Teams, like anything having to deal with human beings, change over time.
The CFP committee keeps hiding behind vague words such as "best" and "most deserving."
Why not use trajectory and common sense? And who governs the committee?
Texas lost midway to a lousy team in Oklahoma. They beat Alabama in the beginning of the year.
Alabama started slow, lost to Texas, but warmed up and became a great team.
Washington won all the way. To me, they are deserving.
Michigan was caught cheating. Their own conference sanctioned them. They're out. Coaching staff is fired for what that does to the student athlete.
Georgia wins and on the rare occasion they have a few playmakers out; they go from 1 to 6 (lost by 3). (Remember: TCU lost their CC the year before and didn't move out).
F$U loses a lot of players by injury this changes their team and their trajectory.
Should have been:
1. Washington
2. Texas
3. Alabama
4. Georgia
5. Ohio State (until more comes out about their part in cheating).
6. Florida State
1 Washington vs. 4. Georgia - legitimizes Washington's place and gives Georgia the benefit of the doubt they deserved.
2. Texas vs. 3. Alabama - lets us see how much the two teams have changed and rewards conference championship.
5. OSU vs 6. F$U - Legitimate match up (similar team stories with number of opt outs too).
What to change?
1. There needs to be some formula, set of rules/tests, or procedural questions that have to be asked each year. It needs to be consistent. The ranking system needs to be transparent.
2. Sportsmanship needs to be paramount -if something is wrong; there needs to be a way to address this (members need to recuse themselves, a hearing of evidence, something). The committee's approach to this was garbage tantamount to a five year old holding their ears and screaming "I cant hear you." This promotes mistrust that obviously came to a head this year. If we leave it to the conferences and they do nothing, they should not be allowed to field a team in an x number of years, ect.
3. A play in game (like in the NCAA Basketball Tournament) can be used when the committee cannot, without a reasonable doubt, pick a clear cut group to the playoffs. Who would hate another game (and the money it could generate).
Some of this will be fixed next year, but will it be totally fixed? There needs to be a reason to trust these people.
The CFP committee keeps hiding behind vague words such as "best" and "most deserving."
Why not use trajectory and common sense? And who governs the committee?
Texas lost midway to a lousy team in Oklahoma. They beat Alabama in the beginning of the year.
Alabama started slow, lost to Texas, but warmed up and became a great team.
Washington won all the way. To me, they are deserving.
Michigan was caught cheating. Their own conference sanctioned them. They're out. Coaching staff is fired for what that does to the student athlete.
Georgia wins and on the rare occasion they have a few playmakers out; they go from 1 to 6 (lost by 3). (Remember: TCU lost their CC the year before and didn't move out).
F$U loses a lot of players by injury this changes their team and their trajectory.
Should have been:
1. Washington
2. Texas
3. Alabama
4. Georgia
5. Ohio State (until more comes out about their part in cheating).
6. Florida State
1 Washington vs. 4. Georgia - legitimizes Washington's place and gives Georgia the benefit of the doubt they deserved.
2. Texas vs. 3. Alabama - lets us see how much the two teams have changed and rewards conference championship.
5. OSU vs 6. F$U - Legitimate match up (similar team stories with number of opt outs too).
What to change?
1. There needs to be some formula, set of rules/tests, or procedural questions that have to be asked each year. It needs to be consistent. The ranking system needs to be transparent.
2. Sportsmanship needs to be paramount -if something is wrong; there needs to be a way to address this (members need to recuse themselves, a hearing of evidence, something). The committee's approach to this was garbage tantamount to a five year old holding their ears and screaming "I cant hear you." This promotes mistrust that obviously came to a head this year. If we leave it to the conferences and they do nothing, they should not be allowed to field a team in an x number of years, ect.
3. A play in game (like in the NCAA Basketball Tournament) can be used when the committee cannot, without a reasonable doubt, pick a clear cut group to the playoffs. Who would hate another game (and the money it could generate).
Some of this will be fixed next year, but will it be totally fixed? There needs to be a reason to trust these people.
Last edited:
