"NFL GMs care about competitive drive in college, but only for playoff games. Not for bowl games. Not if you had an injury earlier in the year. Not if you don't show up to the combine. And definitely not if your team played in the Spring."

There is a big difference between playoff games and meaningless bowl games, There is a big difference between quarterbacks and receivers in evaluations.

And I am going to reiterate that my argument has never been solely about the draft. The discussion has been will a large number of players start dropping out of the playoffs once they expand? I have said no. A few? Maybe, but very few. Because players want to win championships. Because players will not want to abandon their teams with meaningful games on the line. Because players will want the exposure of all eyes on them that playoffs will give. And finally because for the vast majority of players (even most considered a generational talent) it would be a a pretty big red flag that they lack a competitive drive.
Players don't play in bowls for business decision because they are meaningless. When games do have some meaning and players choose not to play, there is no way that doesn't become a factor in evaluation.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

In 1997 a NFL prospect for Michigan would play 11 games and then rose bowl and then they could get ready for the pros.

In 2024 a NFL prospect for Michigan would play 12 games, the B1G Championship, and then up to 4 playoff games depending on seeding. That’s 17 games vs. 12 two and a half decades ago. Eventually people are going to get hurt in these games and players are going to make business decisions is all I’m saying. At this point though I think the two sides can agree to disagree and we can see how it plays out over the next decade.

I definitely agree with the point that the season is just too long. It should not be close the NFL length for college players in a violent sport like football.

High School state finalists play 14 games. I agree 17 is a lot for college. 15 or 16 seems like the natural progression.

I wouldn't hire someone uninterested in competing -- with themselves and others -- to shovel horse manure.

They can make their decision, that's their right ... just as it's my right to hold them in contempt and wish nothing but misfortune upon them.

Let's say GA is in the playoff. If Bowers decided not to play because of his continuing string of injuries this year it wouldn't make a bit of difference to his draft stock. It would, though, probably make him a pariah at GA for the rest of his days and that will be a significant factor in these decisions.

Less and less most likely, given the growing number of players who haven't just been part of one/two teams but three/four/five.

Here's the NCAA telling those who just want to stop having rules, to stop having student-athletes instead of paid employees to go do their things. Let's see how many have the guts to do it.

NCAA proposes rule to let schools, athletes enter NIL deals - ESPN

Those business decisions are already being made. As far as I can tell, the question at hand is the timing of those decisions. No NFL team would care if a Michigan player declared for the draft prior to this season even though they knew Michigan had a chance to win the title. A few teams may question a Michigan player who is injured and decides to shut it down even though there is a title winning possibility but for most it would not be a big deal. Same with players for other schools skipping those bowl games that won't result in a national championship.

However on the very specific case of a fully healthy player or groups of players that decided to play for this Michigan team back in January deciding to shut it down at this moment or even before the Big 10 championship in order to get ready for the NFL? Nah, that is not going to be look upon favorably by NFL teams. We will all know when the NFL stops caring about such things when the NFL changes its own rules that requires players be three years removed from high school to be draft eligible and allows players to be draft eligible before that. Why force a Caleb Williams to go through a junior season of punishment if you could just change your rule to get him in the league early?

He is not the best example. He has already come back ahead of schedule from surgery and had to miss the last game of the season due to soreness from that surgery after playing two games. He then would have played the SEC title game. If he decides he can't go at that point, if there is such a thing as a reasonable Dawgs fan, he would be seen as going out on on his shield. At least that is how I would look at it.

No, because an injury is a legitimate reason not to play. Everybody saw what he did this weekend and how much pain it cost him. If they had won and he said he couldn't play again for fear of derailing his recovery, he would still be beloved for what he has already done.

If he was fully healthy, no injuries, and decided not to play then he would be killed. The problem with this hypothetical is he would never be Brock Bowers if he he had no drive to win.

Have there been a lot of players sitting out playoff games? I don't recall that being the case.

I have no problem with players sitting out bowl games. It's just an exhibition game. Every time they step out on the field, they are risking their bodies. In one play, their entire potential career could be terribly altered or completely ruined.

While I do really miss bowl games featuring the best players, I am not entitled to that.

I assume next year, with the expanded playoff, every bowl/playoff game will feature the best players from each team and should be pretty exciting. The other bowl games will be non-events, but they pretty much already are.

Then again, as noted above, I think it's pretty rough on these kids, if not brutal, to force them to play so many games in a season. For what? For the schools to get more TV money? For other kids' or adults' bragging rights? I am sure many are driven by the goal of possibly winning a national championship, and I expect most players on playoff teams to play, but I wouldn't hold it against them if they don't.

