(12-04-2023 10:58 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 10:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, the CFP got it right. To me, they are supposed to take the best teams, and I think that can be validly viewed as a combination of "resume" and a more subjective appraisal of "eye test".

FSU's resume was impeccable, and I totally agree with the PI's characterization of the team. With their star QB, they were an excellent team, and without him they showed guts and resiliency to finish unbeaten.

But IMO, they were a #3 resume team but a current #7 "eye test" team, and that wasn't as good as Alabama who IMO were #5 resume and #3 "eye test", or something like that.

And as far as getting the CFP we deserve, IMO the CFP did us a service. They had the guts to defy the sacrosanct "no unbeaten P5 champ is left out" notion and gave us a more compelling matchup. To me, watching Michigan slowly grind down a no-offense FSU, like they did Iowa, is less compelling, the Tide will be a tougher challenge.

Just MO.

I just look at the reaction Michigan had when they saw Alabama as their opponent. A collective gasp. That says it all.

Yes, it seems like they were looking forward to feasting on FSU, and this was a rude shock, LOL.

(12-04-2023 11:09 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 11:06 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 11:00 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 10:59 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 10:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, the CFP got it right. To me, they are supposed to take the best teams, and I think that can be validly viewed as a combination of "resume" and a more subjective appraisal of "eye test".

FSU's resume was impeccable, and I totally agree with the PI's characterization of the team. With their star QB, they were an excellent team, and without him they showed guts and resiliency to finish unbeaten.

But IMO, they were a #3 resume team but a current #7 "eye test" team, and that wasn't as good as Alabama who IMO were #5 resume and #3 "eye test", or something like that.

And as far as getting the CFP we deserve, IMO the CFP did us a service. They had the guts to defy the sacrosanct "no unbeaten P5 champ is left out" notion and gave us a more compelling matchup. To me, watching Michigan slowly grind down a no-offense FSU, like they did Iowa, is less compelling, the Tide will be a tougher challenge.

Just MO.

C'mon. 1) Eye test is BS. Sorry, this shouldn't be that subjective. There shouldn't be so much ambiguity in the selection criteria that it enables being able to basically put whoever in. 2) Eye test says if you run 4th and 31 20 times, you MIGHT pick it up twice.

The criteria is best not most deserving.

I think FSU meets both criteria. But...that's why "best" is stupid.

Did you watch the game on Saturday? Louisville who lost to Kentucky the week before was right there with FSU.

Yeah, I was there.

W on the board, right? (I was a little toasty, but I do remember that).

Another thing. Best Big Ten OOC win? Nail biter victory over Notre Dame by Ohio State

Clemson and Louisville manhandled ND

So the entire Big Ten house of cards is based on a close win over ND. Louisville didn’t get that luxury, why not? Michigan played the most pathetic OOC slate I’ve seen for a #1 and the only good thing about this committee is they forced them to play Alabama.

My argument is if you want the best teams then put the best damn teams in:
Michigan Texas Alabama Georgia

Don’t apply different criteria to different teams

(12-04-2023 11:21 AM)esayem Wrote:  Another thing. Best Big Ten OOC win? Nail biter victory over Notre Dame by Ohio State

Clemson and Louisville manhandled ND

So the entire Big Ten house of cards is based on a close win over ND. Louisville didn’t get that luxury, why not? Michigan played the most pathetic OOC slate I’ve seen for a #1 and the only good thing about this committee is they forced them to play Alabama.

My argument is if you want the best teams then put the best damn teams in:
Michigan Texas Alabama Georgia

Don’t apply different criteria to different teams

Oh I agree, Georgia got ****** way more than FSU.

