Florida State being left out of CFP is the "perfect capper to decades of foot-dragging and illogical debate over the proper way to decide a national champion"Getty Images
College football "got just what it deserved" with undefeated ACC champ Florida State being left out of CFP, as it is the "perfect capper to decades of foot-dragging and illogical debate over the proper way to decide a national champion," according to Paul Newberry of the AP. Next season, with the advent of a 12-team format, there "should no longer be any argument over a championship-worthy team being left out of the mix." But fans will "forever will be left with the question" of why the sport took "so long to implement a logical playoff system at the major college level." FSU is the first Power 5 champ in the playoff era to get snubbed despite a "resume of that stature," which "sparked plenty of outrage." This was one "last bit of absurdity in how college football decides its champion" (AP, 12/3). In Tuscaloosa, Chase Goodbread wrote what the CFP selection committee had the "toughest call they’ve ever had," and the "best reason imaginable to validate the CFP’s new forage, coping in 2024, into a 12-team playoff field" (TUSCALOOSA NEWS, 12/3). The WALL STREET JOURNAL’s Laine Higgins wrote the "days of controversy were supposedly over" with the four-team playoff, but this bracket "reverberated through college football like a grenade blast" (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 12/3).
READY FOR EXPANSION: THE ATHLETIC’s Stewart Mandel wrote the final year of the four-team CFP "couldn’t come soon enough." Putting FSU’s exclusion aside, "no one would deny that this year brought an intriguing pair of semifinals" in the Michigan-Alabama Rose Bowl and the Washington-Texas Sugar Bowl. That "hasn’t always been the case." But the push to expand the CFP was "only marginally about improving the method by which we determine the national champion." It is "much more about the fact that college football’s larger postseason desperately needs a reboot." Come this time next year, the sport will have adopted a system that "provides a more meaningful experience," though there "will be flaws with the new system too" (THE ATHLETIC, 12/3). THE ATHLETIC’s Ari Wasserman wrote in the nine years before this season, the "best and most deserving seamlessly became one, resulting in cut-and-dried decisions on which teams would make the field." In the final season of the four-team era, the CFP committee was "charged with a very difficult decision that was guaranteed to result in a worthy team feeling cheated" (THE ATHLETIC, 12/3). In Philadelphia, David Murphy wrote yesterday's selection was the “perfect end to an awful playoff format that has always been more authoritarian than meritocratic.” In the last year of a “flawed system born of the internal contradictions of for-profit amateur sports,” college football gets a postseason “befitting the circus it has become” (PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 12/3).
SEC BIAS? USA TODAY’s Blake Toppmeyer wrote the committee "tossed aside the sanctity of college football’s regular season" and left out FSU to "make room for the SEC’s one-loss champion, Alabama, the bluest of bluebloods." The results "always mattered -- right up until the point the SEC was at risk of being left out in the cold." By shutting 13-0 FSU out of the playoff, the committee "embraced the idea of a beauty pageant determining the playoff field." FSU "couldn’t escape" not being in the SEC (TUSCALOOSA NEWS, 12/3). USA TODAY’s Nancy Armour wrote the committee looked at Alabama with "stars in its eyes," as their decision was "dripping with SEC favoritism" (USA TODAY, 12/3). SI’s Michael Rosenburg wrote the committee’s job was to "choose the four best teams" and "hanging over all of this is the reality that a CFP without the SEC would have no credibility" (SI, 12/3). ESPN.com's David Hale wrote the committee members "cared that Alabama and the SEC had to have a spot in the playoff by birthright." And as a result, they "sent a message that what happened on the field" was "less important than getting the most compelling TV matchup" (ESPN, 12/3). In Orlando, Mike Bianchi wrote, “Plain and simply, this was a case of SEC bias coupled with ACC disrespect.” The committee inexcusably felt it was “more acceptable to leave an undefeated Power 5 champion out of the College Football Playoff for the first time rather than to leave out the champion of the high-and-mighty SEC for the first time” (ORLANDO SENTINEL, 12/3). SI’s Pat Forde wrote the committee "rewarded the SEC for past performance more than present-day prowess." It "kowtowed to tradition, not current excellence." More than anything else, Alabama’s playoff berth was a "product of reputation -- its own, and the league’s" (SI, 12/3).