Oof on that title 9 requirement. I think that will do a good job stopping anyone from saying yes. No offense to cheerleaders, but imagine Alabama paying their cheerleaders as much as their football team. It’s preposterous.

I don't know. Have you seen Oregon's cheerleaders?

Those details weren't in the link when I shared it, nor praised it.

That's, frankly, idiotic to the point of being an intentional poison pill.

At this point, I'm not sure FSU is going to be able to field a team for the Orange Bowl. I've seen 15ish guys hit the portal already, including Pat Payton who I guess is going to put himself out there to the highest bidder. Not sure how many DL we have left - I've seen 3 hit the portal tonight and that's before Verse or anyone else declared for the draft.

I'm all for players getting paid, but seeing guys play for 3 or 4 teams in 4 years and just mixing up rosters in a neverending game of musical chairs is just not fun.

Players getting paid is fine, but there isn't a league anywhere that would be able to function long term if a player could leave at any point to the highest bidder, which is largely what we're seeing right now.

Imagine if Wemby shut himself down right now so that he could sign with the Lakers this upcoming offseason. Imagine if after this offseason Stroud was free to sign with the Giants. Or Gunnar Henderson decided to sign with the Yankees today.

That's Capitalism for you!

(and it's funny that COLLEGE football is the most capitalistic sport around :))

I'm not sure FSU and Miami could combine their rosters and have enough DL at this point.

And on the list of things that are simply broken about college football at this point ...

Tyler Shough, 24, leaves Texas Tech, transfers to Louisville - ESPN


His SEVENTH fucking season across three teams? C'mon.

With regard to Florida State's omission from the playoff, it's not surprising to see the deluge of conspiracy theories running rampant across message boards and social media right now.

I don't think there was any conspiracy. The committee watched, along with millions of people, the train wreck that was the ACC championship game against a slightly above average Louisville team. Tied 3-3 in the 3rd quarter, FSU went on to squeak out a narrow win. FSU completed 8 out of 21 passes for 51 yards in that game. Was it a courageous, gutsy win? Of course it was.

The problem is not so much the injury to Travis, but it is apparent that FSU does not have a quality backup quarterback. Right now, FSU has half a team. An elite defense, but they don't even have a serviceable backup QB, much less a Jalen Hurts to come off the bench when Tua got injured. If you think they struggled against a pedestrian Louisville team, they might not even score without Travis against Michigan, Texas or Alabama.

It was the perfect storm, when Alabama won the SEC championship by beating a team that had not lost and been ranked #1 for two years. The way Texas annihilated Oklahoma State in the Big 12 championship also painted a stark contrast. There were four slots available for five conference champions, and the committee followed their protocol and selected the four best teams. Not the four "most deserving" teams, which contrary to popular belief is not in the guidelines.

To be just a little fair, they did have to resort to their #3 for the ACC title game. The #2 may not be a lot better, but he is at least capable of being a 50% passer

Well here's the thing; 'most deserving' is not in the guidelines as such, but championships, SOS, and so on being in there mean that yeah, it really is there.

If it was purely who is the best team at this moment in time, these evaluations would look a lot different. The fact that it's a confusing mix - and under the structure of college football can't reasonably be anything other than that - is a very useful controversy engine.

I agree. One more thing. If the committee had ranked Georgia 5th and Florida State 6th there might actually be less controversy, although it would still be substantial. Boo Corrigan also misspoke after Travis went down in that game against the FCS cupcake by saying that the committee didn't factor in injuries to key players into their evaluations. If he had rightfully said that it is one of the guidelines they consider earlier on instead of on selection Sunday, there would have been less controversy also.

"Best" is not the way to run a tournament. And that's what this is, a tournament. If it's "best," you just put the most talented teams in there every year before the season and only adjust if one of them loses more than 1 game. Seriously - and that's what they did with Alabama. The got in with 1 loss due to reputation of having great players and the greatest CFB coach in history.

It's like deciding that NBA or MLB MVP should go to the best player and stating that the award every year before tip-off or first pitch of the season will go to LeBron and Ohtani, unless they don't put up their usual numbers, because everyone knows they are the "best."

Once you decide to determine your championship with a tournament, it's not about the best. It's about criteria that puts the 4/8/12/24 whatever teams who most deserve a spot in the tournament. It is irrelevant to me - and should be to any fan - whether Alabama is "better" than FSU. They lost a game and FSU did not. They failed criteria #1. They are unequal comparisons at that point. We all know it. When Coorigan says this was a "unique year" what he really means is that the SEC had to be in, and the only team truly equal to Alabama in W/L that they could be compared to was Texas, and that was the ONLY matchup that the committee with a straight face couldn't choose Alabama, so they leapfrogged Texas all the way to #3 - after playing the abolute weakest opponent in their championship game among the P5 conferences - so that the comparison could be an eye test between FSU and Alabama. And Alabama is LeBron, Ohtani, Mahomes, etc., with huge financial ties to ESPN, who runs the sport.

"Best" is a bullshit argument that is proven wrong literally every weekend. EVERY weekend upsets happen. The best team does not win. And many times, it's not like a 2 versus 5 matchup, it's #15 loses to a 4 win team probably ranked 80th in the country. I actually think FSU with Rodemaker at QB could have beaten Michigan. At least, I think it very likely would have been a competitive game. I think our D is legit and they have proved it, and Michigan just barely cracked 200 yards against Iowa. FSU outgained Michigan with its QB3 this past weekend. Come on.

All that said, I get that it's about money and rewarding your best customers, and if they had the correct criteria, they couldn't fuck other teams in favor of the SEC. Bottom line. That we happened to get this far without a true controversy is amazing, but then again, usually one SEC team, if not two, gets in fairly easily, so that's really the only controversy where the committee would need to pull the wool over everyone's eyes to get the favored result. Unfortunately for us, FSU just happened to be the team that got hosed.

I'd say I'm happy for a 12 team playoff next year, but seeing what a completely unregulated NIL + the portal is doing to rosters, CFB is either going to have to come up with a good plan really quickly or risk losing fans to, if nothing else, lack of continuity and fatigue. It's great that players can sell jerseys and stuff, but we barely want to buy pro's gear when they are in year 3 of a 5 year deal. Who wants this year's QB1 jersey when he could bolt next year to your rival? It's exhausting and not worth the emotional commitment. That's why I didn't even watch the ACC championship game because I knew where this was headed and I didn't want to waste my time and emotion on ... nothing. Glad we won the ACC, got fucked for the playoff, and we'll have a 75% new team on the field next year. And the year after that. Go team?

[quote=Ksyrup;3420551] The got in with 1 loss due to reputation of having great players and the greatest CFB coach in history. [/quote[

And with playing a schedule that had something far closer to a pulse than FSU.

Look, they weren't Liberty, I'm not going to use the high school comparison. But it wasn't a schedule worthy of putting a team in the fucking final four this season either.

Nobody else in the ACC was worth a damn this year. On their best day the rest of the conference was "okay". The OOC opponents weren't anything to write home about either.

Is it hard luck? Yeah, I'll grant that.
But they had zero business being in the final four this season. Period.

Let me see if I can make it crystal clear: Winning the ACC in 2023 doesn't mean virtually anything, the conference was shit.

And all the goddamned whining in the world does nothing to change that.

Can someone remind me how the ACC fared in matches against the SEC this season?

Dola

Can someone remind me what the SEC's OOC record was this season?

ACC 6-4.

Don't knnow their record, but the SEC"s best OOC win among all teams was UK's win over Louisville. The SEC's high rankings this year were the equivalent to patting each other on the back while they hit each other. It was a circle jerk.

Oh I know the answer and it was under .500

Edit: 7-9 vs other Power 5 opp

Better if someone reminded you that none of those wins came against anybody particularly relevant either. And that the 2nd best team in the ACC lost to fucking Kentucky?

I don't think anybody would argue that the SEC was down in the middle this year. And that some former middle was more like bottom.

The 2023 ACC was still closer to being Sun Belt-East than it was to SEC-West.

Brock Vandagriff announces, as expected, his transfer to Kentucky.

I think this is just blind fanboyism. If Michigan was as bad you think they are based on the Iowa game, they would not have beaten Penn State and Ohio State, both of whom are better than anybody Florida State played this year. Yards of offense in one game in which Michigan had the game well in hand fairly quickly due to the fact that Iowa's offense wasn't a serious threat is not a viable comparison.

I agree with your commentary on 'best', but best is also the explicit goal of the committee since the day it was founded. It's not like that was just invented this year to screw Florida State or something. I do think they have a legit argument. I also think Ohio State has one, and Georgia has one, and Alabama has one .... The committee guidelines do explicitly state that injuries can be a factor. It's legitimate to hate the system for that, but not the committee itself. It most definitely is true that nobody knows what would happen in a hypothetical matchup no matter how much they think they do, but you do have to make a call. I don't like the job the committee has, and the 12-team playoff ain't fixing this. I don't think the call they made is completely unreasonable either. I don't think leaving out the champions of the best conference in the country, or undefeated champions of clearly superior conferences to the ACC, would have been clearly better under the circumstances.

The whole OOC matchup comparison, as mentioned, is just gotcha stuff and not serious. There's a reason non-conference games are played at the start of the year before conference play. Teams arent' the same at that point of the year. Jon is wrong to say the conference is shit, and not even Sagarin backs the claim the ACC was closer to the Sun Belt, but neither was it comparable to the SEC as a whole.

The same "legit" D that gave up 335 yards to Miami and their backup QB? And 333 to a woeful Pitt?

Michigan's offense ain't pretty but it's at least better than Pitt.

I don't think Michigan is bad. I never said that. I think a good defense could make it anyone's game. Ohio State is good. LSU has a better offense and FSU held them to 17 non-garbage time points. Penn State, I don't think is very good and I think FSU beats them similar to Louisville. They had no offense against good defense.

And yeah, Jon, I understand everyone sucks and in most years according to your view, there isn't even one team that should be crowned let alone two who should play for a championship, nevermind 4 that even sniff worthiness for at title, etc. But 1 loss is more than zero. End of story. It's not an equal comparison because those 2 teams don't deserve to be compared for this purpose. That's just the way it is because, you're right, FSU is not Liberty. They play in what was, up to this point, considered a co-equal conference with the other 4. Just a couple of years ago, this committee selected Cincinnati over ND! That's how much they valued undefeated versus 1 loss.

If you want to compare 1-loss FSU with 1-loss Alabama and bring conference into it, I have no issue with that. But that's a hypothetical.

Miami had about 80 yards and 7 points off a fluke TD. Pitt scored 7.

Just like you and your eye test is fine ignoring wins and losses, you also care more about yards versus points scored. I'll give you props for consistency.

[quote=Ksyrup;3420573]I don't think Michigan is bad. I never said that. I think a good defense could make it anyone's game. Ohio State is good. LSU has a better offense and FSU held them to 17 non-garbage time points. Penn State, I don't think is very good and I think FSU beats them similar to Louisville. They had no offense against good defense.

And yeah, Jon, I understand everyone sucks and in most years according to your view, there isn't even one team that should be crowned let alone two who should play for a championship, nevermind 4 that even sniff worthiness for at title, etc. But 1 loss is more than zero. End of story. It's not an equal comparison because those 2 teams don't deserve to be compared for this purpose. That's just the way it is because, you're right, FSU is not Liberty.


Aside from Clemson, that simply isn't true.


That 1 loss happened to be ... head to head versus Cincinnati, in South Bend no less.

But gosh, that couldn't have anything to do with it. Not possible, as it would damage the narrative of the increasingly irrational fanbase that is delusional enough to think a team THAT DIDN'T FUCKING PLAY ANYBODY belongs in the final four this year.

In any event, Jon, none of that matters in comparison to Alabama. They didn't lose a game! You want to rank them third amongst Washington and Michigan? Fine.

If you don't think Penn State is very good I really don't know what to say. I think they obviously are, and just about every metric has them better than LSU. Sagarin thinks Penn State is closer to being the best team in the country than they are to LSU, and Howell has almost that large of a gap between them.

[quote=JonInMiddleGA;3420575]
But Cincinnati didn't play anybody! They should have just left that spot open!

The 5 conferences set up the CFP. Clemson was barely becoming a force when all of this was put into place. There's a reason why there's so much outrage over an undefeated P5 team being left out. Because that's not what the committee is supposed to do with teams from the P5.

I'm not saying the P5 conferences are equal. I won't even argue the ACC is a good FB conference. I'm simply stating what was obvious and the understanding until Sunday - the P5s are separate from the G5 and if you win and go undefeated, you're in - unless we somehow had 5 undefeated teams, at which point comparisons are required. They threw that out the window. I don't care if FSU would lose by 50 to Michigan, they earned the right to get their asses kicked and Alabama didn't. Is Alabama a better team? Probably. Did they prove it through 13 games? I'd say not. They lost one and had just as many close/miracle finishes as FSU.

I wasn't comparing them to LSU. I said FSU held a potent LSU offense down, and Penn State's achilles heel was scoring against good defensive teams.

Ok I'm even more confused now.


This is what you actually said, which is even worse. Louisville is much worse than LSU and not remotely in the category of Penn State.


To me this isn't obvious at all. There have been years where a G5 conference was better than a P5 one; the Pac 12 a few years ago as an example was approx. 7th. The ACC has not been on par with the better P5 conferences in quite a while. It definitely has been the case that undefeated teams winning a P5 conference made it in, but again other circumstances are different this year also.

I don't have a problem with anyone thinking FSU should be in; again there's an argument for that. When somebody tells me they obviously should have and are being robbed and earned it and all that - that's where I say 'no, that's just nonsense'. The issue is simply not as clear cut as you are framing it.

Who would be in charge of regulating NIL and the transfer portal if it should happen? Whether you think players should be paid or not, whether you think the transfer portal in its current state is problematic or not, if there is change to be made who is leading the charge? Who is putting all this toothpaste back in the tube.

I find it unfathomable that the college presidents via the NCAA could watch California pass the Fair To Play (NIL) and watch other states follow, then watch California possibly pass College Athlete Protection Act (colleges pay athletes directly) which of course other states will follow and still not have a plan to engage with either.

I think a Michigan/FSU game would be competitive.

Michigan's offense isn't great. Their run game isn't anywhere near as explosive as it was a year ago. In 2022, Michigan averaged 5.6 yards per carry and 238.9 yards per game. While in 2023, Michigan has averaged 4.3 yards per carry and 161.8 yards per game. There haven't been nearly as many explosive run plays and the running game just hasn't been as effective down-to-down.

Also, Michigan has struggled to protect McCarthy. They never passed the ball against Penn State in the second half, because: 1) They knew that Penn State's offense couldn't keep up and 2) They couldn't protect McCarthy. I imagine FSU's d-line would give them similar problems.

Between those offensive struggles and the fact that I have feared mobile quarterbacks ever since Donovan McNabb destroyed Michigan when he was at Syracuse, I don't feel all that confident about the game versus Alabama.

Oh I think Bama is a huge problem for Michigan, they are not a team equipped to win a shoot out, while FSU falls right into their wheelhouse, run heavy, don't give up big plays, don't turn the ball over, just grind out a low scoring game that you control.

I will definitely say I have not been impressed with what I've seen of Penn State. And yes, regardless of the quality of team, certain types of teams can play similar games against unequal opponents. Are you seriously telling me that just because you think Penn State is better than Louisville, that Penn State could not be held to about 10 points and lose a 16-10 game or something along those lines to FSU? I completely disagree with that. Evne if Penn State and Louisville played tomorrow and Penn State beat them 31-17. Why could that happen? Because it happens every single weekend!

This is where you are wrong, but it's because you and Jon are looking at it the wrong way (even though I pointed this out multiple times).

The BCS and CFP were created/supported by the P5 conferences. It is undeniable that the system was set up for the P5 teams to be the Haves and the G5 and others to be the Have Nots. The system was rigged against them. It didn't preclude those teams from getting to the playoff - they couldn't do that without risking blowing up the whole FBS system - so you get a Cincinnati or, if the CFP have been in place 10 years earlier, perhaps a Boise State in the top 4.

Let me say it again so I'm clear - I am not saying the conferences are the same in on-field production. I'm saying that the P5 conferences grouped themselves apart from the others to benefit themselves. That is how they are equal. And until Sunday, that had played itself out in the CFP choices (How they are ranked, who cares? Just get in the top 4). That's why this was unprecedented and wrong. Because FSU and/or the ACC if you choose to look at it more broadly, were basically told, "Sorry, you're not part of our group anymore."

The reason why this matters is because this has nothing to do with FSU and Alabama. Jon has argued strongly and taken us down this rabbithole of why Alabama is better than FSU, and like a lawyer, I argued back. But Jon's not seeing the forrest for the trees, and this is really why I'm upset about what happened: Comparing Alabama to FSU was irrelevant to the Committee's decision. This was SEC versus non-SEC. That was the decision. The "unique situation" Coorigan mentioned was that things played out to where the SEC's automatic invite was threatened by Texas. The Committee knew what the rules, process and mechanics for choosing the 4 were, so they ensured that Texas was voted 3rd to set up the Alabama vs FSU argument. But that argument did not occur in the Committee room - it was just for public consumption.

The arguments for and against Alabama and FSU did. not. matter. The Texas vote was purposely done to give the Committee plausible deniability that they chose the SEC team because they could not choose the SEC team if it was between Alabama and Texas. Period.

