CFN: Florida State and the "Rigged" College Football Playoff: Daily Cavalcade

Jun 29, 2023
685
1,490
152
Where the land meets the sky
The big thing to me that the committee did wrong was keeping Oregon ahead of Texas and Bama for too long and they didn't use the metrics seemingly right away. They hitched their wagon to "Bo Nix" and Oregon and ended up paying for it. Anyone could see that after FSU lost their starting QB that the production started to go down. Bama and Texas should have been at least 6 and 7 instead of 7 and 8 earlier. They then proceeded to rank FSU ahead of UGA on the last poll and UGA is a two touchdown favorite. GMAC said week after week on the rankings show, "The committee has obviously fallen in love with Oregon for some reason." It ended up biting them in the court of public opinion in the end.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,413
29,679
287
54
I generally like Fiutak's take on things (as you're probably aware) and I believe he does a good job here with his Cavalcade of Whimsy (stream of consciousness) thoughts on the CFP:

Florida State and the "Rigged" College Football Playoff: Daily Cavalcade
Remember me pointing out incessantly that "the old poll days" would see certain things?

Same thing.

If this was, say, 1989, we have the same four teams in the top four and then a REAL problem: Michigan meets Washington in the Rose Bowl for the national championship, the end.

Unless it's a tie and then FSU can win the championship if they beat UGA.

And if it's a tie and UGA wins and Bama rolls Texas....it's Alabama again.

If this was the BCS years with two teams, nobody would give a damn including us.
 

TitleWave

All-American
Dec 3, 2012
3,169
823
132
The big thing to me that the committee did wrong was keeping Oregon ahead of Texas and Bama for too long and they didn't use the metrics seemingly right away. They hitched their wagon to "Bo Nix" and Oregon and ended up paying for it. Anyone could see that after FSU lost their starting QB that the production started to go down. Bama and Texas should have been at least 6 and 7 instead of 7 and 8 earlier. They then proceeded to rank FSU ahead of UGA on the last poll and UGA is a two touchdown favorite. GMAC said week after week on the rankings show, "The committee has obviously fallen in love with Oregon for some reason." It ended up biting them in the court of public opinion in the end.
Yes, the unworthy Paper Swooshes of Zer-O-gon were at the crux of a season-long logjam - and not for the first time.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,174
287
Hooterville, Vir.

AlexanderFan

Hall of Fame
Jul 23, 2004
11,036
7,409
187
Birmingham
The big thing to me that the committee did wrong was keeping Oregon ahead of Texas and Bama for too long and they didn't use the metrics seemingly right away. They hitched their wagon to "Bo Nix" and Oregon and ended up paying for it. Anyone could see that after FSU lost their starting QB that the production started to go down. Bama and Texas should have been at least 6 and 7 instead of 7 and 8 earlier. They then proceeded to rank FSU ahead of UGA on the last poll and UGA is a two touchdown favorite. GMAC said week after week on the rankings show, "The committee has obviously fallen in love with Oregon for some reason." It ended up biting them in the court of public opinion in the end.
Exactly. As the shine of FSU’s win over LSU began to fade they should’ve fallen down the ladder.

this committee failed miserably.
 

PA Tide Fan

All-American
Dec 11, 2014
4,422
3,012
187
Lancaster, PA
What Hancock said was correct, but the writer of that article was upset because he picked FSU to be among the Top 4, as did most everyone on that CBS staff of writers. I don't have a problem if a committee member thought FSU shouldn't be included because they can't win it all without Travis. Technically that's not listed in the decision process but if teams are put in the playoff that have no chance to win it all then there's no point in even having a playoff. The writer states if that's the case then Georgia should have been in the Top 4, but he's wrong because there was only room this time for conference champions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Ols

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,290
66,854
462
crimsonaudio.net
What Hancock said was correct, but the writer of that article was upset because he picked FSU to be among the Top 4, as did most everyone on that CBS staff of writers. I don't have a problem if a committee member thought FSU shouldn't be included because they can't win it all without Travis. Technically that's not listed in the decision process but if teams are put in the playoff that have no chance to win it all then there's no point in even having a playoff. The writer states if that's the case then Georgia should have been in the Top 4, but he's wrong because there was only room this time for conference champions.
Incorrect:
1701823475243.png
 

PA Tide Fan

All-American
Dec 11, 2014
4,422
3,012
187
Lancaster, PA
Yes, the highlighted criteria (which includes player unavailability) does impact a teams ability to win the national championship. Apparently though the writer was looking for some exact statement stating that members evaluate a teams ability to win a national championship. If such an exact statement existed then the committee could have excluded TCU last year and Cincinnati the year before that since neither of those teams were capable of winning the NC, at least in my opinion.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
43
kraizy.art
There's a pretty big elephant in the room in terms of the radical departure that the committee took somewhere along the way (it does after all consist of rotating members).

The committee used to value SoS to such an extent that even I was a bit put off by it. They started off somewhat reasonable, undefeated Iowa behind two one loss teams. Undefeated FSU behind two one loss teams. This was an SoS, data driven argument.

Then they put two loss Auburn over two one loss teams, and also over an undefeated team. People got so caught up in the moment they lost track of how big a reach that was, and it wasn't helped when Auburn ended up with 4 losses. If you compare what they did with Auburn in 2017 to what they did just now, it's nothing in comparison. At the same time though, the committee didn't even put an undefeated UCF in the top 10, despite a relatively respectable SoS.

Then somewhere along the lines they flipped things, to a bit of an extreme on the other end, this time Cincinnati gets in and gets spanked by Alabama. Cincinnati's SoS was basically the same as UCF's in 2017 (71 vs 72). They are playing in the same exact conference! They are both undefeated, and what are the rankings? Cincinnati is 4 and UCF is 12!

You can look at the schedule and rationalize things and try to explain how you got there, but you can't give Cincinnati that much respect for basically one single game, while UCF is ranked behind two and three loss teams (the BCS had UCF at 9). It was remarkable hubris by the committee and it's kind of how we got here. The committee now feels like they can just do what ever they want, when they want.

SoS matters, sometimes. Head to head matters, sometimes. Conference matters, sometimes. Injuries matter, sometimes.They are remarkably inconsistent and they're not very reasonable because they can obsess over one particular detail. I think Alabama belongs in, I've made the case the entire time, but it's driven by SoS not by some weird injury criteria.
 

Latest threads