forums

Tears Nole Tears (“Offcial”)

IMG_1030.gif
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Nope. You are wrong. Factually wrong.

People like to ignore one particular clause in the instructions to the committee.

The CFP is NOT supposed to tear everything up and invent a new ranking. They were told that for COMPARABLE teams, "here are the criteria to determine the ordering".

There were three undefeated P5 teams last year. Those were the three best teams, and AMONG THOSE, figure out who is 1, who is 2, who is 3.

The playoff committee has not been asked to ignore the season, they have been asked TO DECIDE AMONG TEAMS THAT ARE COMPARABLE.

And there were THREE Power 5 schools last year that were undefeated conference champions, Michigan, Washington, and F$U.
Alabama and Texas were 1-loss conference champions.
Georgia and Ohio State were 1-loss NOT conference champions.

Michigan, Washington, and F$U are 1-3.
Alabama and Texas are 4-5.
Georgia and Ohio State are 6-7.

Now, use SOS and H2H and common opponents TO DECIDE AMONG TEAMS THAT ARE COMPARABLE. It's actually in the guidelines.



The selection committee ranks the teams based on the members’ evaluation of the teams’ performance on the field, using conference championships won, strength of schedule, head-to-head results, and comparison of results against common opponents to decide among teams that are comparable.

What
Click to expand...
Huh? I agree they dont need to "tear everything up and create a new ranking" I never said that.

Did you miss the part of the "one particular clause" in the guidelines that states:
  • 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.
Seems pretty on point to me. Your starting QB is a pretty key player and clearly affecting the teams performance in the two games he was out. So yes, conference championships, strength of schedule, h2h matchups AND other relevant factors. This falls into that category.
 
Cookie917 said:
Huh? I agree they dont need to "tear everything up and create a new ranking" I never said that.

Did you miss the part of the "one particular clause" in the guidelines that states:
  • 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.
Seems pretty on point to me. Your starting QB is a pretty key player and clearly affecting the teams performance in the two games he was out. So yes, conference championships, strength of schedule, h2h matchups AND other relevant factors. This falls into that category.
Click to expand...


Yes. In comparing F$U to Michigan and Washington, THEN you can use "other relevant factors".

I realize you don't understand the principles of statutory construction. It's no big deal, I'm not mad at you. But "unavailability of key players and coaches" isn't a consideration for moving "incomparable" teams ahead of "comparable teams".

You have comparable teams.

Tier 1 - undefeated conference champs
Tier 2 - 1-loss conference champs
Tier 3 - all other 1-loss teams

NOW apply "unavailability of key players and coaches" to rank the comparable teams.

DO NOT USE IT to elevate lesser comparable teams over superior OTHER comparable teams.

Don't play "out-of-context" games with me. "Other relevant factor" is the LAST TIEBREAKER among comparable teams on comparable tiers.
 
Personally I think the committee made the right move. The whole purpose of having a human element was to make decisions like this so they could avoid huge blowout playoff games. FSU without Travis was objectively worse than the four teams that were selected ahead of them. That’s all the should matter. Nobody wants to see a repeat of the 2022 championship game.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
They were one of the four best. Period. End of story.

1. Michigan only beat Pedo State by 9, only beat Maryland by 7, only beat Taint by 6.
2. Washington only beat Arizona by 7, only beat Oregon by 3 (and then 7 in the conference CG), only beat Arizona State by 8, only beat Stanford by 9, only beat Utah by 7, only beat Oregon State by 2, only beat Washington State by 3.
3. Texas LOST to Oklahoma, and only beat Houston by 7, only beat K-State by 3 in OT, only beat TCU by 3.
4. Alabama LOST to Texas, and only beat aTm by 6, only beat Arkansas by 3, only beat Auburn by 3, only beat UGa by 3.

I can do this all day.
Click to expand...
And FSU with JT would lose to half of those teams above. FSU is 23-4 in the last two seasons, 13 of those wins were against teams with losing records and 5 of those wins were against teams who finished 7-6. See 2012 Notre Dame and that is FSU last year. FSU just wasn’t that good. Their Defense finished behind Miami’s last year.
 
Peachycarnahan said:
its because they don't teach cursive anymore in grade school. my oldest son who just graduated UF magna *** laude & phi beta kappa (hates the gates) didn't have a "signature" until he was 18. whenever they asked him to print his name and sign his name on a form, he would use the same non-cursive block signature on both lines.
Click to expand...

Signatures don’t have to be in cursive. Your signature could be a giant Miami []_[] as long as that’s what you use for everything.
 
