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

[DzynKingRTR]

The NFL comparison is flawed because the talent gap between teams across the league is razor thin and you're only dealing with 32 teams, not 125. It is much easier to get to "fair" with 32 teams rather than 125 teams where the talent gap from conference to conference is so far apart.

The number of teams is now 133 and growing, so more than 100 teams than the NFL.

 

[tusks_n_raider]

Beginning of the year slugfests do nothing to help you get into the playoffs, but they do negatively impact you, if you lose. Hope we never play another one. There’s just no reward

Well the funny thing is with the expanded playoff 1 or even 2 losses won't kill your season so losing that type of game won't cause as much damage.

I'm not glad we lost to Texas of course but losing that game helped this team unite imo.

It removed their safety net and made the rest of the season do or die, sink or swim, get better....significantly better or miss out on the CFBP.

The problem was really that there was ZERO chaos to help us.

But it does seem like things are shifting towards eliminating tough OOC games if you are already IN a tough Conference.

I'd prefer us to keep playing the tough OOC games because they are fun and we also usually win them anyway.

For me the problem if everyone goes back to 4 creampuff OOC games again is that we won't have any kind of gauge of One Conferences Power vs another.

A LOT of assumptions are going to have to be made when there's a BUNCH of teams in the Top twelve with similar records.

 

[RammerJammer14]

Beginning of the year slugfests do nothing to help you get into the playoffs, but they do negatively impact you, if you lose. Hope we never play another one. There’s just no reward

Well it got Texas into the playoffs

 

[RTR2u]

i'll have you know sir, that "fluke" sustained the delusions of championship tradition for a massive fanbase for 40 years

Blue font not required in this statement.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Well it got Texas into the playoffs

Yes, but it also hurt both Texas and Alabama in the rankings when it came to Oregon.

My goodness, I'd think FSU has a bigger beef with Oregon than with us.

I'm not incapable of empathy, and part of me understands their issue (and "well, your QB was hurt" is lame).

 

[DrollTide]

It is rigged in favor of the four best teams, because that is in the selection criteria.

Alabama was also in the 4 best last year. However, 2 losses and no champ game was a bridge too far.

To summarize - it is 4 best teams, but an at-large non-champion does not trump a P5 champion if it appears to be fairly close. TCU was still a bad mistake.

FSU is in the 4 "most deserving". But "most deserving" does not appear anywhere in the selection criteria. I think Alabama would also be in the 4 "most deserving", if that mattered at all.

 

[JDCrimson]

The SEC is probably secretly hoping that FSU joins the Big Ten. This collapses the ACC so the SEC can make its move to join UNC and UVA maybe a couple of others.

 

[92tide]

Look, Georgia won by the standards we had at the time, so I don't begrudge them their cheer.

i begrudge their cheer.

 

[RTR2u]

i begrudge their cheer.

ALWAYS AND FOREVER

 

[hfhmilkman]

I will put my replies here. I write books because I hate what TWITTER has done to the prose of the nation. It is unlikely that FSU can join the Big10 as FSU is not an AAU University. The Big10 is an academic conference first. The Big Ten would have to change precedent to allow FSU in. There is Nebraska as an outlier. Nebraska lost AAU designation after it joined the Big10. This question is above my pay grade.

My point on the state of college football is being missed. It is not about who gets to feed at the "Big Boy Table". Someone talked about what about Alabama's dreams verses FSU. The consequence for Alabama is they wait a year and they are the favorites next year. A Cincinnati, TCU, MSU, ND, and yes FSU, might be there only shot forever. If that team for that year has no chance ever, what is the point?

This board seems to be chortling at FSU's woes and threats of leaving the ACC. It is not FSU that I am concerned with. The problem in my opinion is every fan base of a team with a chance is rudely aware that their chances of being invited to the dance is ZERO. That means every team that wants to be a "Big Boy" , has to be in the SEC or the Big10.

College football works because this paradox has been perpetuated by delusions and breadcrumbs thrown to the also-rans. If all of the other conferences are frozen out, college football does become the NFL. Its two conferences. Basketball has the tournament. It's beautiful because teams and fans can dream. Butler almost beat Duke. Davidson and Loyola of Chicago made the Final4.

I admit that I am speculating, and this is an opinion. I have no factual basis for my points. And to be honest I would rather be wrong. The NFL guaranteed popularity by guaranteeing a level field in all endeavors. How long can college football guarantee popularity if the act of a game becomes just a ritual for a 100+ programs?

