AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Official CFP Selection Freakout Thread
- Thread starter Alfred91
- Start date
I did not anticipate that it would be Les who captured my thoughts on the matter so clearly.
Ah... the "4 best teams" argument, which @hawk1 mentioned, and which clearly applied in '21 when Cincinnati made it. Or last year, when TCU made it. Or in 2018, when ND made it over OSU.
The committee acts completely opaquely, derives an outcome that they want, and then justify it with hand waving arguments that change year to year, and apparently some people just eat it up. This sport is broken, and I'm not sure going to 12 seeds next year fixes it (although I do admit I would have a much harder time feeling sorry for LSU/Arizona being excluded this year).
The problem with selection won't go away with expansion, but as you pointed out, it's much better to screw up #12 than #4.
The dynamics were a perfect storm, including UT at 8. On the surface, it seems weird. But justifying FSU as better than Bama under the current circumstances (using the criteria)is even more strange to me.
They didn't put Bama in front of FSU the week prior bc they weren't tipping their hand. Basically, if Bama lost then they would't have had to burn one of their few remaining shreds of credibility.
They got new info. UO loss. Bama win. UT win. More info for FSU w/o Travis. They didn’t have this last week.
that's objectively false. 20 November was when Travis' injury was announced as season and collegiate career ending.
We can’t go back. The Committee acted correctly this year.
What is false? I said they got more info. They got to see FSU without Travis for another game and determined it would have an impact on postseason performance. Nothing I said was false. I know how you feel, but slow your roll a bit.
ok, fair. thanks -- I should've read your post with more care.
Stop. There was no new info. Unless you thought information about FSU's 3rd string QB, who won't be starting in 4 weeks, was pertinent to their decision.
Come on dude.
They got zero info on what FSU looks like with their likely starting QB for a playoff game.
They got to see the FSU defense deliver the best performance of the CCG weekend over a top 15 team.
Maybe he was going to play better than QB2. Maybe QB2 was going to play after all. More info was gained.
that's also a good point, arguably more valid than Hawg's.
Flat_Iron_Rising
Homebrew & Prime Time = HEAVEN
Here's what primetime thinks about the controversy on 247 sports. It's at about 6:40 in the video.
Without JTravis (or a comparable QB) this season, my prediction system has F$U winning just a shade under 8 games. With variance, their win total is in the 5-9 range. Like it or not, them having a QB who’s been playing major college football since 2018 is a major advantage. When he’s out, they’re an entirely different offense.
There are not many comparable players (i.e. who have a comparable skill/experience makeup) at all in the sport. My metrics have him accounting for at least three wins above replacement this season.
Dude, can I save you the trouble of stanning so hard for the committee?
The rankings were what they were last week because the committee was going to just say 4 undefeated P5 champs, 4 spots, all good.
Then Alabama messed it up by beating Georgia. Suddenly there were going to have to be decisions made. Alabama was the SEC champion and had just beaten the #1 team in the country. But Texas had beaten Alabama.
Travis's injury was the way out of making a really tough decision. Instead, they said, well tough luck on the injury FSU, better luck next year.
So, in case you need it broken down further, the rankings last week were the chicken **** way out. If Texas is better than FSU this week, they were better than them last week. But putting Texas ahead of them last week would have led to some tough discussions they were hoping to avoid.
If we'd had UT #4 and FSU outside going into the final weekend, this would be much easier to swallow. With how it went down, it ends up being a disingenuous tap dance to sell it without saying what Coach Prime did today about how you can't have a legit playoff if neither Georgia nor Alabama are part of it.
The rankings didn’t matter then. They were low stakes.
Texas and FSU weren’t in same comparison group last week.
Last week does not impact the FSU and Bama decision this week.
Only one set of rankings matter.
I saw another model that had 6.5 point adjustment in their power rankings. That was about 2-3 wins for them. It’s sad he got hurt. Dynamic player with a huge value to FSU.
Texas is integral to the discussion. Alabama can't be in the playoff without Texas, because you can't justify Alabama jumping Texas.
Believe me, even if you believe that the committee was on the up and up about everything, if Alabama had lost to say, Oregon, instead of Texas, we're not having this discussion today. FSU would be #3, Alabama would be #4, and Texas would be out, the reason for the jump being that Alabama beat #1. The fact that keeps the SEC champion in the playoff is just gravy.
Too many ifs.
They explained their decision this year using the criteria in the charter. You don’t like it. That’s OK. I think it’s the right decision.
I think my general problem with this line of thinking (and group think that Bama is better then FSU) is the exactly this argument. FSU lost JT, and subsequently went on to beat FL the following week, with their back up QB, in a more impressive fashion then Bama beat UA with their starting QB. Using the "data" of FSU without JT is a fallacy, as we have no idea how good their offense would have been, had Rodemaker been given an appropriate amount of time to prep for a CFP game. i.e. the data is totally meaningless.
You can make an argument all you want about Bama being a better team, but that is purely subjective, and we really have no proof of this but for people's biased opinions, which are largely influenced by the very parties (ESPN and FOX), that have a vested interest in seeing Bama make the CFP.
The historically great thing about CFB (to me) is that you never can predict when an underdog will rise up to make noise. Being robbed of that chance when they truly did earn an opportunity (as represented by the most recent cfp standings with FSU ranked 4th) simply reeks of greed and misappropriation. Justify it however you want, but there are simply too many holes in the justifications to not leak like a sieve...which is an additional argument on it's own that W/L records (data that matters) should have overcome the day.
If JT wasn't injured, do you genuinely believe Bama gets left out?