Tag: CFP selection committee

Paul Finebaum roasts selection committee, thinks UGA should be angry

“This committee is not serious,” said ESPN college football expert Paul Finebaum.

ESPN college football expert Paul Finebaum does not like where the College Football Playoff selection committee has ranked the Georgia Bulldogs.

Finebaum thinks that Georgia has the biggest right to be angry following the most recent playoff rankings. Georgia has the nation’s best strength of schedule and has gone 3-2 against top 20 teams in the committee’s own rankings. Georgia faced four of these five teams away from home.

“(In the playoff rankings) You saw Georgia’s opponents all over the place including, Texas, the No. 3 team in the country,” said Finebaum. “When you look at everyone else, Indiana doesn’t have a ranked team. They’ll get one this weekend. Penn State has lost to one.”

Yes, Georgia has two losses, but the Bulldogs have played a lot of great teams.

Finebaum went on to criticize the selection committee. “This committee is not serious. There are football coaches on this committee and there is no way those football coaches can tell me or anyone else with a straight face that they really think Indiana, Penn State, Miami, schools like that are better than Georgia. It is not possible,” Finebaum said.

We have to agree with Finebaum. Georgia would probably blowout this trio of teams with the exception of Penn State. However, we can’t envision Penn State scoring much against Georgia. In fact, none of Indiana, Miami or Penn State have scored an offensive touchdown against a team in the committee’s top 20 rankings team all season.

Watch: ESPN roasts CFP selection committee, Alabama in funny video

The College Football Playoff will feature: LSU, Ohio State, Clemson, and Oklahoma. ESPN from pokes fun at Alabama and the CFP selection

The College Football Playoff will have an unfamiliar site this season: no Alabama Crimson Tide. The CFP Selection Committee isn’t used to this and ESPN didn’t hesitate when it came to making fun of the Committee:

The Playoff will feature: LSU, Ohio State, Clemson, and Oklahoma in what should be the most drama free top four ever. Years like this show why it wouldn’t make sense for the Playoff to expand. College football should only reward the elite teams of the nation.

It’ll be interesting to see which two-loss team is ranked highest. Georgia, Penn State, Oregon, Florida, Alabama, and Baylor all have a case to be the highest ranked team outside of the Playoff. UGA has the most impressive resume of all these teams and beat Florida, so they should get the nod as the highest ranked SEC team. Expect UGA to play Baylor in the Sugar Bowl.

[lawrence-auto-related count=1]

 

What to look for in the CFP selection committee’s fifth rankings

The College Football Playoff selection committee will be releasing its second-to-last rankings Tuesday night. Here’s what to look for.

The College Football Playoff selection committee’s penultimate rankings will be released tonight (Tuesday). There isn’t too much intrigue in them, and we are a bit past the point of the season where the committee will send us real messages–not that messages earlier in the season have been particularly consistent.

Instead, there are a few important things to look at as we set the stage for next week’s CFP selections and for the other New Years’ Six bids.

Utah vs Big 12

The first thing to look at is where the committee places the Utes. Utah has been ahead of Oklahoma and Baylor the past few weeks. If that stays the same, then we have no new information. If, however, Oklahoma (and/or Baylor) jumps Utah this week, that would show us that the Utes are on the outside looking in when it comes to the No. 4 spot. Also, remember to listen to what Rob Mullens says about this discussion, as he will almost certainly tell us something about how the committee compared Utah to the Big 12 teams. How meaningful that explanation is is anyone’s guess, but it will be the best we have.

Where do Alabama and Wisconsin move to?

Conference pecking order in the Big Ten will matter for the Rose Bowl, and for the SEC could matter for the Orange Bowl (or Sugar Bowl, if Georgia and LSU both make the Playoff). Will Wisconsin jump Penn State? If not, the Nittany Lions are all but guaranteed a Rose Bowl bid (assuming Wisconsin doesn’t beat Ohio State). If yes, then it will depend on if Wisconsin can keep the Big Ten Championship Game close enough to still stay ahead of Penn State. The committee has shown a trend of not dropping teams too far for losing in conference championship games. We’ll see if this year’s committee holds to that.

