2023-2024 NCAAF Official Thread

[Moranis]

ESPN's FPI has Florida State ahead of Washington as well. 

Now you're just throwing spaghetti at the wall by looking at ESPN's FPI. https://www.espn.com/college-football/fpi

The top 3 teams are Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State.

but that is sort of the point I was making.  There is so much subjectivity in how they do it, which doesn't make sense

If Georgia would have beaten Bama, would FSU or Texas have been the 4th seed?

It's an interesting question.  Texas's win over Alabama would have meant less; instead of the giant killer riding a 12 game win streak, they'd have been a two loss opponent.  It would have been justifiable to put FSU over them, although I think Texas is a better team currently.

a 2 loss opponent that needed a miracle to beat a 6-6 team. 

I don't think there is a question FSU would have been ahead of Texas in that scenario, which also means they should have been ahead of them right now.  Even losing to Georgia, Bama would have been the best win between Texas and FSU as Bama beat LSU (FSU's best win).  The next best opponents were Louisville and Oklahoma, but OU beat Texas.   Okie State and Clemson were ranked similarly, KSU did squeeze in at 25 giving them the extra ranked win, but KSU lost to a team that lost to Ohio.

FSU beat more bowl eligible teams than anyone else this year, they just didn't have that super marquee win to boost the schedule strength and also played more of the really bad (as opposed to mediocre) ACC teams, also bringing the schedule strength down some.

The committee was so fixated on the week 2 win, they  didn't do their job properly.  Michigan should have been 1. Washington and Florida State should have been 2 and 3 (I think you could argue either order). Alabama should have been 4.  Bama played a much more difficult schedule than Texas. They have a comparable top win and a better loss, but played and beat a lot more ranked teams.  And it isn't like Texas has been crushing everyone. Since losing to OU they have a 7 point win against lowly Houston, a 3 point win against KSU, a 3 point win against lowly TCU (remember tcu lost to colorado), and a 10 point win against Iowa St, along with some bigger wins against lowly BYU, mediocre TTech and Okie St.

[Roy H.]

ESPN's FPI has Florida State ahead of Washington as well. 

Now you're just throwing spaghetti at the wall by looking at ESPN's FPI. https://www.espn.com/college-football/fpi

The top 3 teams are Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State.

but that is sort of the point I was making.  There is so much subjectivity in how they do it, which doesn't make sense

If Georgia would have beaten Bama, would FSU or Texas have been the 4th seed?

It's an interesting question.  Texas's win over Alabama would have meant less; instead of the giant killer riding a 12 game win streak, they'd have been a two loss opponent.  It would have been justifiable to put FSU over them, although I think Texas is a better team currently.

a 2 loss opponent that needed a miracle to beat a 6-6 team. 

I don't think there is a question FSU would have been ahead of Texas in that scenario, which also means they should have been ahead of them right now.  Even losing to Georgia, Bama would have been the best win between Texas and FSU as Bama beat LSU (FSU's best win).  The next best opponents were Louisville and Oklahoma, but OU beat Texas.   Okie State and Clemson were ranked similarly, KSU did squeeze in at 25 giving them the extra ranked win, but KSU lost to a team that lost to Ohio.

FSU beat more bowl eligible teams than anyone else this year, they just didn't have that super marquee win to boost the schedule strength and also played more of the really bad (as opposed to mediocre) ACC teams, also bringing the schedule strength down some.

The committee was so fixated on the week 2 win, they  didn't do their job properly.  Michigan should have been 1. Washington and Florida State should have been 2 and 3 (I think you could argue either order). Alabama should have been 4.  Bama played a much more difficult schedule than Texas. They have a comparable top win and a better loss, but played and beat a lot more ranked teams.  And it isn't like Texas has been crushing everyone. Since losing to OU they have a 7 point win against lowly Houston, a 3 point win against KSU, a 3 point win against lowly TCU (remember tcu lost to colorado), and a 10 point win against Iowa St, along with some bigger wins against lowly BYU, mediocre TTech and Okie St.

Yeah, I don't mind including Texas, but you're right that the committee didn't really weigh out Texas's credentials extensively:

There wasn't any serious consideration to include Alabama without Texas because there was so much respect in the room for the Longhorns' Week 2 win in Tuscaloosa.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39041535/college-football-playoff-committee-selection-process-florida-state-alabama-texas

It sounds like the committee had a few principles:

1.  Michigan and Washington were in, no matter what;

2.  Texas > Alabama based upon Week Two

3.  FSU's offense is terrible without their QB

[tazzmaniac]

ESPN's FPI has Florida State ahead of Washington as well. 