(12-04-2023 11:06 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 11:03 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 10:49 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  https://www.inquirer.com/college-sports/...tml#loaded

The main point: “If your goal was to show college football for what it is, you could not have crafted a more elegant solution than what the playoff selection committee came up with on Sunday afternoon. In Florida State, it had a team that had done everything a team was supposed to do, everything a team could do, everything that every other team in the history of the college football playoffs had done to earn the right to prove itself therein. Not only that, but the Seminoles did it in a manner that was the very definition of collegiate. They overcame adversity. They rose to the challenge. They stuck together and were never defeated. The committee considered all of those things and decided they were of secondary value.”

This Committee changed what were playoffs into a beauty contest. They disregarded the first 11 games of the season because Jordan Travis broke his leg playing, and his back-up had to sit-out a game due to concussion protocols suffered after a targeting/late-hit by Florida.

Why do people keep saying that????

FSU is clearly not the same team without Travis.

They're undefeated without Travis. The committee's job is to use their judgement. The people upset are saying that the committee's judgement sucks.

They don't care that FSU is less strong without their star QB. They care what that criteria does to the worth of the college football regular season.

I agree with your characterization here.

And about the bolded, I don't really get that critique. It's not like Alabama is a 6-6 team. They went 12-1 in the toughest conference, winning their last 10 games, including beating the two-time defending champ in their home state to capture the conference title. That's a helluva regular season.

Now one can argue that FSU had an even better regular season. Given that the ACC is the #5 conference I'm not so sure, but even if they did, it was IMO very close, so allowing a factor like Travis injury, which the criteria says the CFP is supposed to factor in, to tip it to Alabama doesn't mean they denigrated the worth of the regular season.

(12-04-2023 10:59 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 10:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, the CFP got it right. To me, they are supposed to take the best teams, and I think that can be validly viewed as a combination of "resume" and a more subjective appraisal of "eye test".

FSU's resume was impeccable, and I totally agree with the PI's characterization of the team. With their star QB, they were an excellent team, and without him they showed guts and resiliency to finish unbeaten.

But IMO, they were a #3 resume team but a current #7 "eye test" team, and that wasn't as good as Alabama who IMO were #5 resume and #3 "eye test", or something like that.

And as far as getting the CFP we deserve, IMO the CFP did us a service. They had the guts to defy the sacrosanct "no unbeaten P5 champ is left out" notion and gave us a more compelling matchup. To me, watching Michigan slowly grind down a no-offense FSU, like they did Iowa, is less compelling, the Tide will be a tougher challenge.

Just MO.

C'mon. 1) Eye test is BS. Sorry, this shouldn't be that subjective. There shouldn't be so much ambiguity in the selection criteria that it enables being able to basically put whoever in. 2) Eye test says if you run 4th and 31 20 times, you MIGHT pick it up twice.

This MUST be subjective. There is no other way it could be, other than not having a "national" championship at all. That's what you get when you have a "bowl subdivision" with 133 teams and a 12 game season. Want an "objective" playoff? Reduce the subdivision to 24 teams.

(12-04-2023 11:22 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 11:21 AM)esayem Wrote:  Another thing. Best Big Ten OOC win? Nail biter victory over Notre Dame by Ohio State

Clemson and Louisville manhandled ND

So the entire Big Ten house of cards is based on a close win over ND. Louisville didn’t get that luxury, why not? Michigan played the most pathetic OOC slate I’ve seen for a #1 and the only good thing about this committee is they forced them to play Alabama.

My argument is if you want the best teams then put the best damn teams in:
Michigan Texas Alabama Georgia

Don’t apply different criteria to different teams

Oh I agree, Georgia got ****** way more than FSU.

Thank you. This Georgia team was #1 all year and they lose a neutral site game and drop down to 6? What is this 1994?!

We hear body of work, games in the beginning of the season matter the same as the end. Well they actually don’t

(12-04-2023 11:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 11:06 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 11:03 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 10:49 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  https://www.inquirer.com/college-sports/...tml#loaded

The main point: “If your goal was to show college football for what it is, you could not have crafted a more elegant solution than what the playoff selection committee came up with on Sunday afternoon. In Florida State, it had a team that had done everything a team was supposed to do, everything a team could do, everything that every other team in the history of the college football playoffs had done to earn the right to prove itself therein. Not only that, but the Seminoles did it in a manner that was the very definition of collegiate. They overcame adversity. They rose to the challenge. They stuck together and were never defeated. The committee considered all of those things and decided they were of secondary value.”

