re: Here’s what I don’t understand about the CFP selection that I’m not seeing discussed much

You guys have embarrassed yourselves enough, keep playing those chump schedules. You lucky the Refs chested for Auburn in 2013 or we would have kicked you guys #$@@ easily.

quote:

---

Florida State is undefeated. Alabama isn't. The discussion is over right there.

---

So why didn't liberty get in when they were undefeated too? Sos matters.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but I just don't give a frick about FSU or Bama and their problems. One of them was going to take the shaft and I couldn't care less which one, except a slight preference for Bama since they're in our conference, but even that, meh, frick 'em both.

FSU was held to a different standard than everyone else, plain and simple.

They handled UF in the swamp the same weekend. As you noted Bama could have easily lost, they probably should have but that’s a different discussion. FSU, despite it being ugly, also had a pretty convincing win over Louisville relative to some other playoff teams.

In the same guideline as “player availability” they mention a “bounce of the ball”. The same guideline that mentions strength of schedule also considers head to head competition.

Also, nobody is questioning the other undefeated teams at all. Everyone seems to focus on whether it should be Bama or FSU. That is completely bailing the committee out IMO, if you don’t put the most obvious teams in, you need to justify every team in, not just why you left one out. They had every guideline work against them.

The committee really needs/needed to explain what FSU could have done to get in. What were the actual expectations? Not have a player get hurt? Unreasonable and dangerous. Not playing in the ACC? Clemson and ND didn’t get that treatment.

I don’t know how anyone can support this. FSU being left out, especially with Bama replacing them, undermines the importance of the actual games and why a playoff would ever be played in the first place - to prove something that hasn’t already been proven. Nobody has proven FSU can be beat, and UT has proven they can beat Bama. If bama and FSU both win out, the playoff would be worthless and inconclusive - how can anyone think they “got it right”?

quote:

---

TTOWN RONMON

---

More window lickers finding their way to MSB.

quote:

---

And you think this is a new thought? And just so you know, when is a loss a loss? When you are on the short end and there are zeros on the clock. Florida State 31 Boston College 29. What the hell was that all about? FSU 31 Clemson 24 (OT) That's 4 loss Clemson. FSU 27 Miami 20 at Doak Campbell That's 5 loss Miami. Why it's almost like rival games are the hardest. FSU 24 Florida 15 That's 5-7 Florida. Another rival game, another close game. A dominant FSU team in the great ACC? More Rant mytholo

---

Two can play this game:
Bama-17 USF-3
Bama had to score late to make it a "two possession" win. This USF team lost by 17 to Western Ky, 21 to UAB, and 42 to FAU. What the hell was that all about?

Bama-26 TAMU-20
Barely beats a 5 loss A&M team

Bama-24 Arkansas-21
Bama has to hang on to scrape by an Arkansas team that was 1-7 in the SEC, and lost at home to Mississippi State 7-3 the next week.

Bama-27 Auburn-24
The luckiest of lucky plays came into play as Bama had a 99.5% chance to lose before that play to a 6 win Auburn team that had just lost by 21 to New Mexico St at home(NMSU first win EVER vs a SEC team), but "mUh RiVaLrY GaMe!"

So, your post hold ZERO water in this argument

Still a lot of pearl clutching by LSU I see.

You don't know what the hell the committee got right. Let the games played on the field decide that. Oh, that's a novel approach, let the games decide things not a stupid arse "eye test", or made up rules. So, if Michigan kicks the shite out of Bama, and/or FSU beats Georgia will you still say the committee "got it right"?