Mailbag is back!
Eric in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., writes: Does the selection committee have it out for FSU and the ACC? FSU was ranked fourth the previous week, so why not just leave FSU in that spot? By moving FSU up a spot it seems the selection committee is trying to make it hard as possible on FSU and its fans. Playing in the Sugar Bowl would have been a neutral site game for FSU, but the Rose Bowl is giving Oregon a home game vs. FSU. FSU wins the positional matchups against Oregon and Oregon isn't as good as Alabama, but the travel is much tougher. The fans can't reasonably be asked to go to both the Rose Bowl and Dallas. Fans are going to have to choose between one or the other and Dallas is both cheaper and the championship game. When it comes to the ACC itself it smells fishy that the selection committee can reasonably justify jumping an idle Mississippi State team over an idle Michigan State team. Mississippi State had the most impressive idle week ever. That cost the ACC the Citrus Bowl, so that had to be intentional on the part of the committee.
Andrea Adelson writes: Conspiracy theorists are out in full force, aren't they? From my perspective, I believe Florida State should have been given the opportunity to play in New Orleans, as the only team, with an unbeaten record. The selection committee has tried to justify its ranking because Florida State has not passed "eye tests" or had much "game control" but I still cannot understand how a team that won all its games is ranked No. 3. It certainly feels like a shot fired at the ACC. As for Mississippi State, I have seen many suggest that move was made to help the Big Ten fill its entire bowl allotment (voila! It did). But one person I spoke to in the ACC office said it would be hard to believe the committee concerned itself with another conference's bowl ties beyond the New Year's Six games. It all is quite interesting, isn't it?
Matthew Gann in Washington, D.C., writes: I was wondering if anyone asked the CFP Committee why Mississippi State found themselves ranked ahead of Michigan State in the latest rankings. Neither team played a game. Did they just change their minds in 5 days? Was it a geographical decision, seeing as Mississippi State will go to Miami instead of Michigan State? Whatever the reason is, I'd like to know.
Adelson writes: The committee wants to remind everybody that it starts with a clean slate each and every week, and does not use its previous rankings as a starting point. So forget about the rankings from last week. In looking at Mississippi State and Michigan State without a ranking attached, the committee believed the Bulldogs have a better body of work. Michigan State essentially lost to the only two good teams it played, against Oregon and Ohio State. Though Mississippi State ended the season with losses in two of its final three games, the Bulldogs also had more quality wins, against Auburn and LSU. So that was their rational. And that is why these weekly rankings served to confuse us all.
Jon in Atlanta writes: Do you think that Winston's off the field issues is what kept him out of the voting for the Heisman? also ... Do you think GT is getting a little disrespected as a 7 point underdog?
Adelson writes: I think there are a variety of reasons. I do think off-the-field issues played a role. I do think winning last year played a role as well. But I think above all, Jameis Winston was not nearly as good this season as he was last season, nor was he as good as Marcus Mariota. It is tough to invite a quarterback with 17 interceptions to New York, especially when he only has 24 touchdown passes. His completion percentage also is down, and so are his passing yards. Though we all know how Winston has performed in the clutch, he did not consistently perform well all season.
Smittyknows1961 in Milledgeville, Ga., writes: Under the current Playoff format, Mark Richt, although he has the highest integrity of all college football coaches, will need to take his foot off the break and slobber clobber every team we play from here on out. That is the message this playoff selection committee is sending. Style over what was once good old fashioned football. The bling is the thing now. I say screw the bling and go to 16 teams down to 8 down to 4 down to 1. You're going to have cut out the patsy teams on your schedule and schedule higher ranked schools. All these years of helping those lesser schools athletics departments out with payout checks on Saturdays comes to a screeching halt. If the big schools want to help the smaller schools out with a paycheck - then let all the big boys donate funds into an escrow account during the year from each game played. If you got to be out for blood!, then let the blood flow. The game is not what it used to be. There could be a bye week system built into a format that includes more teams. The 16 team format gives Baylor and TCU of this year an opportunity for what their players worked so hard for -- a chance to relish a championship!
Adelson writes: Not just Richt. Jimbo Fisher has never been somebody to run up the score, and he reiterated this season he refuses to do so. But he had opportunities to ratchet up the score in several of the "close" games this season. What if the Virginia win goes from 14 points to 21? Does that make a difference? As for going to 16 teams, I cannot see programs eliminating cupcake games. The financials are not only important for the teams they are bringing in, but for the schools hosting, because home games generate good money. And athletic directors don't want to kill their players with impossible schedules. I know the game is radically different, but these are still college students (I know that sounds ridiculous in the face of so much money changing hands with the current playoff structure). The 16 teams would also force teams to play way too many games. I already think this format, with all 4 playoff teams potentially playing 15, is an enormous stress on the players being asked to perform at a high level over such a long season. I know the selection did not work out smoothly this season, but let's see how four works out first.
Martin Lisius writes: Hi Andrea. I have a solution to determine a national champion among the 6 top college football teams. 1. Name only the top two teams. 2. Tell the remaining 4 they are all worthy but only two more spots remain and ask those schools if they would consider an impromptu set of games at a neutral site one week prior to the semifinals. They will accept. This is brilliant because it allows 4 high quality candidates to have a chance to prove themselves on the field. This will make pretty much everyone happy and would be the right thing to do. I'm pretty certain the committee has the authority to do this if the schools agree as this new playoff thing is a work in progress. I think not doing this would be irresponsible.
Adelson writes: Well the current contract only calls for four teams over a 12-year period. The format you suggest essentially would give the top 2 teams a first-round bye, correct? As I mentioned above, I am not sure playing more games is the answer. Under the BCS, several qualified teams got left out of the national championship game. This is not really unprecedented, but with more opportunities and now a selection committee comes much more controversy.