There is an answer, and it is competition. It may be that it is enough for Auburn to take a shot at Alabama or MSU vs UM, or UF verses FSU. Never mind National Championships. Beating your rival may be good enough. Regardless of my long-winded prose, college football may perpetuate in its own paradoxical way.

 

[davefrat]

Say we played Bowling Green and won by 40 instead of losing to Texas by 10?

Would Booger and other view us as a better team because we were 13-0 instead of 12-1?

 

[cbi1972]

Yes, but it also hurt both Texas and Alabama in the rankings when it came to Oregon.

What hurt Texas was losing to Oklahoma. Beating Alabama remains their most impressive accomplishment, including winning all their other games and the conference championship. Without having beaten Alabama, Texas misses the CFP.

 

[cbi1972]

Say we played Bowling Green and won by 40 instead of losing to Texas by 10?

Would Booger and other view us as a better team because we were 13-0 instead of 12-1?

To them, it is not about being the better team. Their preferences do not align with the mission of the CFP, so there is angst.

 

[B1GTide]

Say we played Bowling Green and won by 40 instead of losing to Texas by 10?

Would Booger and other view us as a better team because we were 13-0 instead of 12-1?

Yes, and you would be ranked #1 right now.

 

[uafan4life]

Georgia will whip FSU so bad it’ll make TCU jealous.

This doesn't, logically, make any sense...

If Georgia beats FSU worse than they did TCU, it would logically make TCU feel better about their shellacking...

 

[Krymsonman]

Say we played Bowling Green and won by 40 instead of losing to Texas by 10?

Would Booger and other view us as a better team because we were 13-0 instead of 12-1?

Everybody knows what a butthead Booger was about us making the playoffs. They have an article on Al.Com today in which Booger says if he was actually ranking the teams he would have Texas -1, BAMA -2, Michigan-3, and Washington-4. If that is his actual belief on how the teams should be ranked, why is he acting so crazy. Did ESPN pay him to be the nutball of the day.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I will put my replies here. I write books because I hate what TWITTER has done to the prose of the nation. It is unlikely that FSU can join the Big10 as FSU is not an AAU University. The Big10 is an academic conference first. The Big Ten would have to change precedent to allow FSU in. There is Nebraska as an outlier. Nebraska lost AAU designation after it joined the Big10. This question is above my pay grade.

My point on the state of college football is being missed. It is not about who gets to feed at the "Big Boy Table". Someone talked about what about Alabama's dreams verses FSU. The consequence for Alabama is they wait a year and they are the favorites next year. A Cincinnati, TCU, MSU, ND, and yes FSU, might be there only shot forever. If that team for that year has no chance ever, what is the point?

This board seems to be chortling at FSU's woes and threats of leaving the ACC. It is not FSU that I am concerned with. The problem in my opinion is every fan base of a team with a chance is rudely aware that their chances of being invited to the dance is ZERO. That means every team that wants to be a "Big Boy" , has to be in the SEC or the Big10.

College football works because this paradox has been perpetuated by delusions and breadcrumbs thrown to the also-rans. If all of the other conferences are frozen out, college football does become the NFL. Its two conferences. Basketball has the tournament. It's beautiful because teams and fans can dream. Butler almost beat Duke. Davidson and Loyola of Chicago made the Final4.

I admit that I am speculating, and this is an opinion. I have no factual basis for my points. And to be honest I would rather be wrong. The NFL guaranteed popularity by guaranteeing a level field in all endeavors. How long can college football guarantee popularity if the act of a game becomes just a ritual for a 100+ programs?

There is an answer, and it is competition. It may be that it is enough for Auburn to take a shot at Alabama or MSU vs UM, or UF verses FSU. Never mind National Championships. Beating your rival may be good enough. Regardless of my long-winded prose, college football may perpetuate in its own paradoxical way.

I think you're fundamentally wrong, beginning with your premise. Including the FCA teams, 99% of college football fans buy tickets and watch college football because of school loyalty and not because of "dreams" of a national championship. Their goals are not the goals you've imposed upon them. Many teams' fans celebrate a 7-5 season. Why? Because in the prior several seasons, they only won one or two. My God, the year I matriculated at Bama, we won one and tied one. I attended every home game and one in Mobile, some 200 miles away and cheered my heart out. Only the fans of one percent of college fans enter the season, thinking that their team might win the big prize. In a capsule, your thinking is purely elitist, and you're not even aware of it...

 

[dWarriors88]

My point on the state of college football is being missed. It is not about who gets to feed at the "Big Boy Table". Someone talked about what about Alabama's dreams verses FSU. The consequence for Alabama is they wait a year and they are the favorites next year. A Cincinnati, TCU, MSU, ND, and yes FSU, might be there only shot forever. If that team for that year has no chance ever, what is the point?