Alabama, meanwhile, will certainly fall out of the Top 8. The question is how much lower the Tide lands. Will Alabama fall behind Penn State or Wisconsin? What about Florida? Will the committee drop Alabama far enough to move it behind Auburn? Remember, the highest-ranked Big Ten or SEC team after the Rose and Sugar Bowl selections are made will go to the Orange Bowl. Florida currently sits in that position, assuming Georgia loses the SEC Championship Game. Will Wisconsin take the Rose Bowl spot and move Penn State to the Orange Bowl? Or Will Alabama become the new leading two-loss team and sit in line for the Orange Bowl? Could we see–as Penn State’s win over Michigan got weaker and Florida’s win over Auburn got better–the Gators jump Penn State, and move in to Orange Bowl position for the SEC?

The Group of 5 teams

The last bit of curiosity–other than the options at the bottom of the rankings (many of which are defensible and none particularly strong)–is how far Cincinnati falls. Will the Bearcats slide significantly behind Boise State, enough to hint that the Broncos are the Cotton Bowl favorites if Cincinnati beats Memphis this week? Or will Cincinnati only fall one or two spots (or maybe even stay ahead of the Broncos), indicating that a win over Memphis will likely be enough to jump Cincinnati back into the Cotton Bowl? Maybe Air Force showing up at the No. 25 spot would shed some light on this, but there’s honestly zero reason for the committee to rank Air Force over a Navy team that beat it head-to-head, so don’t expect to see the Falcons in here.

Other than that, things are pretty simple for the selection committee this week. The Top 17 have essentially locked themselves in, and all the fighting is from 18 on down. There are a few small questions we can get answers to, but for the most part we know all of the scenarios heading into conference championship game weekend.

Week 14 CFP Eliminator: Goodbye Bama

For the first time in the College Football Playoff era, the Alabama Crimson Tide have been eliminated from CFP contention.

Welcome back to the Eliminator. I explain the process behind eliminating teams in my Week 1 post. In short, I ask myself a simple question: “If this team wins out, will they have a chance at the Playoff?” I don’t assume that teams will lose–there’s no need to. The losses will come when they come; and when they do, I’ll eliminate those teams. Until then, they’re not eliminated. It’s that simple. I also track every eliminated team on this Twitter thread.

This week was a historic moment in College Football Playoff Eliminator history. I have been writing or tweeting an Eliminator since the CFP began in 2014, and I have never before been able to tweet that Alabama was eliminated. Well, that changed this week. With two losses and no good wins at all, Alabama is out.

Even though there is a chance at chaos and a weak bubble, Alabama’s resume is just too weak. I haven’t eliminated Oregon and Wisconsin yet, even though there’s no real path for those two. The question is what happens if Clemson loses to Virginia in the ACC Championship Game. Would the committee take an 11-2 Oregon team with a mediocre schedule and two ranked wins over a 12-1 Clemson team with no ranked wins? Almost certainly not. Would the committee take an 11-2 Wisconsin team with a strong schedule and three ranked wins (including one over Ohio State) over a 12-1 Clemson team? Probably not, but maybe.

What I know for sure, though, is that the committee would take a 12-1 Clemson team with no resume over an 11-2 Alabama team with no resume. Add to that that the Big Ten, SEC, and Big 12 champions are guaranteed to finish ahead of Alabama (as are Ohio State and LSU, even with losses this week), and Alabama is done. No path remains to the No. 4 slot. Thus, for the first time in College Football Playoff history, Alabama is eliminated.

Next … What teams are still alive?

Pages: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4

What the CFP Selection Committee Taught Us: Back to normal

A look back at what the College Football Playoff selection committee taught us in its fourth rankings of the year.

With very limited exceptions, the College Football Playoff selection committee has been consistent over the last few years about a few things. One of those is the fact that, especially as we get later in the season, Power 5 teams are ranked in order of number of losses.

So far this year, that wasn’t true. The selection committee consistently had Baylor ranked below several two-loss teams. The reason given by Rob Mullens was that the Bears played an atrocious nonconference schedule. On top of that, I am sure that Baylor consistently barely beating weaker teams was also a factor. Well, after blowing out Texas, the committee finally put Baylor where it belongs–as the lowest-ranked one-loss Power 5 team.

There is a decent case to be made that Baylor belongs behind Florida or Penn State. The SOS is still terrible, and the advanced metrics aren’t particularly kind to the Bears either. Remember, though, the only time the CFP committee has ever had a two-loss P5 team ahead of a one-loss P5 team at the end of the season was in 2015–when 11-2 Pac 12 champion Stanford, who played the toughest schedule in the country, finished ahead of 11-1 Ohio State, who only had one win against a quality team.