The reason we know this is so is because, if you play out a hypothetical, you get a different result. LSU lost to FSU, Ole Miss and Alabama. Let's just pretend LSU beats Ole Miss and Alabama. They have 1 loss and play UGA. They beat UGA in a squeaker. Alabama is now out of the picture with 2 losses, Ole Miss I suppose is probably still a top 20 team, not top 15. Texas still beats Alabama, loses to OU, and beats an OK State team that lost by a combined 78-10 to South Alabama and UCF. FSU loses Travis, beats UF and Louisville, Washington and Michigan go undefeated.

How does the Committee play this game? SEC has to be in, right? Only major difference is that instead of Texas holding the trump card on Alabama, FSU holds the trump card on LSU. Except... FSU went undefeated. The Committee groups UM, UW and FSU together, ranks them 1-2-3, and puts LSU at 4. BUT WHAT ABOUT TEXAS? Sorry, they aren't useful to the Committee anymore. Excellent team, one loss, but was ranked 7th going into the conference championship game and while they convincingly won, they also played the worst opponent of any of the P5 conference winners. LSU has one loss too, but they beat #1 UGA and only lost to the team ahead of them.

So yeah, this wasn't about how Alabama wins the H2H resume battle with FSU. This was about how the SEC (and ESPN) gets what it wants. Because under 99.999% of scenarios in which the SEC is already in the top 4, FSU is not left out.

At the end of the day, that's the source of my frustration and anger. It's really not with Alabama, or whether I think we should have been in over Alabama. It's that it never should have come to that, and it wouldn't have under nearly any other set of circumstances.

Almost anything can happen. I think the large gap in quality between Penn State and Louisville makes it extremely unlikely. Teams that are much, much better than other teams tend to have different results in the great majority of cases. Not in every case, no - but if the conversation is about what's possible - the range of outcomes that are possible is so varied that you're never going to come to any conclusions.

I'll put it this way. If Penn State and Florida State played tomorrow on a neutral field, I think it's very likely Florida State would have a very difficult time scoring at all. Much more difficult than they found it against Louisville. I think it's more likely it would look like Penn State's 31-0 win over Iowa than it is that it would look like Florida State's win over Louisville. Closer than that, but the same general tenor.

If they play fully healthy, I'd favor Florida State to win a competitive game.

Nobody knows what would happen if they played of course, these are just hypotheticals. But that's what it would most likely look like to me. Another way of framing it might be 'could Florida State score on their own defense right now?'. I think the answer is no. I think FSU has an excellent defense, but against any opponent in the Top 10-15 in the country that's not enough.

This is pure conjecture.

...except for last Saturday, I guess you mean?

And that's nothing more than a steaming pile of horseshit, parroted by people who are jealous of the long run of dominance.

That it's Alabama just makes the jealousy even worse.

But it's easier to cry than it is to get to that level ... though if they had a clear path it's pretty obvious that's exactly where FSU wishes they were (or pretty much anywhere other than a currently lifeless ACC).

No, I mean including that. I don't include Louisville in that group, which may be part of the disconnect. 18th in Howell, 27th in Sagarin ... they are a good team, but I definitely wouldn't put them in the Top 20. They're a month removed from their last convincing win.

This is the only thing I disagree with. There is no team at 13+ that could say they deserve, earned, or should be in the conversation for the National Title. Heck, no team outside of 5 most years, and 8 in a fluke year. I'm sure in the future that number 13 is going to complain they deserve to be in over number 12 or whatever, but that is a far cry from FSU or Georgia this year that have a legitimate resume equal to the top 4. I have always been for an 8 team playoff. I think that as about as deep as you really need to go for teams that have a legitmate resume and a chance to win. They chose 12, which is probably too far. But to say a 3 loss LSU is going to be equally aggrieved to be shut out of a 12 team playoff as FSU is being shut out of a 4 team playoff is laughable.

I agree with that, but you still end up with the same functional problems:

- The committee decides who gets a bye. That's a big advantage.
- If there is home-field advantage in the second round, that's a huge deal in college football.
- If there isn't home field advantage, then a lot of late regular-season games are rendered meaningless.

For all practical purposes, the top four selected by the committee are still going to be the four competing for the title. Everyone else technically in the field will be at a very large disadvantage. I'll be shocked in the champion doesn't come from the Top 4 upwards of, conservatively, 90% of the time.

It probably will, but I think that would be true no matter how you set the playoffs up. That's because the best team is usually in that top 4, heck many years even the top two. I will say in the first 10 years, there will be a 5 or higher seed to win it all. Of course it will probably be some team like Alabama.

