You definitely know your institution is legitimate when you feel the need to defend its legitimacy two days after the fact... he wrote sarcastically.
Two days after the College Football Playoff selection committee executed the unprecedented snub of undefeated ACC champion Florida State, CFP executive director Bill Hancock felt the need to perform public-relations clean-up.
"It is the most ethical, deliberate, detailed process I've been through since I left the men's basketball committee," Hancock told CBS Sports.
Numerous Florida-based politicians called out the committee over the weekend.
Multiple selection committee members spoke anonymously to the media to explain why they elevated Alabama over FSU, and all ultimately arrived at the same destination: they ultimately believe the full-strength Crimson Tide are just better than the Tate Rodemaker Seminoles.
"For me, individually, I evaluated [whether they could] make it through and win a national championship with the team they had," one voter told CBS.
"We didn't think they could [win a national championship]," another told ESPN.
"People are putting this on (FSU QB1 Jordan Travis) … they shouldn't do that," Hancock said. "What (chairman Boo Corrigan) said was, 'They're not the same team.' No one can argue with that. They're not the same team without Jordan Travis. That's all I can say. I'm trying not to be a smart ass."
In a system with more worthy teams than spots and a sport where there are precious few data points, there is always going to be tension between "best" and "most deserving." The committee is ultimately charged to identify the four "best" teams, and when it's close, the protocol boils down to four oft-cited bullet points:
- Championships won
- Strength of schedule
- Head‐to‐head competition (if it occurred)
- Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)
Nothing within there requires the committee to explicitly elevate an undefeated team over a 1-loss team... but nothing also instructs the committee to include "we think this team can win the national championship" as part of its judgment, either. Just this past weekend, 9.5-point favorite Oregon lost outright to Washington, and Georgia lost to Alabama as a 5.5-point favorite.
Ultimately, bad processes lead to bad results, and the process that lead to Florida State's Selection Sunday snub was terrible, indefensible, and unforgivable. It's perfectly reasonable to conclude the Travis-less Seminoles are not one of the four best teams, but they were the same team on Tuesday as they were Saturday.
If the committee felt Florida State simply wasn't good enough without Travis, they should have dropped the 'Noles to No. 7 or 8 in the penultimate rankings on Nov. 28.
Considering the circumstances, Florida State was mightily impressive on Saturday night. The Seminoles generated only 216 yards and 16 points, but the FSU defense made full-strength Louisville look like they were the team with the third-string true freshman at quarterback. Adam Fuller's defense sacked Louisville's Jack Plummer seven times -- including on back-to-back fourth downs in the fourth quarter -- and limited him to 14-of-36 passing for 111 yards with an end zone interception after a blocked punt.
All things considered, it may have been the most impressive defensive effort any team produced in 2023. There was simply no credible way to view Florida State as a worse team after Saturday night, and so if Florida State was not a top-4 team on Sunday morning, they shouldn't have been one on Tuesday night.
And yet, ranking the 'Noles at 5 was, somehow, the most confounding data point of all. If the committee is going to ask us to believe that Sunday's rankings were a pure reflection of talent and ability, Florida State at No. 5 was the committee's final insult.
We know the precise distance between No. 4 Alabama and No. 6 Georgia: it's three points, in a climate controlled environment on a neutral field. And if that's the case, the gap between FSU and Bama is either one or two points. Again, the committee is asking us to believe Sunday's rankings are not about resume, but their estimation of who is best positioned to win the national title. So, being an undefeated conference champion that's talented enough to beat two Power 5 teams by multiple scores away from home with their 2nd- and 3rd-string quarterbacks is not enough 1.5 points' worth of consideration.
It defies logic. Worst of all, it insults the intelligence of everyone who takes the time to digest what the committee is asking us to believe as a true reflection of their judgment.
Keep in mind: the committee then flipped their protocol to rank No. 23 Liberty, the undefeated C-USA champion who did not play a Power 5 team all season, over No. 24 SMU, who lost twice to Big 12 teams but knocked off No. 22 Tulane to win the American championship.
Hancock said Alabama's strength of schedule was a factor in elevating the Tide over FSU, but it wasn't a factor in keeping Liberty over SMU.
The committee simply picks and chooses its criteria depending on the situation, its process is faulty, and questions of its legitimacy are justified. A number of Florida-based politicians have attacked the CFP since Sunday, and while no one believes their beliefs are anything more than grandstanding -- Would Florida Sen. Rick Scott release a statement if 1-loss FSU jumped undefeated Alabama? -- Hancock's defense rings hollow.
"Not to Rick Scott, but I am disappointed when people challenge the integrity of the process. I think that's out of line and inappropriate," Hancock told CBS.
Sorry, Mr. Hancock. Integrity is earned, not demanded, and an opaque process and inconsistent criteria are why the CFP committee lost theirs in the eyes of the public.