The only exceptions to this rule right now are Auburn being ahead of Notre Dame, and Iowa State and USC (with four losses each) are ahead of three-loss Virginia Tech and unranked Virginia. Seeing as the resumes of both Virginia teams are incredibly weak, it makes perfect sense.

Ohio State vs LSU at the top

In an ultimately meaningless decision, the selection committee moved Ohio State back over LSU. The Tigers still have slightly higher-quality wins and a slightly better resume, but the committee felt that Ohio State was more of a “complete team,” and that LSU’s struggles on defense sometimes are why the Buckeyes are in front right now.

Remember, though, this still doesn’t mean anything. If the Ohio State defense struggles against Michigan (or in the Big Ten Championship Game), the committee can just always flip the teams again. Ohio State’s two remaining games are tougher than LSU’s, but not by much. A win over Georgia in the SEC Championship Game could easily bump LSU back over the Buckeyes, especially a convincing one.

This will only matter when determining the semifinal opponents. Everyone assumes that Clemson will be No. 3 in two weeks, but crazier things have happened. Clemson can lose a game–or LSU can. Or the committee could be impressed enough with a 12-1 Oklahoma team with four ranked wins to jump the Sooners over a Clemson team with, at most, one ranked win. (That seems unlikely, but we’ve definitely seen stranger things happen.)

The committee will make its final decisions a week from Sunday. We look at the rankings until then to try to see what the voters value and how they look at teams. But picking who is No. 1 between the two far-and-away best resumes in the country is just splitting hairs. The hairs will continue to be split until the end of the season, and it could easily go either way.

Change at the bottom

The committee still seems to be enamored with Appalachian State. The Mountaineers are having a great year, but they have no wins of any note. The best win is over South Carolina (or maybe Louisiana). Compare that, for example, to a Navy team that has beaten SMU and Air Force, and only lost to ranked Memphis and Notre Dame.

With SMU’s loss, Virginia Tech did manage to jump into the rankings, and over Appalachian State on top of that. This marks only the second time this year that an ACC team other than Clemson has been ranked.

Other than that, the only other changes were Penn State (a little) and Oregon (a lot) dropping for picking up losses. The committee claims to start with a blank sheet and re-rank teams every week. But with resumes constantly changing, you would think that we would see at least one team shift position other than due to losses. Maybe the committee is honestly coming to the exact same conclusions every week, but it definitely looks like the voters are starting based on what they had last week, not from scratch.

Lastly, it is noteworthy that Oregon landed right in front of Auburn. Auburn does have three losses, but all are to teams ranked ahead of Oregon. Remember, Auburn beat Oregon in Week 1. Rob Mullens isn’t in the room for Oregon discussions, and no one asked for or received an explanation of this ranking. It is very interesting, though, that for a committee that mostly prioritizes head-to-head, Auburn and Oregon were directly compared and the voters chose the team that lost their head-to-head matchup.

What to look for in the CFP selection committee’s fourth rankings

The College Football Playoff selection committee will once again release its rankings on Tuesday. Here’s what to look out for.

As usual, the College Football Playoff selection committee will release its rankings on Tuesday night. What should fans be looking for as we enter the final regular-season weekend of college football?

Interestingly enough, we are at a point in the season where there isn’t so much to learn about any team. We know that the top 17 teams are locked in to their spots, though there will obviously be shuffling. We know the contenders and the scenarios they want.

There really aren’t too many hints the committee can send us this week. There are some things to key in on, though, so let’s look at what we can see.

Obviously, there will be meaningless quibbles at the top. Who will be No. 1? Both Ohio State and LSU have very strong resumes and cases for being the top team. Ultimately, though, that won’t matter. Those are the top two, and that status quo will continue as long as each keeps winning. It’s splitting hairs, and it honestly doesn’t matter which way the split goes.

Clemson will also stay at No. 3 and Georgia at No. 4. I would be very surprised if Alabama falls behind Utah, though the committee could be willing to switch that up to send a message about playing late-season cupcakes. Don’t expect that message to be sent, though.