It won't be exactly "home field advantage", the higher rated teams will be able to pick which bowl host they will play at. So best team gets to travel the least. Seeding will still be important enough to not want to lose a later game and have to travel cross country.

Explain to me in the LSU example I gave where I am wrong, how it would not have played out exactly like that. And then explain how the Committee, using a different tortured standard to get an SEC team in, ended up using Texas to get there?

I don't know how many times I have to say that I agree the SEC is a better conference than the ACC. And I'll even give you that Alabama is a better team than FSU - at least without Travis. But that doesn't explain how they got to the decision they made. They jumped Texas beyond where they should have been ranked in order to make it happen.

Because... why isn't UGA #5?

And just for fun, if there were a 12 team playoff this year the team with the beef would be Oklahoma, who would get left out because Liberty would be added as the highest ranked non-power 5 champion. You think that would be the same level of outrage as FSU getting left out? It is stupid, but not really that outrageous.

It's not conjecture, it's logic.

How does Texas jump 4 spots playing the easiest conference championship opponent? And you're seriously going to tell me with a straight face that the Texas/Alabama issue did not factor into the seeding at all?

Most people, including the committee themselves, aren’t willing to accept that Louisville was where (as good as, etc) the committee ranked them. Basically the rankings all season meant nothing and the only rankings that really mattered were the internal rankings that apparently were never shared. I think that’s the answer you are looking for.

Or that Louisville eliminated any benefit of the doubt they'd previous gotten.

No it isn't. You're assuming, without evidence, why things were done because of aspects of it that you don't agree with. Regarding Texas, it really isn't that complicated. Jumping four spots from 7 to 3 is not in a vacuum.

- They won the conference. Championships are supposed to matter, per the committee guidelines. That, at least arguably, moves them ahead of Ohio State.
- Oregon lost. That's two spots down.
- Georgia lost and wasn't a conference champion. Texas also did better against the common opponent of Alabama. That's three spots down. By the listed criteria of the committee, none of these are not justified. I think Georgia's better than Texas, but again that's besides the point.
- Alabama was ranked below Texas already. That didn't change. So the only question left is, how does FSU compare to Alabama.

Nobody can prove you right or wrong when you assume the committee is lying and assume you know what they would have done in various other hypothetical scenarios. It's conspiracy-theory level stuff, immune to any proof one way or the other. What we can say though is that it's not as if Texas was leapfrogged ahead of Alabama for no reason. They were ahead of them in every.single.ranking the CFP committee put out this year. Unless they are illuminati-style masters of the universe and fully able to predict - heck, why stop there, actively control by fixing the games - the last month-plus of college football happenings, this didn't happen for the purpose of putting the SEC in the playoff. I think they overvalued a first-week win by Texas, but even if so they did it consistently on that issue.

Going to be interesting to see how he does there. That's a good fit.

Jon - on a lighter note, I just saw that Jeff Sims entered the portal.

If Jordan Travis' injury had occurred late in the ACC championship game instead of week 12, not only would FSU have a more impressive win, there would also be no data to show that their offense couldn't function without him. It would be unknown. Pure conjecture. Instead, there was the additional data point of seeing how their offensive production got cut in half in their final two games (against much weaker competition than the other playoff teams) without a quality backup QB.

What does the data show for their backup QB getting an additional month of reps and preparation?

From working with QBs for a large part of my time coaching, if they can process the game it doesn't even take that long, especially if they are invested in the gameplans, overall scheme and practice reps they do get over the season. I think at this point FSU knows exactly who they have in the QB room and will probably go after a portal player.

Unknown. Pure conjecture.

I dont know how to post tweets but BlueBloodsBias is reporting a rumor that FSU is trying to get the B1G. BoDs meet 1-21-24 to discuss

Seems legit....

I edited to reflect the tweet more appropriately. Reading stuff really helps

The Hogs are going to lose their QB1 and RB1 to the portal. I can't really blame them, they have to do what's best for them, but the image of rats jumping ship comes to mind.

There are consequences when leadership, coaching & team falls apart in 2H of the season.

That was a pretty fun ending. Just a huge scrum to get 2 yards

Congrats to Daniels.

Is it me or did Heisman seem to just creep up? I don’t remember reading much buildup for it.

The FSU thing has sucked up all the oxygen.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Was Jayden Daniels considered a high level pro prospect before the season? I feel like the buildup is usually about this being the next step to a All Pro career or the cap to a legendary college career.

