The [American] Football Thread

[MJW (ya that one)]

They totally subbed FSU due to wanting a SEC team and the fact they lost their QB. If those things weren't true they would have cut Alabama instead. FSU will face Georgia, who lost to Alabama. So, that game is worth paying attention to.

I don't know anything about college football but caring about the SEC like that is bad so the only other thing is the QB. I would cut FSU if I would suspect that not having that QB would severely hamper them and keep them otherwise. Severely hampering would effectively reduce the playoff teams from 4 to 3 and hand a team a buy for no reason. Having two games to check out the backup QB would be enough to make a decision, if I understood college football. He was projected to be drafted 96th overall in the draft before the injury, which is nothing special. The backup QB would just have to show confidence for me not to cut FSU.

That tweet doesn't count for anything because no-one would say that their team sucks in college football; which the inverse of that tweet would imply.

[Cyneheard]

They totally subbed FSU due to wanting a SEC team and the fact they lost their QB. If those things weren't true they would have cut Alabama instead. FSU will face Georgia, who lost to Alabama. So, that game is worth paying attention to.

I don't know anything about college football but caring about the SEC like that is bad so the only other thing is the QB. I would cut FSU if I would suspect that not having that QB would severely hamper them and keep them otherwise. Severely hampering would effectively reduce the playoff teams from 4 to 3 and hand a team a buy for no reason. Having two games to check out the backup QB would be enough to make a decision, if I understood college football. He was projected to be drafted 96th overall in the draft before the injury, which is nothing special. The backup QB would just have to show confidence for me not to cut FSU.

That tweet doesn't count for anything because no-one would say that their team sucks in college football; which the inverse of that tweet would imply.

Their backup QB beat Florida, and yes 12/25 for 134 yards isn't good, but that was 50% more yards than Florida's QB. He then got a concussion (it was a dirty play and the Gator who hit him got properly ejected) and was out in Saturday's game. But there's no reason to think he wouldn't be back in time.

Their 3rd string QB did not look good at all...but it didn't matter because their defense was great.

So the committee's partly saying "your play with your starting QB doesn't matter, because he won't be your starter in the playoffs, but your 3rd string QB's play does matter, even though he won't be your starter in the playoffs."

At least this is the last year of this system. When it's a 12-team playoff, there will still be complaints about the last team in or the first team out, but let's be real: There's an easy response to "my 10-2 team should be ahead of your 10-2 team": "Win more games." Can't say that to a 13-0 team. And having 5 big conferences and 4 playoff spots was always asking for trouble, this was the first year where it was top-heavy enough that ludicrous outcomes were essential.

[T-hawk]

Are we just ignoring the fact that FSU played LSU and smoked them - more convincingly than Alabama did? You can't say "we can't punish Alabama for playing a real team OOC" and then not give credit to FSU for doing so and winning handily. They beat Florida too without their QB.

This is what annoys me - the argument boils down to "the games don't matter, let's just make a subjective call on who we think would do better in the playoff."

Also hosing a school on an injury is just absurd. When you've got the guy tweeting this, you know you messed up.

All three of these points are actually literally covered in the committee rules.

It includes common opponents "without incenting margin of victory" - you compare who beat who, but not by the margin.

Of course there is subjectivity. Liberty University is also 13-0 and nobody is saying they should be in. Oh, we leave out CUSA because they're a lesser quality of play? Okay, sure... and so was the ACC, at least this year.

And the selection rules specifically call to include in consideration the unavailability of any players for the playoff games.

You can disagree with the rules, but the committee got this right by their own rules as currently formulated.

[scooter]

Are we just ignoring the fact that FSU played LSU and smoked them - more convincingly than Alabama did? You can't say "we can't punish Alabama for playing a real team OOC" and then not give credit to FSU for doing so and winning handily. They beat Florida too without their QB.

This is what annoys me - the argument boils down to "the games don't matter, let's just make a subjective call on who we think would do better in the playoff."

Also hosing a school on an injury is just absurd. When you've got the guy tweeting this, you know you messed up.

All three of these points are actually literally covered in the committee rules.

It includes common opponents "without incenting margin of victory" - you compare who beat who, but not by the margin.

Of course there is subjectivity. Liberty University is also 13-0 and nobody is saying they should be in. Oh, we leave out CUSA because they're a lesser quality of play? Okay, sure... and so was the ACC, at least this year.

And the selection rules specifically call to include in consideration the unavailability of any players for the playoff games.

You can disagree with the rules, but the committee got this right by their own rules as currently formulated.

