MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread(Its still personal)

Not sure the last sentence - that the relationship between FSU and ESPN is broken - is the actual result of the story of realignment + CFP decision he was telling. I mean sure you can obviously see this as ESPN chose Bama/SEC over FSU/ACC. If FSU moved to the SEC they'd then get that preferential treatment. And it's not like if they were in the B10 ESPN would be giving them better treatment than they just did.

Plus I think it just will be easier to move from ACC to SEC because it's ESPN -> ESPN.
Not so sure about that. The committee followed its rules to a T. Travis went down and the competitiveness of FSU was drastically affected (I'd argue even with Travis they'd get their asses handed to them in the playoff, but they would have gotten in if Travis were healthy).

Regarding this pro-SEC bias, it would be interesting to see how the committee would have voted if the starting QB was lost to injury like what happened to FSU. It never did, but I think they would have followed their guidelines in that situation as well.
 
Advertisement
How do you think the rumored Seminole Streaming Network plays into this? (If at all)

When I reread it, I know it sounds like a parody **** channel, but I was told they are starting their own streaming platform.



Has nothing to do with it. This is just "bonus content", it's not actual games or anything.

I liked this part:

Users can search by keywords including Seminoles, Noles, Florida State, pegging, frottage, cuckhold, and FSU, to view a personalized selection of clips.
 
Not so sure about that. The committee followed its rules to a T. Travis went down and the competitiveness of FSU was drastically affected (I'd argue even with Travis they'd get their asses handed to them in the playoff, but they would have gotten in if Travis were healthy).

Regarding this pro-SEC bias, it would be interesting to see how the committee would have voted if the starting QB was lost to injury like what happened to FSU. It never did, but I think they would have followed their guidelines in that situation as well.


The committee did NOT "follow its rules to a T". That's a lie.

If the CFP was sooooooo concerned with F$U's loss of Jordan Travis, they could have dropped F$U in THE PRIOR WEEK, since Travis was out for the rest of the season.

In fact, the week after Jordan Travis was injured, the CFP moved F$U UP UP UP one spot to #4, even though they could have allowed other 1-loss teams to jump F$U AT THAT TIME.

Except...that never happened.

The CFP only became concerned about the "loss of Jordan Travis" when it became obvious that the SEC would otherwise be shut out. SUDDENLY, the CFP gave a **** about "Jordan Travis" because a third-string QB with 4 prior passes had to TEMPORARILY step in for Rodemaker, the second-stringer who would have started in the playoffs. The same Rodemaker who was "good enough" for the CFP Committee to move F$U UP one spot the week prior.

What a bunch of BULL**** the CFP Committee spewed on you. Shame on you for slurping up all of their lies.
 
Advertisement
You lost 98% of the board on that one


1702144796198.png
 
The committee did NOT "follow its rules to a T". That's a lie.

If the CFP was sooooooo concerned with F$U's loss of Jordan Travis, they could have dropped F$U in THE PRIOR WEEK, since Travis was out for the rest of the season.

In fact, the week after Jordan Travis was injured, the CFP moved F$U UP UP UP one spot to #4, even though they could have allowed other 1-loss teams to jump F$U AT THAT TIME.

Except...that never happened.

The CFP only became concerned about the "loss of Jordan Travis" when it became obvious that the SEC would otherwise be shut out. SUDDENLY, the CFP gave a **** about "Jordan Travis" because a third-string QB with 4 prior passes had to TEMPORARILY step in for Rodemaker, the second-stringer who would have started in the playoffs. The same Rodemaker who was "good enough" for the CFP Committee to move F$U UP one spot the week prior.

What a bunch of BULL**** the CFP Committee spewed on you. Shame on you for slurping up all of their lies.
OR the committee wanted more than a 1 game sample size to determine Travis' importance to his team. Don't understand Canes fans carrying water for FSU, but here we are.

Do you really think FSU is better than Bama or Texas?
 
OR the committee wanted more than a 1 game sample size to determine Travis' importance to his team. Don't understand Canes fans carrying water for FSU, but here we are.

Do you really think FSU is better than Bama or Texas?


