(12-03-2023 12:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:35 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:34 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  Power 2 bias has already kicked in smh. Bama would beat FSU on field rn imo but FSU was the more deserving team. Not a good precedent. Hopefully moving to 12 teams next year negates some of this but don’t be shocked when there’s a combined 9 Big Ten/SEC teams in the field.

the selection criteria is not most deserving. It's best.

It’s annoying that the talking heads keep saying “best” and use that as justification for the abominations like what we just witnessed, but then ignore the actual CFP criteria lists a ton of factors to determine “best” such as conference championships, head-to-head games, etc. So, all of those factors do point to who is “most deserving” even though the powers that be strangely want to avoid that phrase. I don’t get it. Sure, injury can be a criteria here, too, but that’s a copout when we’re talking about a freaking undefeated P5 champ.

And one of those factors are injuries. 55th SOS also is nothing close to Alabama.

FSU looked like **** against Florida and a very overrated Louisville team. That is what cost them.

(12-03-2023 12:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:35 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:34 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  Power 2 bias has already kicked in smh. Bama would beat FSU on field rn imo but FSU was the more deserving team. Not a good precedent. Hopefully moving to 12 teams next year negates some of this but don’t be shocked when there’s a combined 9 Big Ten/SEC teams in the field.

the selection criteria is not most deserving. It's best.

It’s annoying that the talking heads keep saying “best” and use that as justification for the abominations like what we just witnessed, but then ignore the actual CFP criteria lists a ton of factors to determine “best” such as conference championships, head-to-head games, etc. So, all of those factors do point to who is “most deserving” even though the powers that be strangely want to avoid that phrase. I don’t get it. Sure, injury can be a criteria here, too, but that’s a copout when we’re talking about a freaking undefeated P5 champ.

Those criteria are used when teams are similarly the “best” and none of them break FSU’s way.

Conference Champions (both Alabama and FSU)
Strength of Schedule (favors Alabama)
Head-To-Head (Not applicable)
Common Opponents without incenting MOV (both beat LSU)

These criteria could give the committee cover for leaving FSU out, but they boldly cite the loss of Travis as the reason they no longer think Florida State is one of the four best.

(12-03-2023 12:57 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:35 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:34 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  Power 2 bias has already kicked in smh. Bama would beat FSU on field rn imo but FSU was the more deserving team. Not a good precedent. Hopefully moving to 12 teams next year negates some of this but don’t be shocked when there’s a combined 9 Big Ten/SEC teams in the field.

the selection criteria is not most deserving. It's best.

It’s annoying that the talking heads keep saying “best” and use that as justification for the abominations like what we just witnessed, but then ignore the actual CFP criteria lists a ton of factors to determine “best” such as conference championships, head-to-head games, etc. So, all of those factors do point to who is “most deserving” even though the powers that be strangely want to avoid that phrase. I don’t get it. Sure, injury can be a criteria here, too, but that’s a copout when we’re talking about a freaking undefeated P5 champ.

And one of those factors are injuries. 55th SOS also is nothing close to Alabama.

FSU looked like **** against Florida and a very overrated Louisville team. That is what cost them.

and how did Alabama look against Auburn?

(12-03-2023 12:58 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:57 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:35 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:34 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  Power 2 bias has already kicked in smh. Bama would beat FSU on field rn imo but FSU was the more deserving team. Not a good precedent. Hopefully moving to 12 teams next year negates some of this but don’t be shocked when there’s a combined 9 Big Ten/SEC teams in the field.

the selection criteria is not most deserving. It's best.

It’s annoying that the talking heads keep saying “best” and use that as justification for the abominations like what we just witnessed, but then ignore the actual CFP criteria lists a ton of factors to determine “best” such as conference championships, head-to-head games, etc. So, all of those factors do point to who is “most deserving” even though the powers that be strangely want to avoid that phrase. I don’t get it. Sure, injury can be a criteria here, too, but that’s a copout when we’re talking about a freaking undefeated P5 champ.

And one of those factors are injuries. 55th SOS also is nothing close to Alabama.

FSU looked like **** against Florida and a very overrated Louisville team. That is what cost them.

and how did Alabama look against Auburn?

how did Alabama look against Georgia?

(12-03-2023 12:49 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I explained it all last night in the next to last post in Stever's "The safest bet of the year" thread.

You can listen to all the B.S. explanations of the committee, but this all boiled down to the 4 best national draws out of the pool of possible candidates. It is what it is and the rationale is exactly the same as when Ohio State bumped Baylor or T.C.U.

I've seen you post stuff like this for as long as I've know you, and I have just metaphorically rolled my eyes at it. But not anymore. If the only way you can justify leaving out FSU is "their QB got hurt in week 12", then you're not qualified to be on the committee. I can make strong arguments for both Alabama and Georgia ahead of Texas, but none of them should have been ahead of FSU, starting QB or not. The Committee should have just come out and said "Alabama will draw more eyeballs and we're in the midst of renegotiating our next TV contract".

