(12-04-2014 11:33 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I honestly think there's a real possibility FSU is left out. That's not based on common sense but instead on this committee's actions over the last month or so.

If FSU wins on a last second field goal over gt, but Ohio state, Baylor and tcu all win convincingly (and assuming bama and Oregon both win), it honestly wouldn't surprise me at this point. Anybody saying "just win and you're in" clearly hasn't been paying attention.

The ONLY reason I think FSU will make the top 4, no matter the type of win, is because this "committee", this new playoff structure, can't afford a split national champion in its first year of implementation. And that might just happen were FSU to finish the season 14-0 but not invited to the playoff.

Marge, you are on the ledge as well. Just win the game.

GT is ranked 11th, higher than Wisconsin, higher than Mizzou. Only Oregon can have a "better" win on Saturday. Expectation for FSU are so low now that anything more than 7 points will seem like a blowout.

Just win the game.

Be mentally prepared to play in the first quarter unlike what happened with NC State, Florida, and Louisville.

(12-03-2014 07:48 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 07:31 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  It's simple. I see the following occuring in either direction with greater than 99.5% certainty. For FSU on Saturday:

-Win and you are in the playoff
-Lose and you are out

What is less certain is their seeding with a victory. I think they jump TCU again with an additional Top 15 win while TCU plays a dreg in ISU.

The committee do not want Oregon and Alabama to play first.

Who does? Why wouldn't you want the two easternmost teams and the two westernmost teams to play each other in the first round? Especially when there isn't a dime's worth of difference among them strength-wise. Maybe if there were a clear #1 and/or a clear #4. But we haven't even been able to separate the top four from the next four (or more).

The ledge? It's called reality and inferences based on available data. "Just winning" has FSU fourth...out of four. That's the playoff "ledge", if you will.

(12-04-2014 01:29 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 07:48 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 07:31 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  It's simple. I see the following occuring in either direction with greater than 99.5% certainty. For FSU on Saturday:

-Win and you are in the playoff
-Lose and you are out

What is less certain is their seeding with a victory. I think they jump TCU again with an additional Top 15 win while TCU plays a dreg in ISU.

The committee do not want Oregon and Alabama to play first.

Who does? Why wouldn't you want the two easternmost teams and the two westernmost teams to play each other in the first round? Especially when there isn't a dime's worth of difference among them strength-wise. Maybe if there were a clear #1 and/or a clear #4. But we haven't even been able to separate the top four from the next four (or more).

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING STATING THE PLAYOFF WOULD BE BASED ON GEOGRAPHICAL MATCHUPS. Just that the top seed would be placed as close to campus as possible. That's it.

(12-04-2014 02:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 01:29 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 07:48 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 07:31 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  It's simple. I see the following occuring in either direction with greater than 99.5% certainty. For FSU on Saturday:

-Win and you are in the playoff
-Lose and you are out

What is less certain is their seeding with a victory. I think they jump TCU again with an additional Top 15 win while TCU plays a dreg in ISU.

The committee do not want Oregon and Alabama to play first.

Who does? Why wouldn't you want the two easternmost teams and the two westernmost teams to play each other in the first round? Especially when there isn't a dime's worth of difference among them strength-wise. Maybe if there were a clear #1 and/or a clear #4. But we haven't even been able to separate the top four from the next four (or more).

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING STATING THE PLAYOFF WOULD BE BASED ON GEOGRAPHICAL MATCHUPS. Just that the top seed would be placed as close to campus as possible. That's it.

CORRECT - well, officially at least, only the Peach, Cotton and Fiesta bowls (when not semi-final sites) are seeded geographically.

OFFICIALLY.

(12-04-2014 02:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 01:29 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 07:48 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 07:31 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  It's simple. I see the following occuring in either direction with greater than 99.5% certainty. For FSU on Saturday:

-Win and you are in the playoff
-Lose and you are out

What is less certain is their seeding with a victory. I think they jump TCU again with an additional Top 15 win while TCU plays a dreg in ISU.

The committee do not want Oregon and Alabama to play first.

Who does? Why wouldn't you want the two easternmost teams and the two westernmost teams to play each other in the first round? Especially when there isn't a dime's worth of difference among them strength-wise. Maybe if there were a clear #1 and/or a clear #4. But we haven't even been able to separate the top four from the next four (or more).

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING STATING THE PLAYOFF WOULD BE BASED ON GEOGRAPHICAL MATCHUPS. Just that the top seed would be placed as close to campus as possible. That's it.

I don't recall saying that they would.

I am pulling for FSU!

(12-04-2014 02:48 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 02:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 01:29 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 07:48 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 07:31 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  It's simple. I see the following occuring in either direction with greater than 99.5% certainty. For FSU on Saturday:

-Win and you are in the playoff
-Lose and you are out

What is less certain is their seeding with a victory. I think they jump TCU again with an additional Top 15 win while TCU plays a dreg in ISU.

The committee do not want Oregon and Alabama to play first.

Who does? Why wouldn't you want the two easternmost teams and the two westernmost teams to play each other in the first round? Especially when there isn't a dime's worth of difference among them strength-wise. Maybe if there were a clear #1 and/or a clear #4. But we haven't even been able to separate the top four from the next four (or more).

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING STATING THE PLAYOFF WOULD BE BASED ON GEOGRAPHICAL MATCHUPS. Just that the top seed would be placed as close to campus as possible. That's it.

I don't recall saying that they would.

I still think FSU is the BEST, they have shown that winning in a crunch is their thing. They can totally beat Alabama/TCU or Oregon.

ALL Winston has to do is quit throwing as many int's an you win the Whole Damn Thing!!
FLossY Out...