What a dumb comment, devoid of facts and logic.

Florida State beats an unranked 5-7 Florida team by 9 points with a second-string QB. CFP Committee raises F$U one spot...ONE WEEK after lowering F$U by one spot.

A week later, Florida State beats a Top 15 RANKED 10-win Louisville team by 10 points with a third-string QB. CFP Committee SUDDENLY worries about Jordan Travis, even though Rodemaker will be back in time for the playoffs, the same Rodemaker that inspired the CFP to raise F$U one spot one week earlier.

Yeah, it's all bull****. The CFP Committee "wanted more than a 1 game sample size to determine Travis' importance to his team". What a load of crap.

Look, I hate Florida State. It is HILARIOUS to see the reaction of their fans, after they treated everyone else in the ACC like **** over the past year.

But it is EVEN WORSE to cape for Alabama and the SEC, as if they are somehow more "deserving" of being in the playoffs. That part is a falsehood, no matter which school(s) and/or conference(a) anyone secretly roots for.

This is not about who I think is "better". That can be decided on the field. It is about who is more DESERVING to be in the playoffs, and the first three teams who should automatically be included in the Final Four are the three undefeated Power Five conference champions. End of story.

We already know that ONE of the pair of Texas and Alabama was going to be the fourth team. Acting as if putting them BOTH in ahead of F$U does not suddenly turn the Final Four into some amazing gladiatorial competition that would have been TERRIBLE if only ONE of the Alabama-Texas pairing had made it. Besides, we already saw Alabama-Texas, and Texas won by 10 in a road game. On that basis alone, Alabama is OUT.

The season matters. It is NOT just "who is the hottest/who is the least injured on December 1st". That's bull****.
 
Advertisement
The committee did NOT "follow its rules to a T". That's a lie.

If the CFP was sooooooo concerned with F$U's loss of Jordan Travis, they could have dropped F$U in THE PRIOR WEEK, since Travis was out for the rest of the season.

In fact, the week after Jordan Travis was injured, the CFP moved F$U UP UP UP one spot to #4, even though they could have allowed other 1-loss teams to jump F$U AT THAT TIME.

Except...that never happened.

The CFP only became concerned about the "loss of Jordan Travis" when it became obvious that the SEC would otherwise be shut out. SUDDENLY, the CFP gave a **** about "Jordan Travis" because a third-string QB with 4 prior passes had to TEMPORARILY step in for Rodemaker, the second-stringer who would have started in the playoffs. The same Rodemaker who was "good enough" for the CFP Committee to move F$U UP one spot the week prior.

What a bunch of BULL**** the CFP Committee spewed on you. Shame on you for slurping up all of their lies.
100%. Although I do think the committee would’ve done the same had Georgia beaten Alabama. The final four would’ve been Georgia, Michigan, Washington, and Texas.

But yes, F-CFP Committee
 
While I dont think fsu stood a chance without Travis in the CFP, the outcome of the layup of a power five team with no losses getting snubbed isn’t about carrying water for FSU specifically. If it had to happen to someone I am glad it was them. But If an ACC team can get ****ed for spots 1-4, it can happen for spots 9-12 also. The stage for a two loss Miami getting left out for a 3 loss Tennessee or lsu or Oklahoma has been set. Which until we move, is a problem.

This was the easiest playoff decision ever, three undefeated power five conference champs and a one loss conference champ that beat the other 1 loss conference champ on the field. Now it just shifts where the money decision to **** someone over gets made from the top five down to the top 15.

We gotta bounce from this dead conference fast.
 
While I dont think fsu stood a chance without Travis in the CFP, the outcome of the layup of a power five team with no losses getting snubbed isn’t about carrying water for FSU specifically. If it had to happen to someone I am glad it was them. But If an ACC team can get ****ed for spots 1-4, it can happen for spots 9-12 also. The stage for a two loss Miami getting left out for a 3 loss Tennessee or lsu or Oklahoma has been set. Which until we move, is a problem.

This was the easiest playoff decision ever, three undefeated power five conference champs and a one loss conference champ that beat the other 1 loss conference champ on the field. Now it just shifts where the money decision to **** someone over gets made from the top five down to the top 15.

