Official CFP Selection Freakout Thread

[hawg1]

There is absolutely 25 years of precedent that demonstrates that an undefeated P5 champ has NEVER before been excluded from either a BCS championship game or the CFP in favor of a team with a loss.

There is 25 years of precedent that a P5 champion has never been excluded from a CG or CFP in favor of a team with more losses, full stop.

Why do you feel that this year's scenario was so extraordinary as to justify breaking from this precedent?

Conference championship alone does not guarantee a spot. Neither does being undefeated alone guarantee a spot. That’s why there are no auto bids. That’s why they used the 5 criteria for comparable teams.

We’ve never had this many good teams. I believe the “prescedent” was “broken” because of SOS and the Travis injury, data that favors Bama over FSU this year.

 

[Buffnik]

Where did you get that there was not resolution Saturday night? That’s new info to me.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732110670840332544

Same feed has other stuff from Dez and Finebaum. They're definitely biased about alleging bias or a fix, so I'd parse between fact vs speculation & interpretation that ranges from probable or barely plausible. But the voting report was something I took as fact with any speculation on what might have gone on behind closed doors as plausible insinuation.

 

[hawg1]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732110670840332544

Same feed has other stuff from Dez and Finebaum. They're definitely biased about alleging bias or a fix, so I'd parse between fact vs speculation & interpretation that ranges from probable or barely plausible. But the voting report was something I took as fact with any speculation on what might have gone on behind closed doors as plausible insinuation.

Corrigan never said there was not consensus on Saturday night. This article is not consistent with his words. It adds the concept of “no resolution” to the ESPN article it quotes. He suggests the Sunday vote was consistent/same as Saturday night IMO.

 

[Robert Sorell]

No. Power rankings and eyeballs after CCG.

Your eyeballs that watched a team without JT.

This may, or may not be true for you, but given the human susceptibility to motivated reasoning, that's exactly how FSU gets double penalized for the injury. I do seem to recall you saying you wouldn't have FSU and Bama as comparable if JT was healthy though.

If JT played, and FSU beats both Florida and L'ville by multiple scores, then it's far less likely that an unbiased ranking groups FSU and Bama as reasonably comparable.

So we only get FSU and Bama in a tiebreaker because JT is injured, and we count the injury again because the tiebreaking procedure dictates it.

Maybe you give it to Bama on SOS without considering injury, but that's not what the committee claims.

 

[hawg1]

Your eyeballs that watched a team without JT.

This may, or may not be true for you, but given the human susceptibility to motivated reasoning, that's exactly how FSU gets double penalized for the injury. I do seem to recall you saying you wouldn't have FSU and Bama as comparable if JT was healthy though.

If JT played, and FSU beats both Florida and L'ville by multiple scores, then it's far less likely that an unbiased ranking groups FSU and Bama as reasonably comparable.

So we only get FSU and Bama in a tiebreaker because JT is injured, and we count the injury again because the tiebreaking procedure dictates it.

Maybe you give it to Bama on SOS without considering injury, but that's not what the committee claims.

No. I watched FSU play with Travis and without Travis. I saw power rankings with Travis and without Travis.

I will now look at schedule adjusted EPA with Travis and without Travis.

This is a moot point to you, iirc. You did not have them as comparable teams. .

 

[Denver_sc]

Conference championship alone does not guarantee a spot. Neither does being undefeated alone guarantee a spot. That’s why there are no auto bids. That’s why they used the 5 criteria for comparable teams.

We’ve never had this many good teams. I believe the “prescedent” was “broken” because of SOS and the Travis injury, data that favors Bama over FSU this year.

Up until this year, being an undefeated P5 champ when there are fewer than 4 undefeated P5 champs (or 2 in the BCS era) *has* empirically guaranteed a spot.

Just to be clear- your argument is that there are so many good teams this year that they were required to break this precedent?

 

[Denver_sc]

If JT played, and FSU beats both Florida and L'ville by multiple scores, then it's far less likely that an unbiased ranking groups FSU and Bama as reasonably comparable.

So we only get FSU and Bama in a tiebreaker because JT is injured, and we count the injury again because the tiebreaking procedure dictates it.

Maybe you give it to Bama on SOS without considering injury, but that's not what the committee claims.

This is a very, very good point. It's especially true because I don't think ANYONE would have made the argument that Michigan and Alabama should be grouped together, yet Michigan had a very similar SoS to FSU, and the same number of wins against teams in the final CFP top 25. Michigan had that SoS by choice; they scheduled 3 home games against G5 competition for their OOC schedule.

For the record, I still think the committee would have found a way to get an SEC team in if everything had unfolded identically except for the JT injury.

 

[hawg1]

Up until this year, being an undefeated P5 champ when there are fewer than 4 undefeated P5 champs (or 2 in the BCS era) *has* empirically guaranteed a spot.

Just to be clear- your argument is that there are so many good teams this year that they were required to break this precedent?

No, my argument is that FSU and Bama were comparable. And then the 5 criteria were applied.

I’ve explained why the “precedent” was “broken” thus no need to comment on paragraph one.

 

[hawg1]

Your eyeballs that watched a team without JT.

