Strength of sche Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