I was looking at the list of Heisman winners, and we’ve had a long run of people considered very good pro prospects. You have to go back to Tim Tebow, (or Troy Smith year before him depending on your feelings about Tebow as a prospect) to find someone who fits that “great college career, but probably not an NFL player” mold.

By chance dd you check how many times a multiple loss qb won? Or a 3 loss qb?

Louisville was 9-4 the year Lamar Jackson won.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

With our QB1 going to portal, Hog's are excited about Boise State QB Taylen Green transferring in. Boise forum is saying no big loss but who knows.

Really no idea how good/bad the fit but assume this was Petrino's call so I'll default to good. Hope he becomes a great one like Ryan Mallett (RIP).

And he has transferred across the border to NC State. I hope he has a successful year there that leads him to the NFL

Iowa fans poking at Nebby perpetuating the Frost to Iowa as OC.. HAHA

Im betting it is Paul CHryst. The job opened yesterday, so the choice has been made.

Looks like im wrong. as Joe Philbin seems to be the pick

Myrtle Beach had its Bowl season today with the Myrtle Beach Bowl. Good thing it wasn't tomorrow as the weather is going to be awful. Also awful was Georgia Southern of the Sun Belt as they lost to Ohio of the MAC 41-21.

This App St/Miami game is crazy. I think there are 13 fumbles now.

Great post season run for the Bison. Helluva game today. Just came up a bit short, and against some hometown refs. The Jacks will steamroll the Griz in the Finals. They are unstoppable this year. Take the Jacks and the spread.

What a terrible play call on the failed two point conversion. Hopefully that was Entz' idea and not Roehl's if he is going to be the next coach. Uff da!

Kyle McCord to Syracuse feels like quite a demotion. One score from the playoffs to struggling to make a bowl game. Yikes.

Watching USF-Syracuse... the world would miss nothing if there were less bowl teams.

We've had a called fumble on borderline pass that was returned for a touchdown that was called back for a blindsided block that was really a tackler running at a blocker and getting shrugged off.

This was followed by a loss of 15 yards on a terribly designed reverse that was nearly a fumble except everyone fell out of bounds.

This was followed by a fumbled snap on a FG that was returned for a TD.

FSU suing to get out of the ACC. It makes me wonder since it is a state school couldn't the legislature in Florida pass a law that basically gets them off the hook on any contract?

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Their only hope is finding a loophole in the Grant of Rights. FSU would pay more than a half billion dollars in lost media rights and exit fees to get out.

Personally? Fuck em. They signed the grant of rights. They can't say "Whoops, we didn't really mean it, we want so much more elsewhere". They had their chance. (In fact, the grant of rights came around because FSU threatened to move to the Big12, and it was needed to reassure teams that people weren't going anywhere.)

Honestly, within the decade, I find it likely that the whole conference lineup thing will be deader then disco, and we'll just have a U-23 NFL-style league.

It's getting kind of weird that bowl games even exist when they're now the very least important game of the season for a team (as judged by opt-outs, transfers, etc.), but, if they should exist, they should exist for teams like South Florida to have a chance to play together one more time after a good season, get to travel somewhere fun, get pampered a little bit.

I always feel bad for the teams who come here to Boise for the potato bowl, but, those who make the trip get taken care of too - they go sledding up at Bogus Basin ski resort, eat some finger steaks, get police escorts, I guess it's cool for Utah St. or Georgia St. kid having his final college football experience.

It is the exact reason they should exist. It is a great opportunity for the players to have one last game usually in an exotic setting. Most college players are not going to play in the NFL. This is their last game to ever wear a uniform. I know all the focus of fans is on the top players and the opt-outs, but for every one of them, there are 20-50 players giving their sweat and blood just to play a game they love. So what if it isn't great tv? The bowls get enough viewers and make enough money to give the kids a game they will always remember.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Nearly all are losing money, aside from the TV deal. They exist now solely to BE a TV program (which insanely also loses money for the network but that madness is a whole other discussion) so they kinda need to be at least decent TV in order to continue to exist.

Once tv stops paying then maybe they will disappear. But networks are starved for live content and these games still get more viewers than most other options.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Thank you Air Force.

Now all the major ACC programs are following suit with FSU. RIP ACC

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Utah-Northwestern looks like Iowa playing Iowa

Link? I haven’t seen this online?

well at least i woke up to some good news this morning-in hawaii last night Coastal won its bowl game 24-14 over San Jose ST. :)