I've read up on Boo Corrigan, and he seems to be 100% above board and an overall great guy, but my sense of Fair Play just cannot get itself wrapped around this Committee's decision. Who knows, maybe this is how NC St gets into the SEC, after all. /tinfoilhat

I agree, FSU should have been #3 behind Michigan and Washington. They had a stronger strength of schedule so deserved to be ranked higher for their 13 win seasons. Personally I'd have put Alabama at #4, although I can see arguments for any of the three. I'd have Georgia at #5 and Texas way down at #6, them coming in at #3 was the only thing that truly shocked me about the committee's rankings. Oklahoma State isn't nothing, but that is a far worse loss than any of the other teams in contention had. The committee seems to have forgotten that Oklahoma State lost to South Alabama at home?

(12-03-2023 01:02 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:49 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I explained it all last night in the next to last post in Stever's "The safest bet of the year" thread.

You can listen to all the B.S. explanations of the committee, but this all boiled down to the 4 best national draws out of the pool of possible candidates. It is what it is and the rationale is exactly the same as when Ohio State bumped Baylor or T.C.U.

I've seen you post stuff like this for as long as I've know you, and I have just metaphorically rolled my eyes at it. But not anymore. If the only way you can justify leaving out FSU is "their QB got hurt in week 12", then you're not qualified to be on the committee. I can make strong arguments for both Alabama and Georgia ahead of Texas, but none of them should have been ahead of FSU, starting QB or not. The Committee should have just come out and said "Alabama will draw more eyeballs and we're in the midst of renegotiating our next TV contract".

I've read up on Boo Corrigan, and he seems to be 100% above board and an overall great guy, but my sense of Fair Play just cannot get itself wrapped around this Committee's decision. Who knows, maybe this is how NC St gets into the SEC, after all. /tinfoilhat

I agree, FSU should have been #3 behind Michigan and Washington. They had a stronger strength of schedule so deserved to be ranked higher for their 13 win seasons. Personally I'd have put Alabama at #4, although I can see arguments for any of the three. I'd have Georgia at #5 and Texas way down at #6, them coming in at #3 was the only thing that truly shocked me about the committee's rankings. Oklahoma State isn't nothing, but that is a far worse loss than any of the other teams in contention had. The committee seems to have forgotten that Oklahoma State lost to South Alabama at home?

FSU did NOT have the higher strength of schedule.

(12-03-2023 12:29 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Cue the death of the ACC is imminent threads.

On a serious note, I hope the North Alabama player who caused the injury doesn't get death threats from outraged Seminole fans over this.

It wasn't a dirty hit. It was just one of those things.

(12-03-2023 12:58 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

Growing pains. TCU should have displaced FSU that year too.

(12-03-2023 01:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:29 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  Cue the death of the ACC is imminent threads.

On a serious note, I hope the North Alabama player who caused the injury doesn't get death threats from outraged Seminole fans over this.

It wasn't a dirty hit. It was just one of those things.

Exactly.

Look, if anyone looks objectively at the ACC, it was totally weak.

FSU was decent... with Travis.

Louisville didn't have to play FSU, UNC or Clemson. They got Duke without their QB. They got FSU in the CCG without their QB. They lost to stinky Pitt and had to conjure up a 4th qtr. goal line stand to hold off mighty IU.

Dabo has fans calling in and savaging him on his radio show. UNC can barely beat App St every year. The U can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory as good as anyone.

The last straw was that Sharknado-esque display of pee wee football last night. Aint no way they were getting in after that.

(12-03-2023 12:57 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:35 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:34 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  Power 2 bias has already kicked in smh. Bama would beat FSU on field rn imo but FSU was the more deserving team. Not a good precedent. Hopefully moving to 12 teams next year negates some of this but don’t be shocked when there’s a combined 9 Big Ten/SEC teams in the field.

the selection criteria is not most deserving. It's best.

It’s annoying that the talking heads keep saying “best” and use that as justification for the abominations like what we just witnessed, but then ignore the actual CFP criteria lists a ton of factors to determine “best” such as conference championships, head-to-head games, etc. So, all of those factors do point to who is “most deserving” even though the powers that be strangely want to avoid that phrase. I don’t get it. Sure, injury can be a criteria here, too, but that’s a copout when we’re talking about a freaking undefeated P5 champ.

And one of those factors are injuries. 55th SOS also is nothing close to Alabama.

FSU looked like **** against Florida and a very overrated Louisville team. That is what cost them.

They looked really bad last night. So did Louisville.

(12-03-2023 01:02 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:49 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I explained it all last night in the next to last post in Stever's "The safest bet of the year" thread.

You can listen to all the B.S. explanations of the committee, but this all boiled down to the 4 best national draws out of the pool of possible candidates. It is what it is and the rationale is exactly the same as when Ohio State bumped Baylor or T.C.U.

I've seen you post stuff like this for as long as I've know you, and I have just metaphorically rolled my eyes at it. But not anymore. If the only way you can justify leaving out FSU is "their QB got hurt in week 12", then you're not qualified to be on the committee. I can make strong arguments for both Alabama and Georgia ahead of Texas, but none of them should have been ahead of FSU, starting QB or not. The Committee should have just come out and said "Alabama will draw more eyeballs and we're in the midst of renegotiating our next TV contract".