I would say that the committee could tell us something about Oklahoma, but it really can’t. The Sooners will be No. 7 (or maybe No. 8 if Minnesota jumps them, but that seems unlikely). Oklahoma is the team that the committee likely has the most trouble with, as the Sooners are clearly talented but struggling to close out games. Do the voters hold that against Oklahoma? There’s no real way to know, since there’s really no team close enough to Oklahoma to jump over it. If we see a team with a weaker resume, like Florida, Wisconsin, or Michigan–or if we see Penn State stay ahead of Oklahoma–then we’ll know that the committee has a serious problem with the Sooners this year. Again, though, don’t expect that to happen, just based on a complete lack of any team close enough.

A similar situation will occur at the No. 19 and 20 spot. Cincinnati has a far superior resume to Boise State. (In fact, Cincinnati has one of the best overall SOS that we’ve seen from a non-Power 5 team in a long time.) However, the Bearcats are barely squeaking through games, while Boise State is blowing teams out. It shouldn’t matter, as Cincinnati would jump back over the Broncos with a win this week, but it’s one of the few spots that can give us real insight into how the committee views blowout wins over worse teams as opposed to close wins over slightly better teams.

Lastly, see if the committee makes any changes at the bottom. SMU will drop out of the rankings, obviously, and be replaced by either Navy or Virginia Tech. Both of those teams, though, have far stronger resumes than Appalachian State. Will the committee be willing to drop a Mountaineers team that has no real resume and isn’t nearly as good as those two? Or will it keep a team ranked just because it had them there before? This decision, more than any other, will tell us whether the committee is truly willing to look at the resumes anew each week, or whether it’s mostly sticking with what it did last week and sliding teams up or down as necessary.

What the CFP Selection Committee Taught Us: Poll Mentality

The College Football Playoff selection committee has released its third rankings of the year. What hints did they give us for the future?

The College Football Playoff claims that the selection committee “starts from scratch” every week, judging each team and each resume like new each week. The committee’s rankings the past two weeks, though, show that’s not what it is doing. The selection committee came up with its first rankings two weeks ago. That set of rankings seemed to be based on resume more than what the human polls usually do. Since then, though, the committee has very clearly just been sticking to those rankings–moving down teams that lose, and maybe giving a team a bonus for a big win.

How do I know this? It’s simple. If the committee really started from scratch each week, you would see shifts in the rankings. A team would jump a team for seemingly no reason. But it’s not no reason, as resumes change every week. For example, Ohio State’s season opponents went 6-3 on the week, and all three of those losses came to teams that Ohio State also played. The Buckeyes have a stronger resume this week than last week, even though all the Buckeyes themselves did was play Rutgers. These types of things should cause small shifts in the rankings week to week. That’s not happening, which means that the committee is relying on what they thought last week, not starting from scratch every week.

There were only ten real changes in the rankings this week. Minnesota, Baylor, and Auburn all dropped a bit for picking up losses to other good teams. Iowa gained three spots for beating Top 10 Minnesota. Cincinnati slipped a spot (and lost a second spot to Iowa’s jump) after struggling with a weak opponent for the second time in three weeks. Texas, Navy, and Kansas State all fell out with losses. Iowa State and USC both jumped Appalachian State–which makes sense, since the Mountaineers don’t have any resume worthy of being in the rankings in the first place.

None of these are examples of looking at the whole season and starting from scratch. Every single one of these ranking changes is a direct reaction to what happened on the field this week. Hopefully the committee will start from scratch when the all-important final rankings come out in three weeks, but the committee’s outlook the past two weeks has not been encouraging.

Next…The Penn State and Alabama problems

Pages: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4

What to look for in the CFP selection committee’s third rankings

With the CFP selection committee coming out with new rankings Tuesday night, let’s look ahead to what they might say on certain issues.

Usually I can use this space to highlight a few questions the committee can answer with its rankings. We can use them to determine how the committee judges SOS, what it values, etc. Last week, for example, I pointed out that what the committee seems to value most this year is whether a team blows bad teams out or not. And, certainly, it will be important to see if that trend stands.

As always, I am sure that we’ll have plenty to glean from the committee’s rankings. However, the odd trajectory of this season means that we won’t be able to look forward to anything before we see the rankings.

How does the committee value real quality wins? Well, other than LSU and Ohio State, no team has more than one top quality win. Teams like Penn State, Georgia, and Michigan have two good wins, but no one has a real collection there.