How can I take any of that seriously when the committee has never taken those rules seriously. The very first playoff they put in a team with their 3rd string QB because they won their final game by a large margin of victory! I guess what I'm saying is simple - I do not believe them. I believe they thought "we have to put in an SEC team" and logically worked backwards from there. Like Cyneheard said above - if Georgia had won, it likely would have been Texas left out, not FSU.

[T-hawk]

if Georgia had won, it likely would have been Texas left out, not FSU.

This is likely true, but you don't need bias to get there, just logic. If Bama loses there, that drops the value of Texas's win over Bama, so that Texas is overall closer to and possibly below FSU.

[MJW (ya that one)]

They totally subbed FSU due to wanting a SEC team and the fact they lost their QB. If those things weren't true they would have cut Alabama instead. FSU will face Georgia, who lost to Alabama. So, that game is worth paying attention to.

I don't know anything about college football but caring about the SEC like that is bad so the only other thing is the QB. I would cut FSU if I would suspect that not having that QB would severely hamper them and keep them otherwise. Severely hampering would effectively reduce the playoff teams from 4 to 3 and hand a team a buy for no reason. Having two games to check out the backup QB would be enough to make a decision, if I understood college football. He was projected to be drafted 96th overall in the draft before the injury, which is nothing special. The backup QB would just have to show confidence for me not to cut FSU.

That tweet doesn't count for anything because no-one would say that their team sucks in college football; which the inverse of that tweet would imply.

Their backup QB beat Florida, and yes 12/25 for 134 yards isn't good, but that was 50% more yards than Florida's QB. He then got a concussion (it was a dirty play and the Gator who hit him got properly ejected) and was out in Saturday's game. But there's no reason to think he wouldn't be back in time.

Their 3rd string QB did not look good at all...but it didn't matter because their defense was great.

So the committee's partly saying "your play with your starting QB doesn't matter, because he won't be your starter in the playoffs, but your 3rd string QB's play does matter, even though he won't be your starter in the playoffs."

At least this is the last year of this system. When it's a 12-team playoff, there will still be complaints about the last team in or the first team out, but let's be real: There's an easy response to "my 10-2 team should be ahead of your 10-2 team": "Win more games." Can't say that to a 13-0 team. And having 5 big conferences and 4 playoff spots was always asking for trouble, this was the first year where it was top-heavy enough that ludicrous outcomes were essential.

Well 12/25 and 134 yards + getting injured isn't confident at all.  I would also call that tweet that starting QB BS. I don't think FSU would go 13-0 without you buddy.

[pindicator]

This isn't about who deserves to be in or even who the best 4 teams are. It's about who the networks wanted for ratings.

Flip Alabama and FSU's situations and ihave no doubt we still end up with Alabama in the playoff and FSU out

[MJW (ya that one)]

This isn't about who deserves to be in or even who the best 4 teams are. It's about who the networks wanted for ratings.

Flip Alabama and FSU's situations and ihave no doubt we still end up with Alabama in the playoff and FSU out

I actually agree with this. I'm just saying what I would do. 

FSU is 13-point underdogs against Georgia, so betting markets must believe the backup QB is bad. 

Injuries happen in football all the time so I would consider them an integral part of the game and making decisions based on them is okay. 

If I didn't believe that the problem is there are 2 slots for 3 teams FSU, Texas and Alabama. Texas must be in as they beat Alabama so the FSU+Alabama combo doesn't make sense. So who to cut? Alabama has one extra loss but their schedule is a bit tougher, so that evens out. I would push FSU over the top because they got unlucky with the injured QB and Alabama got some lucky wins. FSU didn't have to get lucky in their final two games without their starter QB and they were rated #4 coming into their final game.

[scooter]

if Georgia had won, it likely would have been Texas left out, not FSU.

This is likely true, but you don't need bias to get there, just logic. If Bama loses there, that drops the value of Texas's win over Bama, so that Texas is overall closer to and possibly below FSU.

Just because this reasoning would get trotted out there doesn't mean I have to accept it at face value. The simple reality is we have a playoff owned by ESPN, a weekly rankings show by ESPN, a conference whose finances are completely tied to ESPN, and a decision made that protects that conference after ESPN-paid talking heads spent hours arguing for the thing that benefitted their company's bottom line. (Let's not even get into ESPN's active role in destroying the current conference landscape to begin with.)


So now after years and years of insisting the games matter, we've suddenly shifted to "think you look like you could win" over "actually won games" as our rubric in the year the SEC got dumpstered in the non-conference and their top teams won literally no meaningful OOC games.

[pindicator]

I could stomach it as long as I believed there was a path for any team to reach the playoff. Now the fourth wall has been shattered and I don't know if I care to watch any more. I'll follow my team. But the playoff? Not at all interested.

ESPN and Fox need to hurry up and make their NFL lite superfine and then the rest of us can go back to having college football again.