I've read up on Boo Corrigan, and he seems to be 100% above board and an overall great guy, but my sense of Fair Play just cannot get itself wrapped around this Committee's decision. Who knows, maybe this is how NC St gets into the SEC, after all. /tinfoilhat

I agree, FSU should have been #3 behind Michigan and Washington. They had a stronger strength of schedule so deserved to be ranked higher for their 13 win seasons. Personally I'd have put Alabama at #4, although I can see arguments for any of the three. I'd have Georgia at #5 and Texas way down at #6, them coming in at #3 was the only thing that truly shocked me about the committee's rankings. Oklahoma State isn't nothing, but that is a far worse loss than any of the other teams in contention had. The committee seems to have forgotten that Oklahoma State lost to South Alabama at home?

Texas lost to Oklahoma when OU scored a TD with 15 seconds left. You've got your facts wrong.

(12-03-2023 01:06 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  Look, if anyone looks objectively at the ACC, it was totally weak.

FSU was decent... with Travis.

Louisville didn't have to play FSU, UNC or Clemson. They got Duke without their QB. They got FSU in the CCG without their QB. They lost to stinky Pitt and had to conjure up a 4th qtr. goal line stand to hold off mighty IU.

Dabo has fans calling in and savaging him on his radio show. UNC can barely beat App St every year. The U can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory as good as anyone.

The last straw was that Sharknado-esque display of pee wee football last night. Aint no way they were getting in after that.

You hate the ACC so really your opinion is heavily biased.

The Pac and the Big Ten are incredibly weak and overrated. Louisville and Clemson blasted ND—a team that took OSU to the wire and frankly should have beaten.

If we are only looking at the best four teams, then put the damn best four teams in:

Texas
Alabama
Georgia
Michigan

What did Washington and Michigan do OOC compared to FSU? Nothing. The Big Ten and Pac are insulated and it grows tiresome watching them get housed in the playoffs.

(12-03-2023 12:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:58 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:57 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:35 PM)stever20 Wrote:  the selection criteria is not most deserving. It's best.

It’s annoying that the talking heads keep saying “best” and use that as justification for the abominations like what we just witnessed, but then ignore the actual CFP criteria lists a ton of factors to determine “best” such as conference championships, head-to-head games, etc. So, all of those factors do point to who is “most deserving” even though the powers that be strangely want to avoid that phrase. I don’t get it. Sure, injury can be a criteria here, too, but that’s a copout when we’re talking about a freaking undefeated P5 champ.

And one of those factors are injuries. 55th SOS also is nothing close to Alabama.

FSU looked like **** against Florida and a very overrated Louisville team. That is what cost them.

and how did Alabama look against Auburn?

how did Alabama look against Georgia?

And Georgia isn’t nearly as good as past years. Weak OOC schedule

(12-03-2023 01:12 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:58 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:57 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It’s annoying that the talking heads keep saying “best” and use that as justification for the abominations like what we just witnessed, but then ignore the actual CFP criteria lists a ton of factors to determine “best” such as conference championships, head-to-head games, etc. So, all of those factors do point to who is “most deserving” even though the powers that be strangely want to avoid that phrase. I don’t get it. Sure, injury can be a criteria here, too, but that’s a copout when we’re talking about a freaking undefeated P5 champ.

And one of those factors are injuries. 55th SOS also is nothing close to Alabama.

FSU looked like **** against Florida and a very overrated Louisville team. That is what cost them.

and how did Alabama look against Auburn?

how did Alabama look against Georgia?

And Georgia isn’t nearly as good as past years. Weak OOC schedule

They were the #1 team in the country.

(12-03-2023 01:15 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 01:12 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:58 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  

(12-03-2023 12:57 PM)stever20 Wrote:  And one of those factors are injuries. 55th SOS also is nothing close to Alabama.

FSU looked like **** against Florida and a very overrated Louisville team. That is what cost them.

and how did Alabama look against Auburn?

how did Alabama look against Georgia?

And Georgia isn’t nearly as good as past years. Weak OOC schedule

They were the #1 team in the country.

Courtesy ranking

(12-03-2023 01:12 PM)esayem Wrote:  The Pac and the Big Ten are incredibly weak and overrated.

So you are saying it will be a UT/UA rematch for the NC this year?

And UT wins again?

(12-03-2023 12:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

Merry Xmas…. Hahahhahaha. That is hilarious.

SEC: let’s expand the playoff to 12 teams starting 2023 consisting of the top 6 highest rated conference champs and 6 at large.

Big Ten/Big 12/ACC/Pac12: Yes!

Texas and Oklahoma: we are joining the SEC

Big Ten/ACC/Pac-12: Let’s form a blockade to this expanded playoff proposal. The SEC is up to something.

Big Ten: The SEC outflanked us expansion. Let’s add USC and UCLA.

Playoff expansion agreed upon now starting 2024.

Pac-12: crumbles

ACC: Gets left out of the playoff they voted against expanding.

This has been a soap opera. In the end the SEC knew exactly what it was doing and the Big Ten completely played the Pac-12 and ACC.