SMILE FOR THE CAMERAS: THE ATHLETIC’s Ari Wasserman wrote the committee, for the first time, was "actually going to have to choose what it values more -- the teams that earned it or the teams that look the best on TV." It revealed to the world the "ugly truth about college football -- this sport is a beauty contest where decisions on which teams can win the national title are sometimes made as much in a cozy hotel boardroom in Grapevine, Texas, as they are on the actual field" (THE ATHLETIC, 12/3). In L.A., J. Brady McCollough wrote FSU "learned the hard way that college football has turned into a TV show above all." FSU without QB Jordan Travis are "not compelling television." The committee gave ESPN "what it wanted -- two unquestionably TV-friendly matchups." The committee is "rightfully taking heat," but the CFP can "live with this firestorm because it gets the long-term boost of everyone being able to see why four teams was not healthy for the sport" (L.A. TIMES, 12/3). In Fort Worth, Mac Engel wrote college football "remains the beauty contest that we can’t quit.” Alabama is “not one of the four best teams,” but “it’s Bama so the Tide is one of the four best teams.” College football is a “fun version of Real Housewives of Tuscaloosa,” and the “most important detail is not who you are but rather how you look” (FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM, 12/3).
BEST TEAMS TOGETHER: USA TODAY’s Dan Wolken wrote Alabama was a "safe answer" over unbeaten FSU, and the CFP put together a set of semifinal matchups that have the "potential to deliver the most thrilling New Year’s Day in the history of the sport." Alabama versus Michigan is a "dream matchup." Washington versus Texas is a game "pitting traditional powers that have come back from the abyss" (USA TODAY, 12/3). YAHOO SPORTS' Dan Wetzel wrote while FSU "got screwed," that "doesn’t mean the College Football Playoff committee got it wrong." It is going to be a "brilliant playoff" (YAHOO SPORTS, 12/3). In Detroit, Bob Wojnowski wrote controversy was “unavoidable,” but the committee made the "correct choice, considering the mandate is to pick the best teams, not the most deserving” (DETROIT NEWS, 12/3). In Birmingham, Michael Casagrande wrote the committee “got it right” as Alabama is “simply the better team.” Casagrande: “Harsh, but ultimately correct with the full beauty of college football’s imperfect system on display in its rawest form.” The committee “stared down its most difficult decision in the finale of the four-team format” (AL.com, 12/3). In Dallas, Tim Cowlishaw wrote the CFP Selection Committee “got it right,” and they “did it the hard way.” Some believed FSU “would get the invitation and the SEC would be left out in the cold for the first time.” But that was “never likely to happen” (DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 12/3).
WRONG DECISION: CBSSPORTS.com's Dean Starke noted the unprecedented move by the committee to leave FSU from its four-team field was met with "immediate, and justified, blowback." There is a "simple question amid all the noise -- did the games actually matter in the end for FSU?" FSU did "everything asked of them while playing in what the sport defines to be a power conference, even overcoming adversity that would have potentially undone others." Ultimately, the committee determined that "wasn't enough for FSU" (CBSSPORTS.com, 12/3). In Jacksonville, Gene Frenette wrote it is an “abomination what the College Football Playoff selection committee did to exclude unbeaten FSU.” This decision was “sad, pathetic and violates every spirit of the rules of fair competition" (FLORIDA TIMES-UNION, 12/3). In Birmingham, Joseph Goodman noted any argument about FSU’s quarterback situation “being a sound reason to keep the Noles out of the playoff is just shameless gaslighting.” The grand finale of the four-team playoff “stayed true to the one and only thing it consistently delivered for the past decade, and that’s poison for the integrity of college football.” Goodman wrote the CFP is a “failed enterprise that leaves me questioning what the people charged with leading the sport of college football actually value” (AL.com, 12/3).
ISSUE WITH THE SPORT? In D.C., Jerry Brewer wrote the “whole sport is a travesty of access and competition.” In this “funhouse mirror, right or wrong is distorted” and “fairness gets skewed in the pursuit of entitlement.” Fans were “left to debate another beauty pageant rather than an authentic tournament.” Brewer: “Blame the leadership that created this structure more than the selection committee. From the beginning, the College Football Playoff was susceptible to chaos and complication.” Only a sport with “toothless oversight would bargain its way to a system that showed more consideration for the traditional bowl game grift than a sensible playoff.” With “rational leadership from the various conferences,” the sport could have “devised a better initial playoff.” This one was created “almost out of concession with the hope of expanding it later” (WASHINGTON POST, 12/3).
BEGINNING OF THE END? In Indianapolis, Zach Osterman noted it is “difficult to imagine this not expediting the eventual collapse of the ACC as something resembling a power conference, or at least one with designs on competing with the Big Ten and the SEC.” Which in turn will “almost certainly quicken the march to superconferences.” The sport will “strive to become something antithetical to its appeal,” and also what it “just cannot be: a companion piece and competitor to the NFL.” After nine years of the “handily vague ‘four best teams’ standard,” the committee shifted its process to “suit its outcome, and then admitted so publicly.” Yesterday “probably actually accelerated the process toward a conclusion that resets college football fundamentally, completely and for a really long time.” College sports are being “transformed at the atomic level by all this,” and “almost certainly not for the better” (INDIANAPOLIS STAR, 12/3).
