(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.

LOL. The setting seemed too much for McElroy…the others were more concise and effective in stating their views.

As an aside, Joey Galloway publicly chiding Booger McFarland was awkward because it exposed ESPN’s dilemma. The more experienced commentators all predicted that eye-test would trump resume. The younger guys naively held to the notion of sport and precedence.

(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

So... you bash Michigan for their pathetic OOC slate then you list them as one of the four best teams.

That's deep, man.

(12-04-2023 01:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Well, in the future, it's not about who get's in the top 4 and who doesn't, it's about who gets the last at-large. (or maybe who gets the G5 spot).

If this isn't about an "unblemished, undefeated conference P5 champion", it has a lot less traction. Oklahoma fans are making their case, and nobody cares.

So let's imagine that the all-wise all-knowing gamblers were right and FSU, bereft of Jordan Travis lost the CCG to Louisville.

If 12-1 Florida State were left out of the 12 team playoff, would anybody care? Not nearly as much.

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

(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:  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.

And the week before that Alabama was life and death with Auburn who got beat the week before that by New Mexico state.

And I'm lazy, but I bet somebody who really hates the longhorns can come along pretty quickly with a with a week where Texas didn't look very good against a five and seven six and six team

It’s Houston. Texas got real lucky to get past the 12th place Big 12 team.

(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.

Agree.

As a fan of Texas, I saw us get shafted in 2008 because we lost later and Bob Stoops at OU liked to run up the score while Mack Brown sent in the reserves. It was all eye test.

I saw Oklahoma St. AND LSU get shafted in 2011 when Nick Saban was given a mulligan because they looked like the 2nd best team, but had failed against LSU before at home.

I saw TCU get dropped from 3rd to 6th in 2014 when they probably were the best team in the country. A 4 seed who looked really good in their CCG got in and eventually won the tournament.

Some of you are just noticing because it happened to a brand who was an unbeaten power conference champion. But its always been this way.

The #12 team who gets shafted in the future is not going to be the best team in the country, so the new playoff will be much better.

(12-04-2023 11:01 AM)johnbragg 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.

That might be an underdiscussed point. If Jaydon Hill (Florida CB who took out the Seminoles backup QB) is on Florida's roster next year, do FSU boosters put a bounty on him, Gregg Williams style?

Would that bounty be limited to FSU players, actually?

We've seen a number of QBs get hurt while sliding (don't remember if this was one of them). They need to ban that practice and take out the rule. It leaves the QB in a vulnerable position and it is very hard for the defender to stop.

(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.

Well it is kind of like figure skating or gymnastics. Those with reputations get higher scores whether they are better or not.

(12-04-2023 03:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 11:01 AM)johnbragg 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.

That might be an underdiscussed point. If Jaydon Hill (Florida CB who took out the Seminoles backup QB) is on Florida's roster next year, do FSU boosters put a bounty on him, Gregg Williams style?

Would that bounty be limited to FSU players, actually?

We've seen a number of QBs get hurt while sliding (don't remember if this was one of them). They need to ban that practice and take out the rule. It leaves the QB in a vulnerable position and it is very hard for the defender to stop.

No reason for the defender to stop. I don't think there's any team that wouldn't trade losing a starting DB and a 15 yard penalty for the other team's starting QB, especially in the first half of a game. If we disregard moral implications, a coach that's not pushing his DBs to headhunt when the QB slides isn't doing everything he can to win that game.

(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.

I think an eye test includes Michigan and Georgia. Then its a debate between Texas, Alabama, Washington and Ohio St. FSU probably does get left out, but Georgia does get in.

(12-04-2023 01:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(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:  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.

They will 100% manipulate the rankings for the “best” matchups. That’s the point.. entertainment. They however will not be able to manipulate a scenario where an undefeated FSU (or undefeated ACC champ for that matter) is left out of the playoffs.

(12-04-2023 12:25 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(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:  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?

Preconceived notions. TCU, Florida and Wisconsin were supposed to be pretty good. So the Pac 12 got a lot of credibility for those.even as they faded during the season.

(12-04-2023 01:31 PM)Bear Catlett 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

So... you bash Michigan for their pathetic OOC slate then you list them as one of the four best teams.

That's deep, man.

I’m also a realist and I know they will get in because they’re a media darling, even when they blatantly cheated the past two seasons with pudding soft schedules

(12-04-2023 01:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(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:  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.