This Committee changed what were playoffs into a beauty contest. They disregarded the first 11 games of the season because Jordan Travis broke his leg playing, and his back-up had to sit-out a game due to concussion protocols suffered after a targeting/late-hit by Florida.

Why do people keep saying that????

FSU is clearly not the same team without Travis.

They're undefeated without Travis. The committee's job is to use their judgement. The people upset are saying that the committee's judgement sucks.

They don't care that FSU is less strong without their star QB. They care what that criteria does to the worth of the college football regular season.

I agree with your characterization here.

And about the bolded, I don't really get that critique. It's not like Alabama is a 6-6 team. They went 12-1 in the toughest conference, winning their last 10 games, including beating the two-time defending champ in their home state to capture the conference title. That's a helluva regular season.

Now one can argue that FSU had an even better regular season. Given that the ACC is the #5 conference I'm not so sure, but even if they did, it was IMO very close, so allowing a factor like Travis injury, which the criteria says the CFP is supposed to factor in, to tip it to Alabama doesn't mean they denigrated the worth of the regular season.

Why is the ACC #5? Because they beat up on each other? 6-4 vs the SEC while the Pac and Big Ten loaded up on jobbers

Unfortunately with opt-outs the bowl season doesn’t prove the best conference. It just proves which programs have survived the draft and portal

(12-04-2023 10:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, the CFP got it right. To me, they are supposed to take the best teams, and I think that can be validly viewed as a combination of "resume" and a more subjective appraisal of "eye test".

FSU's resume was impeccable, and I totally agree with the PI's characterization of the team. With their star QB, they were an excellent team, and without him they showed guts and resiliency to finish unbeaten.

But IMO, they were a #3 resume team but a current #7 "eye test" team, and that wasn't as good as Alabama who IMO were #5 resume and #3 "eye test", or something like that.

And as far as getting the CFP we deserve, IMO the CFP did us a service. They had the guts to defy the sacrosanct "no unbeaten P5 champ is left out" notion and gave us a more compelling matchup. To me, watching Michigan slowly grind down a no-offense FSU, like they did Iowa, is less compelling, the Tide will be a tougher challenge.

Just MO.

How could they have gotten it right when the whole process is wrong? I was trying to think of another major sport where a group of people decides who can play for a championship. I’m drawing a blank.

While sports are supposed to be entertaining, they are not supposed to be relegated to just entertainment (ie. “Let’s ignore what teams actually do on the field of play and just select teams that will drive ratings and make the most money.”) And for some reason, most fans are okay with it.

(12-04-2023 11:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 11:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 11:06 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 11:03 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 10:49 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  https://www.inquirer.com/college-sports/...tml#loaded

The main point: “If your goal was to show college football for what it is, you could not have crafted a more elegant solution than what the playoff selection committee came up with on Sunday afternoon. In Florida State, it had a team that had done everything a team was supposed to do, everything a team could do, everything that every other team in the history of the college football playoffs had done to earn the right to prove itself therein. Not only that, but the Seminoles did it in a manner that was the very definition of collegiate. They overcame adversity. They rose to the challenge. They stuck together and were never defeated. The committee considered all of those things and decided they were of secondary value.”

This Committee changed what were playoffs into a beauty contest. They disregarded the first 11 games of the season because Jordan Travis broke his leg playing, and his back-up had to sit-out a game due to concussion protocols suffered after a targeting/late-hit by Florida.

Why do people keep saying that????

FSU is clearly not the same team without Travis.

They're undefeated without Travis. The committee's job is to use their judgement. The people upset are saying that the committee's judgement sucks.