As I pointed out in CFP Implications this week, there are 17 teams that have basically locked themselves into the top positions this year. Those 17 will be the committee’s top 17 as well. Splitting hairs among those 17, though, is exactly that–splitting hairs. Will Iowa and Auburn be at the bottom due to their three losses? Probably, though maybe Auburn can sneak ahead of the Wisconsin-Michigan-Notre Dame trio.

Among those 17 teams, there are plenty of reasonable things for the committee to do. And we will certainly learn something from the rankings, and–more importantly this week than in previous weeks–how Rob Mullens explains the rankings. Oklahoma’s placement will teach us a lot, as will Minnesota’s and Penn State’s. But I can’t particularly warn you what to look for, because none of the committee’s choices are particularly binary.

This week, it’s more important to listen. The committee has constantly kept to head-to-head results this year. Will that remain true with Minnesota and Penn State? Will the Gophers stay ahead of Penn State by not falling at all–or will Penn State be forced to drop so as to remain behind Minnesota? Then again, with the emphasis this committee places on dominating games, maybe Penn State will fall a spot or two anyway for struggling against Indiana.

Next … The bottom

Pages: Page 1, Page 2

What the CFP Selection Committee Taught Us: Blow teams out

What did we learn from the CFP selection committee’s second rankings? Let’s break down what it all means.

In what is a bit of a first from the CFP selection committee, it actually has a very predictable consistent methodology so far this year. However, it’s not a good methodology, and it’s a trend that’s not a good one. The committee isn’t particularly looking at resumes or strength of schedules. It’s not talking about quality wins or schedule strength. No, this year, the committee only seems to care about how much a team wins by.

Maybe this is a bit of an overreaction based on a small sample size. After all, it’s only the second ranking, and there are potentially somewhat reasonable explanations for all of the rankings. (Well, assuming that “Alabama always gets benefit of the doubt” constitutes a somewhat reasonable explanation.)

Let’s look at it, from bottom to top. SMU–the only team to win but drop out of the rankings–very clearly fell out due to a close win over a bad team. The Mustangs still have a considerably stronger schedule and resume than Appalachian State does. That didn’t seem to matter.

This is the only explanation for both Baylor and Oklahoma being so low. Baylor is one of five undefeated Power 5 teams, and is ranked all the way down at No. 13. Not only is Baylor ranked behind one-loss teams, it’s ranked behind two-loss teams. And, contrary to claims of Baylor having a bad resume (and I’m perfectly fine with the committee punishing Baylor for an atrocious nonconference schedule), the Bears have two ranked wins–more than some of the teams in front of them. Oklahoma also has two ranked wins (and a loss to a ranked team), yet is ranked behind both Utah and Oregon–who combine for zero ranked wins. Rob Mullens did again hint that Baylor was punished for its nonconference schedule, but this message appears clearer.

The committee doesn’t tell us much often. But, for now, at least, the committee seems to have determined that the eye test is king.

Making sense of Alabama, Minnesota, and Penn State

Last week, the committee somewhat contradicted itself with how it ranked Alabama, Penn State, and Clemson. Penn State’s “superior resume” supposedly put the Nittany Lions in front of Clemson, though now it seems far more likely that Clemson was just being punished for a close win over North Carolina. Penn State also has several close wins, but those were all against teams worse than North Carolina.

Alabama, meanwhile, seems to be skating through on the fact that it has blown everyone out. Of course, none of the teams Alabama blew out were particularly good. Alabama has no ranked wins–in fact, this is the first time that a one-loss team has been ranked as high as No. 5 this early in the season without a win over a committee-ranked team.

Minnesota is down at No. 8. The Golden Gophers have–other than LSU’s win over Alabama–the best win of any ranked team. The Golden Gophers are also undefeated, and yet behind four teams with a loss. I honestly have no idea how to explain the fact that Minnesota is behind Utah. Maybe this is just a bit of an oversight by the committee?

Other notes

I said yesterday to keep an eye on if the committee shifts things around, or if teams stay static from week to week. That will tell us if the voters are really re-evaluating from scratch each week, or just moving teams up or down based on who loses.