Now you're just throwing spaghetti at the wall by looking at ESPN's FPI. https://www.espn.com/college-football/fpi

The top 3 teams are Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State.

but that is sort of the point I was making.  There is so much subjectivity in how they do it, which doesn't make sense

If Georgia would have beaten Bama, would FSU or Texas have been the 4th seed?

It's an interesting question.  Texas's win over Alabama would have meant less; instead of the giant killer riding a 12 game win streak, they'd have been a two loss opponent.  It would have been justifiable to put FSU over them, although I think Texas is a better team currently.

a 2 loss opponent that needed a miracle to beat a 6-6 team. 

I don't think there is a question FSU would have been ahead of Texas in that scenario, which also means they should have been ahead of them right now.  Even losing to Georgia, Bama would have been the best win between Texas and FSU as Bama beat LSU (FSU's best win).  The next best opponents were Louisville and Oklahoma, but OU beat Texas.   Okie State and Clemson were ranked similarly, KSU did squeeze in at 25 giving them the extra ranked win, but KSU lost to a team that lost to Ohio.

FSU beat more bowl eligible teams than anyone else this year, they just didn't have that super marquee win to boost the schedule strength and also played more of the really bad (as opposed to mediocre) ACC teams, also bringing the schedule strength down some.

The committee was so fixated on the week 2 win, they  didn't do their job properly.  Michigan should have been 1. Washington and Florida State should have been 2 and 3 (I think you could argue either order). Alabama should have been 4.  Bama played a much more difficult schedule than Texas. They have a comparable top win and a better loss, but played and beat a lot more ranked teams.  And it isn't like Texas has been crushing everyone. Since losing to OU they have a 7 point win against lowly Houston, a 3 point win against KSU, a 3 point win against lowly TCU (remember tcu lost to colorado), and a 10 point win against Iowa St, along with some bigger wins against lowly BYU, mediocre TTech and Okie St.

Yeah, I don't mind including Texas, but you're right that the committee didn't really weigh out Texas's credentials extensively:

There wasn't any serious consideration to include Alabama without Texas because there was so much respect in the room for the Longhorns' Week 2 win in Tuscaloosa.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39041535/college-football-playoff-committee-selection-process-florida-state-alabama-texas

It sounds like the committee had a few principles:

1.  Michigan and Washington were in, no matter what;

2.  Texas > Alabama based upon Week Two

3.  FSU's offense is terrible without their QB

He said that there was so much respect for the Texas win over Bama but their rankings before the final ranking did not reflect that.  They kept 1-loss Oregon ahead of Texas and Bama even though Oregon hadn't beaten anyone good.  Then when OSU lost, the committee dropped them below Oregon but ahead of Texas and Bama.  Going into championship week, they should have had Texas and Bama at 5 and 6 right behind Florida State. 

[tazzmaniac]

With all the focus on Florida State, the real travesty of Liberty being ranked ahead of SMU is being ignored.  The committee talks all the time about wanting teams to play harder OOC schedules.  However they chose to rank Liberty who played one of the easiest schedules in CFB which didn't include a single P5 opponent over SMU who played not one but two P5 opponents on the road.  SMU naturally had 2 losses but Liberty would have had 2 losses if they had played 2 P5 schools. 

[Donoghus]

With all the focus on Florida State, the real travesty of Liberty being ranked ahead of SMU is being ignored.  The committee talks all the time about wanting teams to play harder OOC schedules.  However they chose to rank Liberty who played one of the easiest schedules in CFB which didn't include a single P5 opponent over SMU who played not one but two P5 opponents on the road.  SMU naturally had 2 losses but Liberty would have had 2 losses if they had played 2 P5 schools.

Yeah, SMU got screwed.

Now they get to kick the crap out of BC in the no one gives a [dang] Wasabi Bowl.

[Moranis]

ESPN's FPI has Florida State ahead of Washington as well. 

Now you're just throwing spaghetti at the wall by looking at ESPN's FPI. https://www.espn.com/college-football/fpi

The top 3 teams are Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State.

but that is sort of the point I was making.  There is so much subjectivity in how they do it, which doesn't make sense

If Georgia would have beaten Bama, would FSU or Texas have been the 4th seed?

It's an interesting question.  Texas's win over Alabama would have meant less; instead of the giant killer riding a 12 game win streak, they'd have been a two loss opponent.  It would have been justifiable to put FSU over them, although I think Texas is a better team currently.

a 2 loss opponent that needed a miracle to beat a 6-6 team. 

I don't think there is a question FSU would have been ahead of Texas in that scenario, which also means they should have been ahead of them right now.  Even losing to Georgia, Bama would have been the best win between Texas and FSU as Bama beat LSU (FSU's best win).  The next best opponents were Louisville and Oklahoma, but OU beat Texas.   Okie State and Clemson were ranked similarly, KSU did squeeze in at 25 giving them the extra ranked win, but KSU lost to a team that lost to Ohio.

FSU beat more bowl eligible teams than anyone else this year, they just didn't have that super marquee win to boost the schedule strength and also played more of the really bad (as opposed to mediocre) ACC teams, also bringing the schedule strength down some.

The committee was so fixated on the week 2 win, they  didn't do their job properly.  Michigan should have been 1. Washington and Florida State should have been 2 and 3 (I think you could argue either order). Alabama should have been 4.  Bama played a much more difficult schedule than Texas. They have a comparable top win and a better loss, but played and beat a lot more ranked teams.  And it isn't like Texas has been crushing everyone. Since losing to OU they have a 7 point win against lowly Houston, a 3 point win against KSU, a 3 point win against lowly TCU (remember tcu lost to colorado), and a 10 point win against Iowa St, along with some bigger wins against lowly BYU, mediocre TTech and Okie St.

Yeah, I don't mind including Texas, but you're right that the committee didn't really weigh out Texas's credentials extensively:

There wasn't any serious consideration to include Alabama without Texas because there was so much respect in the room for the Longhorns' Week 2 win in Tuscaloosa.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39041535/college-football-playoff-committee-selection-process-florida-state-alabama-texas

It sounds like the committee had a few principles:

1.  Michigan and Washington were in, no matter what;

2.  Texas > Alabama based upon Week Two

3.  FSU's offense is terrible without their QB

He said that there was so much respect for the Texas win over Bama but their rankings before the final ranking did not reflect that.  They kept 1-loss Oregon ahead of Texas and Bama even though Oregon hadn't beaten anyone good.  Then when OSU lost, the committee dropped them below Oregon but ahead of Texas and Bama.  Going into championship week, they should have had Texas and Bama at 5 and 6 right behind Florida State.

or not done what they did, had FSU at 3 and Texas or Bama at 4.  The debate always should have been Texas/Bama.  Frankly, what has Washington done to be ahead of FSU. Sure they beat Oregon twice, but Oregon hasn't beaten anyone and the fact that mediocre Nix is at the helm doesn't exactly inspire confidence that they are truly that good anyway.

The committee set themselves up to look like fools and made a mockery of the sport in the process.

[Moranis]

With all the focus on Florida State, the real travesty of Liberty being ranked ahead of SMU is being ignored.  The committee talks all the time about wanting teams to play harder OOC schedules.  However they chose to rank Liberty who played one of the easiest schedules in CFB which didn't include a single P5 opponent over SMU who played not one but two P5 opponents on the road.  SMU naturally had 2 losses but Liberty would have had 2 losses if they had played 2 P5 schools.

would Liberty have lost to TCU? I'm not so sure about that.

[tazzmaniac]

With all the focus on Florida State, the real travesty of Liberty being ranked ahead of SMU is being ignored.  The committee talks all the time about wanting teams to play harder OOC schedules.  However they chose to rank Liberty who played one of the easiest schedules in CFB which didn't include a single P5 opponent over SMU who played not one but two P5 opponents on the road.  SMU naturally had 2 losses but Liberty would have had 2 losses if they had played 2 P5 schools.

would Liberty have lost to TCU? I'm not so sure about that.

Why would Liberty have a better chance to beat TCU than SMU did?  SMU at least just beat a ranked Tulane.   

[Donoghus]

With all the focus on Florida State, the real travesty of Liberty being ranked ahead of SMU is being ignored.  The committee talks all the time about wanting teams to play harder OOC schedules.  However they chose to rank Liberty who played one of the easiest schedules in CFB which didn't include a single P5 opponent over SMU who played not one but two P5 opponents on the road.  SMU naturally had 2 losses but Liberty would have had 2 losses if they had played 2 P5 schools.

would Liberty have lost to TCU? I'm not so sure about that.

I don't think its fairly difficult to say that Liberty would've lost to TCU also.  When you have the worst SoS in FBS, that leads to a lot of doubt of just how good you are. 

[Moranis]

With all the focus on Florida State, the real travesty of Liberty being ranked ahead of SMU is being ignored.  The committee talks all the time about wanting teams to play harder OOC schedules.  However they chose to rank Liberty who played one of the easiest schedules in CFB which didn't include a single P5 opponent over SMU who played not one but two P5 opponents on the road.  SMU naturally had 2 losses but Liberty would have had 2 losses if they had played 2 P5 schools.

would Liberty have lost to TCU? I'm not so sure about that.

Why would Liberty have a better chance to beat TCU than SMU did?  SMU at least just beat a ranked Tulane.

well since SMU didn't beat them, I'd say Liberty had a better chance.  TCU's wins were Nicholls, SMU, Houston, BYU, and Baylor. And they lost to 4 win Colorado. The fact that SMU lost to TCU is reason enough to keep them out. 

[Donoghus]

With all the focus on Florida State, the real travesty of Liberty being ranked ahead of SMU is being ignored.  The committee talks all the time about wanting teams to play harder OOC schedules.  However they chose to rank Liberty who played one of the easiest schedules in CFB which didn't include a single P5 opponent over SMU who played not one but two P5 opponents on the road.  SMU naturally had 2 losses but Liberty would have had 2 losses if they had played 2 P5 schools.

would Liberty have lost to TCU? I'm not so sure about that.

Why would Liberty have a better chance to beat TCU than SMU did?  SMU at least just beat a ranked Tulane.

well since SMU didn't beat them, I'd say Liberty had a better chance.  TCU's wins were Nicholls, SMU, Houston, BYU, and Baylor. And they lost to 4 win Colorado. The fact that SMU lost to TCU is reason enough to keep them out.

Which Liberty wins impressed you?

[celticsclay]

With all the focus on Florida State, the real travesty of Liberty being ranked ahead of SMU is being ignored.  The committee talks all the time about wanting teams to play harder OOC schedules.  However they chose to rank Liberty who played one of the easiest schedules in CFB which didn't include a single P5 opponent over SMU who played not one but two P5 opponents on the road.  SMU naturally had 2 losses but Liberty would have had 2 losses if they had played 2 P5 schools.

Why does this matter at all? Different bowl game?

[Moranis]

With all the focus on Florida State, the real travesty of Liberty being ranked ahead of SMU is being ignored.  The committee talks all the time about wanting teams to play harder OOC schedules.  However they chose to rank Liberty who played one of the easiest schedules in CFB which didn't include a single P5 opponent over SMU who played not one but two P5 opponents on the road.  SMU naturally had 2 losses but Liberty would have had 2 losses if they had played 2 P5 schools.

would Liberty have lost to TCU? I'm not so sure about that.

I don't think its fairly difficult to say that Liberty would've lost to TCU also.  When you have the worst SoS in FBS, that leads to a lot of doubt of just how good you are.

that is fair, but TCU is a bad team. As I said in my prior post, the mere fact that SMU lost to them is enough of a reason to keep them out. 

SMU and Liberty both played LaTech, they won by 24 and 26. So similar results. Ultimately, I have no problem giving the nod to the unbeaten team that didn't lose to a bad power 5 team.

As an aside, Liberty has an excellent coach and the best facilities among the lower 5 conferences, by a wide margin.  They spend a ton of money on sports.  I know that doesn't necessarily mean anything to this conversation, but I do think long term it does. If Chadwell stays, he could really build something there.

[Moranis]

With all the focus on Florida State, the real travesty of Liberty being ranked ahead of SMU is being ignored.  The committee talks all the time about wanting teams to play harder OOC schedules.  However they chose to rank Liberty who played one of the easiest schedules in CFB which didn't include a single P5 opponent over SMU who played not one but two P5 opponents on the road.  SMU naturally had 2 losses but Liberty would have had 2 losses if they had played 2 P5 schools.

would Liberty have lost to TCU? I'm not so sure about that.

Why would Liberty have a better chance to beat TCU than SMU did?  SMU at least just beat a ranked Tulane.

well since SMU didn't beat them, I'd say Liberty had a better chance.  TCU's wins were Nicholls, SMU, Houston, BYU, and Baylor. And they lost to 4 win Colorado. The fact that SMU lost to TCU is reason enough to keep them out.

Which Liberty wins impressed you?

the same amount of wins of SMU that impressed me i.e. none, but they didn't lose to a bad team either. 

[celticsclay]

With all the focus on Florida State, the real travesty of Liberty being ranked ahead of SMU is being ignored.  The committee talks all the time about wanting teams to play harder OOC schedules.  However they chose to rank Liberty who played one of the easiest schedules in CFB which didn't include a single P5 opponent over SMU who played not one but two P5 opponents on the road.  SMU naturally had 2 losses but Liberty would have had 2 losses if they had played 2 P5 schools.

would Liberty have lost to TCU? I'm not so sure about that.

Why would Liberty have a better chance to beat TCU than SMU did?  SMU at least just beat a ranked Tulane.

well since SMU didn't beat them, I'd say Liberty had a better chance.  TCU's wins were Nicholls, SMU, Houston, BYU, and Baylor. And they lost to 4 win Colorado. The fact that SMU lost to TCU is reason enough to keep them out.

Which Liberty wins impressed you?

the same amount of wins of SMU that impressed me i.e. none, but they didn't lose to a bad team either.

I didn’t have this thread devolving into whether Liberty was better than smu on my bingo card.