We gotta bounce from this dead conference fast.
This has already been happening for decades. Did you think they’d all of the sudden not rank 3 loss SEC teams ahead of 2 loss ACC teams just bc a playoff spot is on the line?

The FSU snub hasn’t changed a single thing outside of them being ****ed off and wanting out faster.
 
https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/...ootball-playoff-will-work-teams-schedule-bids

I wonder if it makes sense for the acc to push a guaranteed playoff spot narrative here to solidify itself as the third "P3" conference. Something along the lines of SEC/BIG each get 3 guaranteed spots and the ACC gets 2 while all other conferences have to vie to be one of the top remaining 4 teams to get in. Obviously want the Canes to leave the ACC for the BIG/SEC but if we're stuck here longer that may be a better position than the current set of rules.

The BIG12 would get screwed but the reality is the last time a team from the current b12 that won a natty was Colorado in 1990. Since then the natty split (counting some split natty's) for where current teams reside has been:

SEC: 19
BIG: 9
ACC: 8

How CFP teams are selected under new format​

The new 12-team College Football Playoff field will include the six highest-ranked conference champions, which will receive automatic bids. The top four teams will receive a first-round bye to the quarterfinals.

The six highest-ranked teams remaining will round out the 12-team format.
 
Advertisement
100%. Although I do think the committee would’ve done the same had Georgia beaten Alabama. The final four would’ve been Georgia, Michigan, Washington, and Texas.

But yes, F-CFP Committee
No way. There’s no argument for Texas over FSU, there never was. The narrative was always FSU Vs Bama and when they win that narrative, Texas comes along for the ride. If Georgia beats Bama, it’s the 4 undefeated teams in the CFP.
 
What a dumb comment, devoid of facts and logic.

Florida State beats an unranked 5-7 Florida team by 9 points with a second-string QB. CFP Committee raises F$U one spot...ONE WEEK after lowering F$U by one spot.

A week later, Florida State beats a Top 15 RANKED 10-win Louisville team by 10 points with a third-string QB. CFP Committee SUDDENLY worries about Jordan Travis, even though Rodemaker will be back in time for the playoffs, the same Rodemaker that inspired the CFP to raise F$U one spot one week earlier.

Yeah, it's all bull****. The CFP Committee "wanted more than a 1 game sample size to determine Travis' importance to his team". What a load of crap.

Look, I hate Florida State. It is HILARIOUS to see the reaction of their fans, after they treated everyone else in the ACC like **** over the past year.

But it is EVEN WORSE to cape for Alabama and the SEC, as if they are somehow more "deserving" of being in the playoffs. That part is a falsehood, no matter which school(s) and/or conference(a) anyone secretly roots for.

This is not about who I think is "better". That can be decided on the field. It is about who is more DESERVING to be in the playoffs, and the first three teams who should automatically be included in the Final Four are the three undefeated Power Five conference champions. End of story.

We already know that ONE of the pair of Texas and Alabama was going to be the fourth team. Acting as if putting them BOTH in ahead of F$U does not suddenly turn the Final Four into some amazing gladiatorial competition that would have been TERRIBLE if only ONE of the Alabama-Texas pairing had made it. Besides, we already saw Alabama-Texas, and Texas won by 10 in a road game. On that basis alone, Alabama is OUT.

The season matters. It is NOT just "who is the hottest/who is the least injured on December 1st". That's bull****.
No, the mandate was not who is more DESERVING, but the 4 BEST teams. FACT

  • The selection committee’s task will be to select the best teams, rank the teams for inclusion in the playoff and selected other bowl games and then assign the teams to sites.

Again, here are the criteria for picking the teams:

  • The selection committee will select the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering:
    • Conference championships won,
    • Strength of schedule,
    • Head‐to‐head competition,
    • Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory), and
    • Other relevant factors such as unavailability of key players and coaches that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.
FACT - It is (and has been since the playoff was implemented) explicitly stated that "unavailability of key players" which likely will affect its postseason performance. This would not have been placed in the criteria if DESERVING was the sole determinant.

