CFP Discussion

[GTLorenzo]

Hmm. So they said that they were concerned about FSU's offense and that watching the ACC championship game caused them concern. Shocking. I swear I've heard something like that before, but not sure where.

"All of us had the emotional tie, like, 'Holy s---, this is really going to suck to do this,'" one committee member told ESPN. "We talked about that over and over, and we just kept coming back [to] are they good enough with what they have to win a national championship, and it just kept coming back [to] we didn't think they could."

Instead, the crux of the debate into the wee hours of Sunday morning centered around how to evaluate Florida State, which beat Louisville with its third-string quarterback after both Jordan Travis and his backup, Tate Rodemaker, were sidelined by injuries. While the Seminoles' defense impressed the committee -- and had all year -- there were significant concerns about FSU's offense.

It wasn't until the ACC championship game began to unfold, though, that the members' opinions began to truly take shape. The group grew concerned as it watched the Noles struggle to get a first down in the first half. There is a section in the committee's protocol that specifically refers to the "unavailability of key players ... that may have affected a teams performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance." That allowed the committee to do something it intentionally avoids every other week: look ahead.

"People may not believe it, but we don't say, 'Oh gosh, if we vote this way, the SEC is going to be left out," one source said. "That never came up. Ever. We literally look at teams, put them up against each other, and say, 'Who did they beat? Who did they not beat? Who have they beaten on the road? What's their strength of schedule?' Look at the matrix and all the data."

In the end, though, the difference between Alabama and Florida State boiled down to the committee's written protocol, particularly the emphasis on strength of schedule -- which gave Alabama the edge -- and the section that allowed committee members to project what Florida State might look like in a semifinal without their star quarterback.

Not having Heisman hopeful starter Travis "changes their offense in its entirety," said Corrigan, "and that was really a big factor with the committee as we went through everything."

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Folks bringing up TCU seem to have forgotten that TCU won a game??

But as long as this thread is “they got left out cause of the injury” vs “they would’ve gotten left out anyway cause SEC bias” it’s gonna go forever cause folks literally aren’t even having the same discussion. Wheeee around we go

There’s a real easy way to clarify what this is about.

Name one set of circumstances, any circumstances, in which an undefeated SEC conference champion gets left out of a playoff.

See how easy that is?

 

[Techster]

I mean, who doesn't like a good conspiracy!

 

[roadkill]

You're right, it doesn't settle the thing at all, because there is a whopping 0.004 difference between Alabama's rating (0.954) and FSU's rating (0.950). Both of those simplify to 0.95. Texas is 0.96, Michigan is 0.99, and Washington is 1.01. There is no statistically significant difference between Alabama and FSU in that list. You have to then consider that FSU completed an undefeated season w/o it's starting QB. IMPO, you have to give the edge to FSU.

This may be why the committee's rationale defaulted to their guidance of "...unavailability of key players."

 

[GTLorenzo]

There’s a real easy way to clarify what this is about.

Name one set of circumstances, any circumstances, in which an undefeated SEC conference champion gets left out of a playoff.

See how easy that is?

Do they have an injured start QB??

 

[yeti92]

Hmm. So they said that they were concerned about FSU's offense and that watching the ACC championship game caused them concern. Shocking. I swear I've heard something like that before, but not sure where.

"All of us had the emotional tie, like, 'Holy s---, this is really going to suck to do this,'" one committee member told ESPN. "We talked about that over and over, and we just kept coming back [to] are they good enough with what they have to win a national championship, and it just kept coming back [to] we didn't think they could."

Instead, the crux of the debate into the wee hours of Sunday morning centered around how to evaluate Florida State, which beat Louisville with its third-string quarterback after both Jordan Travis and his backup, Tate Rodemaker, were sidelined by injuries. While the Seminoles' defense impressed the committee -- and had all year -- there were significant concerns about FSU's offense.

It wasn't until the ACC championship game began to unfold, though, that the members' opinions began to truly take shape. The group grew concerned as it watched the Noles struggle to get a first down in the first half. There is a section in the committee's protocol that specifically refers to the "unavailability of key players ... that may have affected a teams performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance." That allowed the committee to do something it intentionally avoids every other week: look ahead.

"People may not believe it, but we don't say, 'Oh gosh, if we vote this way, the SEC is going to be left out," one source said. "That never came up. Ever. We literally look at teams, put them up against each other, and say, 'Who did they beat? Who did they not beat? Who have they beaten on the road? What's their strength of schedule?' Look at the matrix and all the data."

In the end, though, the difference between Alabama and Florida State boiled down to the committee's written protocol, particularly the emphasis on strength of schedule -- which gave Alabama the edge -- and the section that allowed committee members to project what Florida State might look like in a semifinal without their star quarterback.

Not having Heisman hopeful starter Travis "changes their offense in its entirety," said Corrigan, "and that was really a big factor with the committee as we went through everything."

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[stinger78]

This may be why the committee's rationale defaulted to their guidance of "...unavailability of key players."

Likely. However, that overrode the notion of an undefeated conference champion. In that decision, if that was indeed it, they took the chance away for an undefeated P5 team to play for the national championship. That is amazing to me. I get it that the cases for FSU and Bama were both pretty close to equal, but there's one detail that swings it in FSU's favor - undefeated. It's the same rationale for voting for GA Tech over Colorado back in 1990 - the power of an undefeated season.

 

[bobongo]

Likely. However, that overrode the notion of an undefeated conference champion. In that decision, if that was indeed it, they took the chance away for an undefeated P5 team to play for the national championship. That is amazing to me. I get it that the cases for FSU and Bama were both pretty close to equal, but there's one detail that swings it in FSU's favor - undefeated. It's the same rationale for voting for GA Tech over Colorado back in 1990 - the power of an undefeated season.

They're basically saying missing one player trumps a loss.

 

[jeffgt14]

We really are beating a dead horse here. It's almost like the best way to settle these arguments is to have some sort of objective way to determine who gets in like a W/L record or something.

 

[GTLorenzo]

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Cool. Hope it's a good one.

Travis playing = FSU in.

Travis hurt = FSU out.

Why is it hard to understand this???

 

[GTLorenzo]

We really are beating a dead horse here. It's almost like the best way to settle these arguments is to have some sort of objective way to determine who gets in like a W/L record or something.

Or a committee to pick four teams??

 

[jeffgt14]

Or a committee to pick four teams??

ob·jec·tive
/əbˈjektiv/
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

 

[bobongo]

Do they have an injured start QB??

I guarantee you they would ignore that criterion and jump on another one. They were going to focus on and amplify whatever they could to get an SEC team in there, come hell or high water.
They put a one loss SEC team in ahead of an undefeated ACC team in a rare year when the ACC outperformed the SEC on the field. It's ridiculous.

And I have to add that I didn't think they would do this. I'm flabbergasted that they actually did it.

 

[GTLorenzo]

ob·jec·tive
/əbˈjektiv/
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

Where does it say that they have to be objective? I think their goal is to get the 4 best teams for the tv shows in late December/early January.

 

[wrmathis]

The established rules allow for exceptions in the event a player instrumental to the team, is not available.

then why place them 4 the week prior. everyone knew they were down their star quarterback. If they were one off the 4 best one week, then win the next week, why would they drop them? that doesn't make since. The Committee thought they were one of the 4 best teams at one point with their back up

also, for the whole being blown out in the playoffs sucks. by my count, 13 of the 27 CFP games played, have been won by 20+ points. I would consider that a blow out. and only one year didn't have a 20+ point win.

 

[GTLorenzo]

I guarantee you they would ignore that criterium and jump on another one. They were going to focus on and amplify whatever they could to get an SEC team in there, come hell or high water.
They put a one loss SEC team in ahead of an undefeated ACC team whose star quarterback is injured and who played a horrid championship game where they could barely get a first down while the committee was in the process of choosing the teams in a rare year when the ACC outperformed the SEC on the field. It's ridiculous.

And I have to add that I didn't think they would do this. I'm flabbergasted that they actually did it.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Vespidae]

then why place them 4 the week prior. everyone knew they were down their star quarterback.

This has been the most talked about issue today. The Committee raised expectations by doing so and could have prevented it by just holding them at 5.

 

[GTLorenzo]

This has been the most talked about issue today. The Committee raised expectations by doing so and could have prevented it by just holding them at 5.

Very true. I assume they thought they played "well enough" with their back up QB against Florida, but not against Louisville with their 3rd stringer? And didn't Ohio State lose that week, so they dropped out of the top 4?

 

[Vespidae]

They put a one loss SEC team in ahead of an undefeated ACC team in a rare year when the ACC outperformed the SEC on the field.

The whole ACC is 6-4 against the SEC is lame. OK, FSU beat a weak Florida team and Wake beat Vandy. Really? This demonstrates conference dominance?

SOS matters.

 

[bobongo]

Fixed it for you.

Yeah, that's the criterion they latched onto while ignoring the fact that Alabama had one more loss. Exactly.