This may, or may not be true for you, but given the human susceptibility to motivated reasoning, that's exactly how FSU gets double penalized for the injury. I do seem to recall you saying you wouldn't have FSU and Bama as comparable if JT was healthy though.

If JT played, and FSU beats both Florida and L'ville by multiple scores, then it's far less likely that an unbiased ranking groups FSU and Bama as reasonably comparable.

So we only get FSU and Bama in a tiebreaker because JT is injured, and we count the injury again because the tiebreaking procedure dictates it.

Maybe you give it to Bama on SOS without considering injury, but that's not what the committee claims.

The Committee claims it gave it to Bama on two factors. I agree.

 

[Robert Sorell]

No. I watched FSU play with Travis and without Travis. I saw power rankings with Travis and without Travis.

I will now look at schedule adjusted EPA with Travis and without Travis.

This is a moot point to you, iirc. You did not have them as comparable teams. .

I'm not litigating whether my conclusion or your conclusion is correct by any process.

I'm establishing that the committee's process is inherently flawed.

There's room for the injury to count, at least in part, both in establishing and breaking a tie. That is a flaw.

Overall, those sorts of bugs in the committee's "art" of ranking teams become the feature that allows bias or intentional manipulation by committee members who are not the epitome of agnostic reasoning.

 

[hawg1]

I'm not litigating whether my conclusion or your conclusion is correct by any process.

I'm establishing that the committee's process is inherently flawed.

There's room for the injury to count, at least in part, both in establishing and breaking a tie. That is a flaw.

Overall, those sorts of bugs in the committee's "art" of ranking teams become the feature that allows bias or intentional manipulation by committee members who are not the epitome of agnostic reasoning.

I generally agree with you in injuries. But when it comes to determining the best four, the founders of the charter decided to include it.

It’s in the charter. They applied it. I don’t think it is flawed. You do. That’s OK. We can disagree.

 

[Robert Sorell]

The Committee claims it gave it to Bama on two factors. I agree.

Which, if there's consistent logic in all of the final rankings, likely requires SMU / Liberty to not be comparable and definitely requires Washington / Michigan to not be comparable, as SOS would favor the opposite conclusion of the committee.

Perhaps the 2 loses mitigates SMUs superior schedule. While Bama's 1 loss does not.

This is assuming if the top of my head that the other 4 criteria are N/A.

 

[Robert Sorell]

I generally agree with you in injuries. But when it comes to determining the best four, the founders of the charter decided to include it.

It’s in the charter. They applied it. I don’t think it is flawed. You do. That’s OK. We can disagree.

Do you think injuries end up being counted in both the ranking and tie breaking?

 

[hawg1]

Do you think injuries end up being counted in both the ranking and tie breaking?

Tie breaking yes.

I don’t know about ranking. Metrics says they can use a variety of data, which would include injuries in my interpretation. Some may have included them. Some not.

No matter if they were or were not included, Bama and FSU were still in the comparable set according to this Committee for the final week. That’s the way I see it too.

 

[manhattanbuff]

As a poster on here since 2007, I don't understand how you can say this.

What was your former screen name?

 

[manhattanbuff]

You are missing my argument. You are arguing that the criteria was clearly applied, and the reasons for applying it were clear. That's not what I'm arguing against at all.

I'm saying that the criteria itself is intentionally vague. By including a catchall "Other relevant factors" clause, the committee leaves themself the leeway to include any factor they deem relevant. For example, If 13 committee members were to decide that having blue as a primary uniform color was relevant, then they could decide that to be a deciding factor. therefore, the criteria is so broad as to be irrelevant.

To answer your question: I do not believe that the dropoff from Jordan Travis to the Rodemaker is extraordinary enough to justify a break with 25 years of precedent, especially when FSU's defense is playing at the level they are. since Travis went out, they held Florida and #12 Louisville to a season low in yardage and UL to a season low in points scored.

Why do you believe that this situation was so extraordinary as to justify a break with 25 years of precedent?

The dropoff is considerable. According to my model, JTrav has the second highest WAR among QBs in major college football. Only 2023 Heisman Trophy winner Jaden Daniels is higher. They are clumped together, med-sized gap, then Shedeur, then Penix…

 

[hawg1]

The dropoff is considerable. According to my model, JTrav has the second highest WAR among QBs in major college football. Only 2023 Heisman Trophy winner Jaden Daniels is higher. They are clumped together, med-sized gap, then Shedeur, then Penix…

The drop off in the Action model is 8.5 iirc. He’s dynamic, essential to that O. (For Denver).

 

[Buffnik]

Conspiracy theories aside as not worth discussing, my problem was with dropping an undefeated P5 out of the top 4 for beating #14 by double digits while the QB who would be starting was held out that week due to injury. It was an unprecedented move.

I believe there were 2 justifications used:

1. The conference that has dominated the CFB had a 1-loss champion to a playoff team back in September and the team it beat came in undefeated at #1 after winning the last 2 CFPs. How can you have a championship playoff without either of them if your stated job is to pick the best 4 teams?