Another fact is, this whole argument is a moot point. It won't matter next year nor going forward. Will the ACC be discriminated against because of its perception as a weak football conference when it comes to getting at-large teams picked? Absolutely. However, the committee followed its mandate and criteria in picking teams THIS YEAR. A literal "bad break" for FSU. Too bad, so sad, ****'em.
 
Advertisement
No, the mandate was not who is more DESERVING, but the 4 BEST teams. FACT

  • The selection committee’s task will be to select the best teams, rank the teams for inclusion in the playoff and selected other bowl games and then assign the teams to sites.

Again, here are the criteria for picking the teams:

  • The selection committee will select the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering:
    • Conference championships won,
    • Strength of schedule,
    • Head‐to‐head competition,
    • Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory), and
    • Other relevant factors such as unavailability of key players and coaches that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.
FACT - It is (and has been since the playoff was implemented) explicitly stated that "unavailability of key players" which likely will affect its postseason performance. This would not have been placed in the criteria if DESERVING was the sole determinant.

Another fact is, this whole argument is a moot point. It won't matter next year nor going forward. Will the ACC be discriminated against because of its perception as a weak football conference when it comes to getting at-large teams picked? Absolutely. However, the committee followed its mandate and criteria in picking teams THIS YEAR. A literal "bad break" for FSU. Too bad, so sad, ****'em.


This is how dumb you are.

You copied and pasted a bunch of words. You selectively highlighted a bunch of words.

And then you chose NOT to highlight the words "othewise comparable teams". Which is the most important phrase that dopes like you choose to skip over, as if it has no meaning.

What it does NOT mean is that "everyone is comparable". If that was the case, then you would just say that the Top 7 teams this year (all of whom had 0 or 1 losses, and all to one another, EXCEPT for the Texas loss to Oklahoma) would all be "comparable".

Ah, but that's not what those words mean. What those words mean is that you create groups or tiers of COMPARABLE teams, and THEN AND ONLY THEN do you move on to the differentiation criteria.

And simply stated, there were THREE undefeated Power Five schools that won their conference championships. So, yes, Michigan and Washington and F$U should have been on Tier 1. Regardless of Travis being injured.

The CFP Committee ALREADY TOLD THE WORLD that it used the tier ranking system. Except that they admitted that the three "otherwise comparable teams" that they put into the "automatically in the Final Four" category were Michigan, Washington, AND TEXAS. Which is bull****. As Texas had the "worst loss" of any of the 1-loss teams, having lost to Oklahoma.

The reality is that it has NEVER been the charge or mission or province of the BCS/CFP committees to toss out the entirety of college seasons to hold a de novo vote on the 2 (or 4) hottest/least-injured teams in December. It has ALWAYS been the charge/mission/province of these selection committees to make difficult "close-calls" when there are more undefeated teams than available slots, or more 1-loss teams than available slots. That's why, for over 25 years, there has never been an undefeated P5 conference champion (omitting teams on probation) that has been denied the chance to play for the national championship.

This was a fixed selection process that was ALWAYS going to result in at least one SEC team being included in the Final Four. It was NEVER about selecting the best teams. In the last couple of weeks of the season, it suddenly transformed into "finding any articulable reason to justify taking an SEC team at any cost".

That is the truth, regardless of how you try to torture the words that YOU cut-and-pasted. Don't ignore the inconvenient words that you don't want to deal with. Be honest for once in your miserable life.

There were three tiers:

1. Undefeated P5 conference champions
2. 1-loss P5 conference champions
3. 1-loss P5 teams that did not win their conferences

Michigan, Washington, and F$U were in Tier 1.

Texas and Alabama were in Tier 2. And Texas should have been chosen over Alabama based on head-to-head.

END OF PROCESS.

Georgia was the absolute best "number six" team of all time.

Ohio Taint got shut out of having a second chance to offset the Michigan loss...based on the Big 10 continuing to use divisions for its championship matchup.

END OF PROCESS.
 
This is how dumb you are.

You copied and pasted a bunch of words. You selectively highlighted a bunch of words.

