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.

Look for injury reports to be a lot less honest going forward.

(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.

The committee followed their selection protocol. Period the end. Sorry/not sorry ACC fan boys. Injuries are a part of that selection protocal. The term best is in the selection protocol. No where does it say most deserving.

(12-04-2023 10:52 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  Look for injury reports to be a lot less honest going forward.

wouldn't have helped FSU out at all. QB had a season ending injury. Sort of tough to hide that.

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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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?

(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.

Liberty went 13-0 too. Not seeing a lot of words wasted on why they deserved to make the playoff.

(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.

I don't know who this guy his, so I hope he's not a child molester or a fan of your hated rival, but I think he's right about this:

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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'm frankly glad that the sanctimonious gotta protect the college football regular season schtick is done once and for good. Good riddance.

(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.

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

Rewind back to 2014. Ohio State finished the regular season as #4 in the CFP rankings. It lost its starting quarterback before the season (Braxton Miller); it lost its backup quarterback against Michigan (J.T. Barrett). It was on its third string quarterback (Cardale Jones) for the B1G Championship. It lost by two scores at home to a .500 Virginia Tech team.

OSU didn't go undefeated. But it did destroy Wisconsin 59-0 in the B1G Championship game with Jones as its new QB. If Ohio State narrowly beats Wisconsin, is it much more likely that Baylor gets in the CFP that year? Most definitely. OSU won the CFP that year, thus affirming the committee's decision.

If FSU gets blown out by Georgia, and/or Alabama beats Michigan/wins the CFP, the committee will be affirmed once again.

(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

And then Alabama beat #1 Georgia. That's the difference.

(12-04-2023 10:54 AM)stever20 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.

The committee followed their selection protocol. Period the end. Sorry/not sorry ACC fan boys. Injuries are a part of that selection protocal. The term best is in the selection protocol. No where does it say most deserving.

No, they applied different protocol to different teams. They said Alabama is better than FSU, but they did not look at Georgia vs Washington and the incredibly weak resume of the entire Pac.

Please stop avoiding these questions:

Which team is better Georgia or Washington?

What is the Pac’s best OOC win that contributes to the data that says they are better than an ACC with a winning record vs the SEC?

Pac teams beating each other doesn’t tell me anything. Pac teams beating weak teams OOC doesn’t tell me anything. Georgia losing one game all season in the absolute toughest conference tells me a lot more.

Stop being a coward and answer the questions