2. The vast majority of coaches they talked to told them they would rather play Florida State than Alabama and that Bama was a more serious thread to win the tournament. Again, if you're supposed to pick the "4 best" how do you ignore that when all your objective data rates their resumes pretty much equal?

It was a subjective decision, but I don't think it was nefarious. They tried to do their job by picking the 4 best and it was a struggle to get a consensus because leaving out an undefeated P5 champ is not something they ever wanted to see from the CFP selection.

 

[Alfred91]

Methinks BBB has an agenda, but if this is true....

 

[CarolinaBuff]

FSU should really be pissed at ACC Commissioner, Jim Phillips who voted against expanding to a 12 team playoff in 2022. With 12 teams, FSU would certainly have been in.

Finally someone mentions this (unless I missed another post about it, which would be easy to do given how this thread has spiraled out of control). Phillips, Kliavclown and Warren were butthurt that Sankey took a call from OU and UT (which any of these 3 would have also done in a heartbeat) and made the decision to delay CFP expansion simply out of spite.

Granted this had nothing to do with the this year's CFP selections but it's pretty ironic that the ACC is in the forefront of the complaining when they were one of the key contributors in delaying CFP expansion.

While the JT injury was obviously a big part of the CFP decisions everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that Alabama just knocked off the #1 team in their home state and their loss to was to #3 Texas. Meanwhile FSU was hurt by the lack of any high quality wins on their schedule. Clemson was 4-4 at one point, UNC pulled their annual late-season swoon and Miami proved they are still far from back. And yes I realize FSU didn't play UNC but UNC coming off the Miami win had it served to them on a silver platter to come into the ACC championship game undefeated or with 1 loss and potentially playing for a CFP spot themselves. And therefore would've provided a much higher quality opponent for FSU in the CCG.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

Methinks BBB has an agenda, but if this is true....

And then the Heisman goes to an SEC player.

 

[hokiehead]

The playoffs have been a disaster for the sport up to this point. I think it's irrational to believe the problem will get better with more playoffs.

 

[Robert Sorell]

The playoffs have been a disaster for the sport up to this point. I think it's irrational to believe the problem will get better with more playoffs.

What are you basing this disaster assessment on?

I think the 4 team playoff was a mixed bag, mostly because it was an insufficient half measure.

Next year, I think there will be at least in great game in round 1 and 2 each, and it will build interest for the final.

 

[hokiehead]

What are you basing this disaster assessment on?

I think the 4 team playoff was a mixed bag, mostly because it was an insufficient half measure.

Next year, I think there will be at least in great game in round 1 and 2 each, and it will build interest for the final.

Mostly the way it's a driven a greater divide between the haves and the have nots. The B1G and SEC expansion, grossly uneven monetary distribution and the collapse of the Pac12, are the most visible indicators.

Beyond that, while I don't advocate for any NC in CFB, I believe a post-season single elimination tournament tends to select the hottest team at the time, and not the team that had the best overall year.

 

[Robert Sorell]

Mostly the way it's a driven a greater divide between the haves and the have nots. The B1G and SEC expansion, grossly uneven monetary distribution and the collapse of the Pac12, are the most visible indicators.

Beyond that, while I don't advocate for any NC in CFB, I believe a post-season single elimination tournament tends to select the hottest team at the time, and not the team that had the best overall year.

Fair points.

I think the BCS was worse in most ways.

Going all the way back to the Bowl Alliance or Bowl Coalition days (my early 2000s memory gets foggy on that); I think a playoff structure with autobids for conference champions is what could have saved some conferences, and will be the saving grace for the Big XII and ACC.

I could be wrong about that though as it could end up just being 10 BIG/SEC teams plus the Big XII and ACC conf champs the next few seasons in the playoff, once the G5 gets kicked out after LSU or Oklahoma gets snubbed for a playoff spot by a LIberty.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

TV pays unholy amounts to fund these events. Why shouldnt they have the right to pick who plays in their sandbox and who doesnt?

 

[Buffnik]

TV pays unholy amounts to fund these events. Why shouldnt they have the right to pick who plays in their sandbox and who doesnt?

This is something that's always been an issue. Before automatic tie-ins, a bowl would select a 6-win Michigan over a 9-win Purdue because the Michigan audience was more valuable to the bowl committee and broadcast partner.

I much prefer an on-field merit based system.

 

[Big Jim]

I much prefer an on-field merit based system.

Most of the country agrees FSU belongs in the playoffs.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

This is something that's always been an issue. Before automatic tie-ins, a bowl would select a 6-win Michigan over a 9-win Purdue because the Michigan audience was more valuable to the bowl committee and broadcast partner.

I much prefer an on-field merit based system.

I dont see how that ever happens without the NCAA or some kind of AA type organization administering a playoff. Perhaps the NCAA should just launch it’s own playoff and simply crown some team with an NCAA trophy? Imagine if they did that this year and invited FSU, tOSU, Oregon, and X (Ole Miss?) to play head to head against the CFP?

Thats how the NCAA ultimately killed the NIT which bears some similarities to the CFP debacle in terms of picking favorites.

How The NCAA Overtook Its Rival, The NIT

www.sportshistoryweekly.com