(12-04-2014 02:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING STATING THE PLAYOFF WOULD BE BASED ON GEOGRAPHICAL MATCHUPS. Just that the top seed would be placed as close to campus as possible. That's it.

There doesn't have to be. Oregon/TCU in the Rose Bowl and 'Bama/FSU in the Sugar Bowl is the only reason one could justify FSU being ranked 4th. There is no reason for the 'Noles to be ranked behind TCU, none. They are undefeated and have a great OOC schedule/record. Now they could have put 'Bama and FSU at 2 and 3 to accomplish the same thing, but the argument that an undefeated P5 is ranked behind a bunch of 1 loss teams simply because they haven't looked 'good' winning is specious.

(12-04-2014 02:07 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  The ledge? It's called reality and inferences based on available data. "Just winning" has FSU fourth...out of four. That's the playoff "ledge", if you will.

Since we haven't even been through a full season where the playoff committee selected the teams, I don't think there is any data worth drawing inferences from.

Anyway, I'm with the others that if FSU wins they are going to be selected. I'm also on record saying they should be #1 but I'm not on the selection committee.

In the initial CFP ranking FSU was ranked #2.

They have fell twice since then despite not losing a game, being passed by teams with losses each time.

The idea that they can fall once more without losing isn't as far fetched as some of you are trying to portray it to be.

(12-04-2014 03:37 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 02:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING STATING THE PLAYOFF WOULD BE BASED ON GEOGRAPHICAL MATCHUPS. Just that the top seed would be placed as close to campus as possible. That's it.

There doesn't have to be. Oregon/TCU in the Rose Bowl and 'Bama/FSU in the Sugar Bowl is the only reason one could justify FSU being ranked 4th. There is no reason for the 'Noles to be ranked behind TCU, none. They are undefeated and have a great OOC schedule/record. Now they could have put 'Bama and FSU at 2 and 3 to accomplish the same thing, but the argument that an undefeated P5 is ranked behind a bunch of 1 loss teams simply because they haven't looked 'good' winning is specious.

So the committee is making up its own rules and guidelines as it goes along? That's a huge problem.

(12-04-2014 03:45 PM)ndlutz Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 02:07 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  The ledge? It's called reality and inferences based on available data. "Just winning" has FSU fourth...out of four. That's the playoff "ledge", if you will.

Since we haven't even been through a full season where the playoff committee selected the teams, I don't think there is any data worth drawing inferences from.

Anyway, I'm with the others that if FSU wins they are going to be selected. I'm also on record saying they should be #1 but I'm not on the selection committee.

There are multiple data points to make observations on and from which to consider future actions. You must be unaware that they've been releasing weekly updates for awhile now.

I'm on record saying those of you who keep saying "just win" don't actually know what the heck you're talking about.

Winston is your politically correct problem. I think the committee is sticking it to you for playing him.

(12-04-2014 06:25 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 03:37 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 02:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING STATING THE PLAYOFF WOULD BE BASED ON GEOGRAPHICAL MATCHUPS. Just that the top seed would be placed as close to campus as possible. That's it.

There doesn't have to be. Oregon/TCU in the Rose Bowl and 'Bama/FSU in the Sugar Bowl is the only reason one could justify FSU being ranked 4th. There is no reason for the 'Noles to be ranked behind TCU, none. They are undefeated and have a great OOC schedule/record. Now they could have put 'Bama and FSU at 2 and 3 to accomplish the same thing, but the argument that an undefeated P5 is ranked behind a bunch of 1 loss teams simply because they haven't looked 'good' winning is specious.

So the committee is making up its own rules and guidelines as it goes along? That's a huge problem.

You expected otherwise? There is too much at stake for the CFP to be left up pre-disclosed rules. It's 'a fluid situation with lots of moving parts'.

(12-04-2014 03:21 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 02:48 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 02:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 01:29 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 07:48 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The committee do not want Oregon and Alabama to play first.

Who does? Why wouldn't you want the two easternmost teams and the two westernmost teams to play each other in the first round? Especially when there isn't a dime's worth of difference among them strength-wise. Maybe if there were a clear #1 and/or a clear #4. But we haven't even been able to separate the top four from the next four (or more).

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING STATING THE PLAYOFF WOULD BE BASED ON GEOGRAPHICAL MATCHUPS. Just that the top seed would be placed as close to campus as possible. That's it.

I don't recall saying that they would.

I guess nuance and reading comprehension aren't your strong suits. No surprise there.

Something tells me Georgia Tech is not going to lie down. They just beat their arch-rival and have a chance to win the ACC.

(12-04-2014 06:41 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 06:25 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 03:37 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 02:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING STATING THE PLAYOFF WOULD BE BASED ON GEOGRAPHICAL MATCHUPS. Just that the top seed would be placed as close to campus as possible. That's it.

There doesn't have to be. Oregon/TCU in the Rose Bowl and 'Bama/FSU in the Sugar Bowl is the only reason one could justify FSU being ranked 4th. There is no reason for the 'Noles to be ranked behind TCU, none. They are undefeated and have a great OOC schedule/record. Now they could have put 'Bama and FSU at 2 and 3 to accomplish the same thing, but the argument that an undefeated P5 is ranked behind a bunch of 1 loss teams simply because they haven't looked 'good' winning is specious.

So the committee is making up its own rules and guidelines as it goes along? That's a huge problem.

You expected otherwise? There is too much at stake for the CFP to be left up pre-disclosed rules. It's 'a fluid situation with lots of moving parts'.

Yes. Their whole shtick was that they'd be more transparent and "uphold the sanctity of the regular season". They're not really doing that if that aren't seeding a true #1-4.

(12-04-2014 06:34 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Winston is your politically correct problem. I think the committee is sticking it to you for playing him.

Keep fishing.