Welcome to the board btw, happy to have you here!
All those teams will have as much of a chance as anyone as the Playoff format is expanding to 12 teams literally next year.

Ironically enough, it was the ACC Commissioner that prevented the expansion taking place this year. Had he not stonewalled as he did, FSU would be in the playoff. Secondly, FSU won the National Title game against Auburn in 2013, therefore I'm not buying the they will "never" have a chance argument.
Alabama defeated the two time defending national championship and won their conference, only loss was to a team IN the playoff.
Btw many bama fans feel we could have won that game as 2 TD's were called back, it was a lot closer of a game then what the score indicates

FSU didn't have the same caliber of schedule therefore they're the team left out. Never mind the fact that they have basically the waterboy playing QB in their Conference Championship game.

And furthermore, was the playoff snub the thing that turns you off from college football, rather than the Free Agency/ Transfer Portal or Legal Pay-to Play process that's taking place? College football is in shambles, but not because of the committee's selection of Alabama over FSU.

 

[uafan4life]

I will put my replies here. I write books because I hate what TWITTER has done to the prose of the nation. It is unlikely that FSU can join the Big10 as FSU is not an AAU University. The Big10 is an academic conference first. The Big Ten would have to change precedent to allow FSU in. There is Nebraska as an outlier. Nebraska lost AAU designation after it joined the Big10. This question is above my pay grade.

My point on the state of college football is being missed...

The primary problem with the bulk of your premises that lead you to your common conclusion is some version of the assumption that all schedules and conferences are created equal.

In the last 36 years, you'd be hard-pressed to make any argument that the crowned National Champion(s) in any given year were not elite teams. You might be able to make the argument that there was an elite team they didn't play but not that they weren't elite themselves.

And it should matter how many elite programs you play in any given season.

However, there should be some recency bias - not too much but some. For example, Minnesota has won multiple National Championships but they haven't fielded a single elite team in several decades.

That's the reason I mentioned 36 years above instead of a nice, round number like 30 or 40. You see, recent memory should play a part in current evaluations. And - for bigger picture questions - a good, consistent version of recent is the lifespan of your program's current recruits, i.e., 18 years.

If you want to know how balanced a conference is - top to bottom - then you should ask how many different teams from that conference have won conference championships in the last 18 years.

And If you want to know how good a conference is - compared to other conferences - then you should ask how many different teams from that conference have won national championships in the last 18 years.

These are the most important considerations for any estimation of quality - best or deserving - because the majority of any program's games are against conference opponents. Out-of-conference games merely serve to support or detract from this evaluation.

You see, reality is the fact that there is far more likely to be 0, 1, or 2 elite teams in any given year than 3 or more elite teams. The problem is that there often appears to be more elite teams than actually exist in many years. That's why we end up with blowouts in the CFP virtually every year.

Part of the problem is the idea that your overall record indicates your quality.

It does not.

You are - in this order:
1. The teams to which you've lost.
2. The 10+ win teams from elite conferences you've beaten.
3. The 10+ win teams from other conferences you've beaten.
4. The 6+ win teams from elite conferences you've beaten.
5. The 6+ win teams from other conferences you've beaten.

All other games should be considered scrimmages and, effectively, as saying nothing about your quality.

You'll notice that I said nothing about "Power 5" conferences. The reason is because not all Power 5 conferences are elite. The elite conferences - at any given point in time - are the top 2 or 3 conferences in terms of the greatest number of different teams within that conference that have won national championships in the previous 18 years (recent memory).

You see, being truly elite neither appears overnight nor disappears overnight. There is so much foundation required for being actually elite that the quality appears at least a couple years before the actual elite season(s) and endures beyond for at least a couple seasons. This means that the level of competition against such teams is demonstrably greater than against teams that haven't ever been truly elite in recent memory.

If you only have one program - or worse, zero - in your conference that has won a National Championship in recent memory, then winning your conference means far, far less than winning an elite conference.

You can argue that this is unfair for a potentially elite program outside an elite conference. On the other hand, every team that wins an elite conference has defeated multiple teams with a proven pedigree and that cannot be discounted in any fair evaluation.

The bottom line - as much as it disappoints the fans of any team outside an elite conference - is that ignoring the factor of recent pedigree is, realistically, more unfair than factoring it into the current evaluation...

 

[bamagradinATL]

In no world is the ACC a better conference than the SEC.

Once you accept that reality, the rest falls into place.

But but the ACC was 6-4 against the SEC this year.