But they WILL have conference champs, so that limits the amount of eye test involved.

(12-04-2023 03:29 PM)bullet 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.

Agree.

As a fan of Texas, I saw us get shafted in 2008 because we lost later and Bob Stoops at OU liked to run up the score while Mack Brown sent in the reserves. It was all eye test.

I saw Oklahoma St. AND LSU get shafted in 2011 when Nick Saban was given a mulligan because they looked like the 2nd best team, but had failed against LSU before at home.

I saw TCU get dropped from 3rd to 6th in 2014 when they probably were the best team in the country. A 4 seed who looked really good in their CCG got in and eventually won the tournament.

Some of you are just noticing because it happened to a brand who was an unbeaten power conference champion. But its always been this way.

The #12 team who gets shafted in the future is not going to be the best team in the country, so the new playoff will be much better.

In 2008 Texas blew their chance vs Tech. They had that game in the bac and gave it away.
Alabama ended up winning in 2011.
Ohio St ended up winning in 2014.

Massive missteps!! The committee made the correct decisions.

(12-04-2023 03:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 12:25 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(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:  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?

Preconceived notions. TCU, Florida and Wisconsin were supposed to be pretty good. So the Pac 12 got a lot of credibility for those.even as they faded during the season.

At the end of the year, Massey Composite doesn't include any data from years prior. All the "preconceived notions" are removed once we get the full set of data from this year's games. I believe we're at that point once the regular season ends, though it might be after the CCGs. I'm 99.99% certain it's not after the bowls.

(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.

(12-04-2023 01:25 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(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.

LOL. The setting seemed too much for McElroy…the others were more concise and effective in stating their views.

As an aside, Joey Galloway publicly chiding Booger McFarland was awkward because it exposed ESPN’s dilemma. The more experienced commentators all predicted that eye-test would trump resume. The younger guys naively held to the notion of sport and precedence.

I thought that was really bad. It was exposing ESPN as trying to justify the system instead of reporting on it. But then all media has become advocates, not reporters. And ESPN makes money from the committee and playoff.

(12-04-2023 03:49 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(12-04-2023 03:29 PM)bullet 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.

Agree.

As a fan of Texas, I saw us get shafted in 2008 because we lost later and Bob Stoops at OU liked to run up the score while Mack Brown sent in the reserves. It was all eye test.

I saw Oklahoma St. AND LSU get shafted in 2011 when Nick Saban was given a mulligan because they looked like the 2nd best team, but had failed against LSU before at home.

I saw TCU get dropped from 3rd to 6th in 2014 when they probably were the best team in the country. A 4 seed who looked really good in their CCG got in and eventually won the tournament.

Some of you are just noticing because it happened to a brand who was an unbeaten power conference champion. But its always been this way.

The #12 team who gets shafted in the future is not going to be the best team in the country, so the new playoff will be much better.

In 2008 Texas blew their chance vs Tech. They had that game in the bac and gave it away.
Alabama ended up winning in 2011.
Ohio St ended up winning in 2014.

Massive missteps!! The committee made the correct decisions.

Texas beat OU by 10 on a neutral field, lost to Tech at Lubbock on a TD with 1 second left, after playing 5 teams in a row who were ranked #11 or higher at one point in the season, and OU beat Tech in Norman. I believe Texas would have beaten Florida in 2008.
TCU would have won in 2014.
I think Oklahoma St. would have beaten LSU in 2011. LSU should not have had to beat Alabama a 2nd time.

So yes, massive missteps. A team who could have won never even got to play for it. It was decided by eye tests-polls and committees.

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

(12-04-2023 12:27 PM)esayem Wrote:  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.

No one believes in 'the eye test.' It's a running gag now. That's Committeespeak for 'We're trying to help an SEC team that lost a game.' Has been for years.

I like conference champions being automatic qualifiers and support it across FBS.

Note that Mr Sankey doesn't like automatic qualifiers. He likes 100% opinion. He knows the SEC has a lot of pals in key places and he's confident in their ability to deliver for him.

We could still end up with that. All these years of crafting a playoff structure to take the opinion polling out could still end up being built entirely on opinion polls.

(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.

You are correct, but the criteria is wrong. What is the point of playing the games if the results on the field don't trump what 13 people decide behind clothes doors. The BCS got it wrong on occasion, but at least the formula was known before the season started and you couldn't question the integrity of the results.