Hurricane Hero said:
And FSU with JT would lose to half of those teams above. FSU is 23-4 in the last two seasons, 13 of those wins were against teams with losing records and 5 of those wins were against teams who finished 7-6. See 2012 Notre Dame and that is FSU last year. FSU just wasn’t that good. Their Defense finished behind Miami’s last year.
Click to expand...

SO. WHAT. F$U was an undefeated P5 team and a P5 conference champion. One of three.

And all of the bull**** about "projecting matchups" and "getting good games" is invented nonsense BY FANS. Not by the actual presidents and ADs and CFP committee members.

The CFP committee was told to rank AMONG COMPARABLE TEAMS. They were NOT told to knock an undefeated conference champion team out of the Final Four over an injury when there are only 3 undefeated conference champion teams.

Yes, I know that F$U without JT was one of the weakest undefeated teams ever by year-end. But that's why the games are played. Even the blowouts.

Nobody ever said that all undefeated conference champs would be equally as good. And when they are not, you rank them. Doesn't mean you exclude them over an injury.
 
Last edited:
TheOriginalCane said:
Yes. In comparing F$U to Michigan and Washington, THEN you can use "other relevant factors".

I realize you don't understand the principles of statutory construction. It's no big deal, I'm not mad at you. But "unavailability of key players and coaches" isn't a consideration for moving "incomparable" teams ahead of "comparable teams".

You have comparable teams.

Tier 1 - undefeated conference champs
Tier 2 - 1-loss conference champs
Tier 3 - all other 1-loss teams

NOW apply "unavailability of key players and coaches" to rank the comparable teams.

DO NOT USE IT to elevate lesser comparable teams over superior OTHER comparable teams.

Don't play "out-of-context" games with me. "Other relevant factor" is the LAST TIEBREAKER among comparable teams on comparable tiers.
Click to expand...

Well regarding my understanding of statutory construction I am unsure if YOU can say whether or not I do or do not understand them, however it is completely irrelevant because these are not "statutes"

The preamble of the selection process specifically states it is not a specific formula and that outcomes are often decided by emotional commitment, momentum, injuries and the “unexpected bounce of the ball.”

Your reasoning is flawed because you automatically assume the CFP breaks down the tiers as you mentioned based on YOUR definition of the term comparable. That ONLY undefeated conference champions should be in one group followed by 1 loss champs and all others. That is NOT the criteria. Show me where that is the definition or the "statutory construction" I do not think you can. Instead the committee guidelines state when reviewing comparable teams (comparable subject to interpretation) you then consider championships won, SOS, H2H and outcomes of common opponents. **** the guidelines even start off by saying "when comparing teams with "similar records" note it does not say "exact" records.

I am unsure where your quote came from because I do not see it in the CFP guidelines. Instead I see "when circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable" then consider the following criteria. It seems our whole disagreement is over the word "comparable" I think FSU should have been compared to all the other top 6 teams, you think they should have only been compared against 3.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
DTP said:
Personally I think the committee made the right move. The whole purpose of having a human element was to make decisions like this so they could avoid huge blowout playoff games. FSU without Travis was objectively worse than the four teams that were selected ahead of them. That’s all the should matter. Nobody wants to see a repeat of the 2022 championship game.
Click to expand...
... or the 2000 championship game. We were more deserving than FSU having beaten them head-to-head. Bowden after the game even admitted that maybe Miami should have been in.

So **** FSU.
 
Mikeiavelli said:
So Noles Tears is now reserved for arguments over the playoff committee choices and how to properly sign a document?

The kid is an idiot because he can't sign a contract. I guess FSU players don't have to sign NIL contracts with Polar Pop. The Noles were not deserving of a playoff berth and never will be
Click to expand...


The point is simple.

We should not be apologists for the ACC being a "weak conference" and having a "lower SOS" than any other conference. That is a death warrant.

Until such time as the ACC is relegated to the G6 or G6 or G7, then the undefeated champion of the ACC deserves a seat at the table. Period.

I'm sick and ******* tired of hearing about the "close calls" of an ACC champion, while the Pac 12 champion (Washington) had a half-dozen close calls.

**** this bull****.

If Miami goes 13-0 and wins the ACC, we'd god**** better be in the Top 4 seeds. I don't give a **** if we beat an 0-12 Gator team and an 0-12 F$U team. If a P5 or P4 team beats every team on the schedule, then crown them. Whether they are SEC or ACC.

And if the SEC gets 8 other teams in the playoffs, so be it.

But the Top 4 should be enough slots to include every undefeated conference champ from a power conference.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
The point is simple.