And then you chose NOT to highlight the words "othewise comparable teams". Which is the most important phrase that dopes like you choose to skip over, as if it has no meaning.

What it does NOT mean is that "everyone is comparable". If that was the case, then you would just say that the Top 7 teams this year (all of whom had 0 or 1 losses, and all to one another, EXCEPT for the Texas loss to Oklahoma) would all be "comparable".

Ah, but that's not what those words mean. What those words mean is that you create groups or tiers of COMPARABLE teams, and THEN AND ONLY THEN do you move on to the differentiation criteria.

And simply stated, there were THREE undefeated Power Five schools that won their conference championships. So, yes, Michigan and Washington and F$U should have been on Tier 1. Regardless of Travis being injured.

The CFP Committee ALREADY TOLD THE WORLD that it used the tier ranking system. Except that they admitted that the three "otherwise comparable teams" that they put into the "automatically in the Final Four" category were Michigan, Washington, AND TEXAS. Which is bull****. As Texas had the "worst loss" of any of the 1-loss teams, having lost to Oklahoma.

The reality is that it has NEVER been the charge or mission or province of the BCS/CFP committees to toss out the entirety of college seasons to hold a de novo vote on the 2 (or 4) hottest/least-injured teams in December. It has ALWAYS been the charge/mission/province of these selection committees to make difficult "close-calls" when there are more undefeated teams than available slots, or more 1-loss teams than available slots. That's why, for over 25 years, there has never been an undefeated P5 conference champion (omitting teams on probation) that has been denied the chance to play for the national championship.

This was a fixed selection process that was ALWAYS going to result in at least one SEC team being included in the Final Four. It was NEVER about selecting the best teams. In the last couple of weeks of the season, it suddenly transformed into "finding any articulable reason to justify taking an SEC team at any cost".

That is the truth, regardless of how you try to torture the words that YOU cut-and-pasted. Don't ignore the inconvenient words that you don't want to deal with. Be honest for once in your miserable life.

There were three tiers:

1. Undefeated P5 conference champions
2. 1-loss P5 conference champions
3. 1-loss P5 teams that did not win their conferences

Michigan, Washington, and F$U were in Tier 1.

Texas and Alabama were in Tier 2. And Texas should have been chosen over Alabama based on head-to-head.

END OF PROCESS.

Georgia was the absolute best "number six" team of all time.

Ohio Taint got shut out of having a second chance to offset the Michigan loss...based on the Big 10 continuing to use divisions for its championship matchup.

END OF PROCESS.
Nothing says completely wrong like name-calling. Now go back to Warchant for the weekly circle jerk. 🤣 🤣 🤣


Mad Kicking And Screaming GIF by MOODMAN
Tantrum Crying GIF
 
No, the mandate was not who is more DESERVING, but the 4 BEST teams. FACT

  • The selection committee’s task will be to select the best teams, rank the teams for inclusion in the playoff and selected other bowl games and then assign the teams to sites.

Again, here are the criteria for picking the teams:

  • The selection committee will select the teams using a process that distinguishes among otherwise comparable teams by considering:
    • Conference championships won,
    • Strength of schedule,
    • Head‐to‐head competition,
    • Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory), and
    • Other relevant factors such as unavailability of key players and coaches that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.
FACT - It is (and has been since the playoff was implemented) explicitly stated that "unavailability of key players" which likely will affect its postseason performance. This would not have been placed in the criteria if DESERVING was the sole determinant.

Another fact is, this whole argument is a moot point. It won't matter next year nor going forward. Will the ACC be discriminated against because of its perception as a weak football conference when it comes to getting at-large teams picked? Absolutely. However, the committee followed its mandate and criteria in picking teams THIS YEAR. A literal "bad break" for FSU. Too bad, so sad, ****'em.

Can u provide the platform or site where that 5th point u listed is found at? I’ve literally seen the CPF committee’s statement found here:


& a SI article found here:


that does not state that criteria. In fact, no where have I seen that bolded bullet point 5 that you included.

So if u can you show us where u obtained that info, that would be great.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top