They don't care that FSU is less strong without their star QB. They care what that criteria does to the worth of the college football regular season.

I agree with your characterization here.

And about the bolded, I don't really get that critique. It's not like Alabama is a 6-6 team. They went 12-1 in the toughest conference, winning their last 10 games, including beating the two-time defending champ in their home state to capture the conference title. That's a helluva regular season.

Now one can argue that FSU had an even better regular season. Given that the ACC is the #5 conference I'm not so sure, but even if they did, it was IMO very close, so allowing a factor like Travis injury, which the criteria says the CFP is supposed to factor in, to tip it to Alabama doesn't mean they denigrated the worth of the regular season.

Why is the ACC #5? Because they beat up on each other? 6-4 vs the SEC while the Pac and Big Ten loaded up on jobbers

Unfortunately with opt-outs the bowl season doesn’t prove the best conference. It just proves which programs have survived the draft and portal

When I say the ACC is #5, that's based on the Massey Composite rankings.

(12-04-2023 11:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 11:06 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 11:03 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 10:49 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  https://www.inquirer.com/college-sports/...tml#loaded

The main point: “If your goal was to show college football for what it is, you could not have crafted a more elegant solution than what the playoff selection committee came up with on Sunday afternoon. In Florida State, it had a team that had done everything a team was supposed to do, everything a team could do, everything that every other team in the history of the college football playoffs had done to earn the right to prove itself therein. Not only that, but the Seminoles did it in a manner that was the very definition of collegiate. They overcame adversity. They rose to the challenge. They stuck together and were never defeated. The committee considered all of those things and decided they were of secondary value.”

This Committee changed what were playoffs into a beauty contest. They disregarded the first 11 games of the season because Jordan Travis broke his leg playing, and his back-up had to sit-out a game due to concussion protocols suffered after a targeting/late-hit by Florida.

Why do people keep saying that????

FSU is clearly not the same team without Travis.

They're undefeated without Travis. The committee's job is to use their judgement. The people upset are saying that the committee's judgement sucks.

They don't care that FSU is less strong without their star QB. They care what that criteria does to the worth of the college football regular season.

I agree with your characterization here.

And about the bolded, I don't really get that critique. It's not like Alabama is a 6-6 team. They went 12-1 in the toughest conference, winning their last 10 games, including beating the two-time defending champ in their home state to capture the conference title. That's a helluva regular season.

Now one can argue that FSU had an even better regular season. Given that the ACC is the #5 conference

But still unquestionably a P5 conference. The Great REalignment of the past few years has not taken effect yet.

The ACC was 10-9 plus 2-4 12-13 against the rest of the P5+ND, 6-4 against the SEC. Big 10 was 6-8, Big 12 6-6, PAC 12 7-5, SEC 7-9.
There's not a big separation there. Florida State was a conference champ of a legit P5 league this year. Ask SEC SEC SEC Florida and LSU.

Quote: I'm not so sure, but even if they did, it was IMO very close,

But is it really close? The system has been, in reality, that an undefeated P5 champion gets in. Then you start comparing the candidates for the other spots.

A long time ago, I remember the Jameis Winston FSU team was No 1 in the polls, until the CFP started and ranked them 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4.

The committee was clearly unimpressed with FSU having to rely on their Heisman trophy candidate to pull miracle after miracle out of a hat, but they didn't bump FSU out of the playoff.

Quote:so allowing a factor like Travis injury, which the criteria says the CFP is supposed to factor in,

That is in the black letter text of what the CFP is supposed to do. Which means it's a mistake in the CFP instructions (and maybe in having a human CFP)

Quote:to tip it to Alabama doesn't mean they denigrated the worth of the regular season.

They did degrade the regular season, because "undefeated against a P5 schedule" used to automatically rate above "11-1 / 12-1 against a P5 schedule."

You might have a different answer if FSU had a notably soft schedule, but they didn't. They played 2 SEC schools OOC, they played 3 teams ranked in the final top 25 (LSU, Clemson, Louisville).

Really, there should have been more hue-and-cry to leave out Michigan, who went 2 straight years without a P5 OOC game.

(12-04-2023 11:35 AM)memphistiger89 Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 10:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, the CFP got it right. To me, they are supposed to take the best teams, and I think that can be validly viewed as a combination of "resume" and a more subjective appraisal of "eye test".

FSU's resume was impeccable, and I totally agree with the PI's characterization of the team. With their star QB, they were an excellent team, and without him they showed guts and resiliency to finish unbeaten.

But IMO, they were a #3 resume team but a current #7 "eye test" team, and that wasn't as good as Alabama who IMO were #5 resume and #3 "eye test", or something like that.

And as far as getting the CFP we deserve, IMO the CFP did us a service. They had the guts to defy the sacrosanct "no unbeaten P5 champ is left out" notion and gave us a more compelling matchup. To me, watching Michigan slowly grind down a no-offense FSU, like they did Iowa, is less compelling, the Tide will be a tougher challenge.

Just MO.

How could they have gotten it right when the whole process is wrong? I was trying to think of another major sport where a group of people decides who can play for a championship. I’m drawing a blank.

While sports are supposed to be entertaining, they are not supposed to be relegated to just entertainment (ie. “Let’s ignore what teams actually do on the field of play and just select teams that will drive ratings and make the most money.”) And for some reason, most fans are okay with it.

Most athletic brands aren't attached to a decidedly non-athetlci product like a university.

(12-04-2023 11:22 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 11:21 AM)esayem Wrote:  Another thing. Best Big Ten OOC win? Nail biter victory over Notre Dame by Ohio State

Clemson and Louisville manhandled ND

So the entire Big Ten house of cards is based on a close win over ND. Louisville didn’t get that luxury, why not? Michigan played the most pathetic OOC slate I’ve seen for a #1 and the only good thing about this committee is they forced them to play Alabama.

My argument is if you want the best teams then put the best damn teams in:
Michigan Texas Alabama Georgia

Don’t apply different criteria to different teams

Oh I agree, Georgia got ****** way more than FSU.

IMO a consistent “eye test” ranking probably would have been…
Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama & Georgia
Those selections would have had total “eye test” integrity, but the Committee obviously factored conference championships to weed-out Ohio State and Georgia.

The real question is whether “eye test” helps college football. The “eye test” allows subjectivity that this Committee used differently than all prior selections. IMO “eye test” strongly prioritizes entertainment-value over sport.

(12-04-2023 11:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 11:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 11:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 11:06 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 11:03 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  Why do people keep saying that????

FSU is clearly not the same team without Travis.

They're undefeated without Travis. The committee's job is to use their judgement. The people upset are saying that the committee's judgement sucks.

They don't care that FSU is less strong without their star QB. They care what that criteria does to the worth of the college football regular season.

I agree with your characterization here.

And about the bolded, I don't really get that critique. It's not like Alabama is a 6-6 team. They went 12-1 in the toughest conference, winning their last 10 games, including beating the two-time defending champ in their home state to capture the conference title. That's a helluva regular season.

Now one can argue that FSU had an even better regular season. Given that the ACC is the #5 conference I'm not so sure, but even if they did, it was IMO very close, so allowing a factor like Travis injury, which the criteria says the CFP is supposed to factor in, to tip it to Alabama doesn't mean they denigrated the worth of the regular season.

Why is the ACC #5? Because they beat up on each other? 6-4 vs the SEC while the Pac and Big Ten loaded up on jobbers

Unfortunately with opt-outs the bowl season doesn’t prove the best conference. It just proves which programs have survived the draft and portal

When I say the ACC is #5, that's based on the Massey Composite rankings.

I’m sorry but true objectivity doesn’t exist. Your computer rankings based on opinions ends up being subjective because we feed it subjective data. It’s just a stew of subjectivity and means nothing.