Well, this week, not a single team is in the same position it was in last week. You would think that’s an indicator that the committee is re-evaluating. Unfortunately, it’s not. 14 of the 25 teams that moved moved only one spot, and all of that was due to teams around them jumping or falling. Minnesota jumped eight spots for beating Penn State, so everyone above Minnesota fell a spot. Penn State dropped, so everyone behind Penn State rose. Wake Forest and Kansas State dropped with losses, so the teams behind them moved up.

No one stayed in the same place, but every team that didn’t lose or pick up a major win stayed in the same relative position. The committee didn’t do any re-evaluating this week. It just took what it had last week, other than teams that deserved major shifts.

Lastly, I should note that the committee is continuing a trend it has shown consistently since 2014. A team doesn’t drop for a close loss to a better team. The example this week is Iowa, which only slid three spots for its very close loss against Wisconsin. One of those spots was Texas, which jumped all the way into the rankings at No. 19 for its upset of Kansas State.

Maybe next week the committee will do more re-evaluating from scratch, and it’s really only the top four that matter anyway. Still, the little we have seen and heard from the selection committee so far this season is not encouraging, to say the least.

What to look for in the CFP selection committee’s second rankings

With the College Football Playoff selection committee about to release their second rankings of the year, here’s what to look out for.

Before I look at what we should be focusing on in the committee’s second rankings, let me start with what not to worry about, even though it will be the most-discussed topic by many pundits.

It doesn’t matter whether LSU or Ohio State is No. 1.

One of those two will be the top-ranked team. Each of them has a valid argument. Ohio State is exemplifying dominance in a way that college football hasn’t seen since the 2013 Florida State team. The Buckeyes have historically high advanced metrics. Ohio State is the best team in college football so far this year, without question.

LSU, also without question, has the best resume. Starting with the win over Alabama as a capstone, the Tigers also have wins over Top 10-15 Florida and Auburn, plus a win over a ranked Texas team. Even LSU’s cupcakes, like Georgia Southern and Utah State, aren’t complete pushovers. LSU has an incredible strength of schedule and the most quality wins of anyone in the country.

Which of those two the committee chooses to put at No. 1 will give us a bit of evidence as to whether the voters care more about metrics or resume, but not much. It’s usually some form of synthesis between the two, and with two teams so far ahead of the rest of the pack like Ohio State and LSU, it really doesn’t matter which they pick.

What the committee says about its decision might mean something. If Rob Mullens said the vote wasn’t particularly close, that would give us some real insight into the committee’s thought process and what it values this year. Unless we get that information, though, don’t focus too much into which team is No. 1 and which is No. 2. Each team is a Playoff lock if it wins out, or even if it loses a game but wins the conference. The top seed only matters for geography and matchup purposes, and with Clemson currently a heavy favorite to finish No. 3, it doesn’t look like anyone could be stuck with the nuisance of facing Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. Other than that one, very minor, geographic concern, it really doesn’t matter who is No. 1.

So, what does matter this week? There’s plenty, so let’s break it down.

Poll mentality or not?

The first thing I always focus on in the committee’s rankings is how many teams shift, and by how much. And I don’t mean the teams that win big games or lose games. I mean every team.

The committee claims to start with a blank slate every week. The voters don’t use who they had ranked last week as a starting point. The very best way to tell if this is true or not is by seeing if teams that didn’t do anything noteworthy have their ranking change. Can a team slide up or down after a boring but easy win over a mediocre team? If we’re being honest, that should happen a lot. Every team has played at least eight games by now, so resumes can shift wildly each week.

For example, Ohio State’s previous opponents went a combined 4-2 last week, and Indiana will possibly slide into the rankings during its bye week. That means that, even though a blowout win over Maryland might be meaningless, Ohio State’s resume still improved this past week, and by a decent margin. Now, that’s not going to affect Ohio State’s ranking much because the Buckeyes are obviously either No. 1 or No. 2, but if Ohio State was stuck somewhere in the middle of the rankings, that should lead to new considerations.

The first few years of the selection committee, we actually saw a fair amount of this. Teams would shift on their own, which is a great indicator that resumes were actually being re-judged each week. The past year or two, however, we have not yet really seen much shifting. The committee would make its initial rankings, then stick with a poll mentality unless something changed it. Keep an eye on everyone in this week’s rankings, because it will show if the committee is actually re-evaluating teams.

Next… Where is Alabama

Pages: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3