We should not be apologists for the ACC being a "weak conference" and having a "lower SOS" than any other conference. That is a death warrant.

Until such time as the ACC is relegated to the G6 or G6 or G7, then the undefeated champion of the ACC deserves a seat at the table. Period.

I'm sick and ******* tired of hearing about the "close calls" of an ACC champion, while the Pac 12 champion (Washington) had a half-dozen close calls.

**** this bull****.

If Miami goes 13-0 and wins the ACC, we'd god**** better be in the Top 4 seeds. I don't give a **** if we beat an 0-12 Gator team and an 0-12 F$U team. If a P5 or P4 team beats every team on the schedule, then crown them. Whether they are SEC or ACC.

And if the SEC gets 8 other teams in the playoffs, so be it.

But the Top 4 should be enough slots to include every undefeated conference champ from a power conference.
Click to expand...
Except, FSU proved exactly how they were NOT deserving of a playoff berth.

It's not about the ACC. It's about FSU not having Travis after barely winning games with him.
 
Mikeiavelli said:
Except, FSU proved exactly how they were NOT deserving of a playoff berth.

It's not about the ACC. It's about FSU not having Travis after barely winning games with him.
Click to expand...


If you want to use backwards justification, that's up to you.

They deserved the playoff berth. It is not their fault that they suffered an injury of their best player at the most important position on the field.

They were still an undefeated Power 5 conference champion.

Nobody takes an NFL team out of the playoffs when they suffer a late-season injury. Or an MLB team. Or an NBA team.

I can think of a couple of NBA teams every year that sputter in the playoffs due to injuries.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
If you want to use backwards justification, that's up to you.

They deserved the playoff berth. It is not their fault that they suffered an injury of their best player at the most important position on the field.

They were still an undefeated Power 5 conference champion.

Nobody takes an NFL team out of the playoffs when they suffer a late-season injury. Or an MLB team. Or an NBA team.

I can think of a couple of NBA teams every year that sputter in the playoffs due to injuries.
Click to expand...
Actually it was their fault they lost Travis. They had him playing in a game against an FCS team at the end of the season, which they were losing btw.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Nobody takes an NFL team out of the playoffs when they suffer a late-season injury. Or an MLB team. Or an NBA team.

I can think of a couple of NBA teams every year that sputter in the playoffs due to injuries.
Click to expand...
That’s because those sports don’t use a committee to determine who makes the playoffs. They have a predetermined criteria where winning your division guarantees you a playoff spot even if you’re not one of the top teams in the conference record-wise. College football didn’t have a criteria like that. It’s a double edged sword because a “deserving” team like 2023 FSU could get bypassed but it also avoids the issue of an 8-4 conference champ getting an automatic bid over a 12-1 team that lost their conference championship game.
 
DTP said:
That’s because those sports don’t use a committee to determine who makes the playoffs. They have a predetermined criteria where winning your division guarantees you a playoff spot even if you’re not one of the top teams in the conference record-wise. College football didn’t have a criteria like that. It’s a double edged sword because a “deserving” team like 2023 FSU could get bypassed but it also avoids the issue of an 8-4 conference champ getting an automatic bid over a 12-1 team that lost their conference championship game.
Click to expand...


Again, the mythical "8-4 conference champ" rears its ugly head.

I'm fully aware of the differences on selection. I'm pointing out that nobody clutches their pearls when an 8-8 division champ in the NFL makes the playoffs. Nobody is O-ffended. We don't feel the need to create a committee to overwhelm the norms and standards in order to get "better matchups".

And that's kinda the point. Undefeated conference champions OF THE BEST CONFERENCES (and that number varies a bit over history) have tended NOT to be excluded from the chance to play for the championship. Certainly, nobody has ever said "hey, we need to change the BCS formula or create a CFP Committee BECAUSE THAT ONE UNDEFEATED POWER CONFERENCE CHAMP WAS SO UNDESERVING".

When teams lose a game? Yes, there have been debates. When teams have otherwise "equal" faults, or are equally "undefeated", yes, there has been argument.

But we had three undefeated P5 conference champions last year and 4 slots. And as much as I hate F$U, and as much as we NOW know the "outcomes" of the games, it still doesn't retroactively make it right to deny an undefeated P5 champion the right to play for the championship.

That is the inherent hypocrisy of the whole situation, that people are trying to deny that the CFP committee was NOT put in place to substitute their judgement for the entire season that has been played up to that point, but they were put in place to make the tiebreaking calls over rankings between otherwise comparable teams.
 
Back
Top