How did the Pac get ahead? It wasn’t by quality wins because I can’t even name their best win OOC? TCU? Texas Tech? Can you?

(12-04-2023 12:24 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 11:22 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 11:21 AM)esayem Wrote:  Another thing. Best Big Ten OOC win? Nail biter victory over Notre Dame by Ohio State

Clemson and Louisville manhandled ND

So the entire Big Ten house of cards is based on a close win over ND. Louisville didn’t get that luxury, why not? Michigan played the most pathetic OOC slate I’ve seen for a #1 and the only good thing about this committee is they forced them to play Alabama.

My argument is if you want the best teams then put the best damn teams in:
Michigan Texas Alabama Georgia

Don’t apply different criteria to different teams

Oh I agree, Georgia got ****** way more than FSU.

IMO a consistent “eye test” ranking probably would have been…
Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama & Georgia
Those selections would have had total “eye test” integrity, but the Committee obviously factored conference championships to weed-out Ohio State and Georgia.

The real question is whether “eye test” helps college football. The “eye test” allows subjectivity that this Committee used differently than all prior selections. IMO “eye test” strongly prioritizes entertainment-value over sport.

Next year there will be an actual tangible achievement: top 5 conference champs. Those that get a bye will be totally eye test, but that’s fine—they will all have won on the field, a champ won’t be excluded, and we won’t get into this mess of applying different factors to different programs.

(12-04-2023 10:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, the CFP got it right. To me, they are supposed to take the best teams, and I think that can be validly viewed as a combination of "resume" and a more subjective appraisal of "eye test".

FSU's resume was impeccable, and I totally agree with the PI's characterization of the team. With their star QB, they were an excellent team, and without him they showed guts and resiliency to finish unbeaten.

But IMO, they were a #3 resume team but a current #7 "eye test" team, and that wasn't as good as Alabama who IMO were #5 resume and #3 "eye test", or something like that.

And as far as getting the CFP we deserve, IMO the CFP did us a service. They had the guts to defy the sacrosanct "no unbeaten P5 champ is left out" notion and gave us a more compelling matchup. To me, watching Michigan slowly grind down a no-offense FSU, like they did Iowa, is less compelling, the Tide will be a tougher challenge.

Just MO.

Exactly..

The task was to put the 4 best teams in the nation in the playoffs, not the 4 most deserving.

While FSU's defense looked nasty against a Louisville team who's QB had his feet stuck in concrete all night, could they been effective against a Michigan offense or even Washington, I doubt it.

Also, yes FSU went undefeated, they also had a SOS that was ranked 50th. Texas was number 1 and Bama was number 5.

I mean I applaud them for wanting to go in and be one and done, but the fact remains the 4 best teams are playing.. Like you, MO

(12-04-2023 12:27 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 12:24 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 11:22 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 11:21 AM)esayem Wrote:  Another thing. Best Big Ten OOC win? Nail biter victory over Notre Dame by Ohio State

Clemson and Louisville manhandled ND

So the entire Big Ten house of cards is based on a close win over ND. Louisville didn’t get that luxury, why not? Michigan played the most pathetic OOC slate I’ve seen for a #1 and the only good thing about this committee is they forced them to play Alabama.

My argument is if you want the best teams then put the best damn teams in:
Michigan Texas Alabama Georgia

Don’t apply different criteria to different teams

Oh I agree, Georgia got ****** way more than FSU.

IMO a consistent “eye test” ranking probably would have been…
Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama & Georgia
Those selections would have had total “eye test” integrity, but the Committee obviously factored conference championships to weed-out Ohio State and Georgia.

The real question is whether “eye test” helps college football. The “eye test” allows subjectivity that this Committee used differently than all prior selections. IMO “eye test” strongly prioritizes entertainment-value over sport.

Next year there will be an actual tangible achievement: top 5 conference champs. Those that get a bye will be totally eye test, but that’s fine—they will all have won on the field, a champ won’t be excluded, and we won’t get into this mess of applying different factors to different programs.

IMO the CFP Committee will also remove “eye test” and “injuries” from all their selection guidelines. Their use of the Travis Jordan injury as the rationale for excluding FSU, damages the sport. ESPN broadcasters (Heather Dinnich, Chris Fowler, Kirk Herbstreit, etc.) comments prior to the selection make it seem like they’re the puppet-masters making decisions. ESPN loses credibility when they have to explain to viewers that entertainment, rather than competition & results, drive the selection process. You shouldn’t disregard the accomplishments of a season because a player get hurt in the 11th or 12th game.

(12-04-2023 12:53 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  IMO the CFP Committee will also remove “eye test” and “injuries” from all their selection guidelines. Their use of the Travis Jordan injury as the rationale for excluding FSU, damages the sport. ESPN broadcasters (Heather Dinnich, Chris Fowler, Kirk Herbstreit, etc.) comments prior to the selection make it seem like they’re the puppet-masters making decisions. You shouldn’t disregard the accomplishments of a season because a player get hurt in the 11th or 12th game.

Speaking of ESPN broadcasters: Nothing was more comical than Greg McElroy trying to explain how elite defense with subpar QB play isn't good enough to win championships.

(12-04-2023 12:53 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 12:27 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 12:24 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 11:22 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 11:21 AM)esayem Wrote:  Another thing. Best Big Ten OOC win? Nail biter victory over Notre Dame by Ohio State

Clemson and Louisville manhandled ND

So the entire Big Ten house of cards is based on a close win over ND. Louisville didn’t get that luxury, why not? Michigan played the most pathetic OOC slate I’ve seen for a #1 and the only good thing about this committee is they forced them to play Alabama.

My argument is if you want the best teams then put the best damn teams in:
Michigan Texas Alabama Georgia

Don’t apply different criteria to different teams

Oh I agree, Georgia got ****** way more than FSU.

IMO a consistent “eye test” ranking probably would have been…
Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama & Georgia
Those selections would have had total “eye test” integrity, but the Committee obviously factored conference championships to weed-out Ohio State and Georgia.

The real question is whether “eye test” helps college football. The “eye test” allows subjectivity that this Committee used differently than all prior selections. IMO “eye test” strongly prioritizes entertainment-value over sport.

Next year there will be an actual tangible achievement: top 5 conference champs. Those that get a bye will be totally eye test, but that’s fine—they will all have won on the field, a champ won’t be excluded, and we won’t get into this mess of applying different factors to different programs.

IMO the CFP Committee will also remove “eye test” and “injuries” from all their selection guidelines. Their use of the Travis Jordan injury as the rationale for excluding FSU, damages the sport. ESPN broadcasters (Heather Dinnich, Chris Fowler, Kirk Herbstreit, etc.) comments prior to the selection make it seem like they’re the puppet-masters making decisions. ESPN loses credibility when they have to explain to viewers that entertainment, rather than competition & results, drive the selection process. You shouldn’t disregard the accomplishments of a season because a player get hurt in the 11th or 12th game.

You hope they do. I don't think for a second they're going to change it away from best. Sorry ACC fanboy.

(12-04-2023 01:03 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 12:53 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  IMO the CFP Committee will also remove “eye test” and “injuries” from all their selection guidelines. Their use of the Travis Jordan injury as the rationale for excluding FSU, damages the sport. ESPN broadcasters (Heather Dinnich, Chris Fowler, Kirk Herbstreit, etc.) comments prior to the selection make it seem like they’re the puppet-masters making decisions. You shouldn’t disregard the accomplishments of a season because a player get hurt in the 11th or 12th game.

Speaking of ESPN broadcasters: Nothing was more comical than Greg McElroy trying to explain how elite defense with subpar QB play isn't good enough to win championships.

McElroy at least could throw for more than 50 yards in a game. Big difference there.