Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Georgia decimated Florida State 63-3 in the Orange Bowl.  Were those that chose to leave Florida out of the national championship playoff vindicated?

Some will choose to use this as an indication that they were right. That FSU had no business in the CFB Championship playoffs, however the reality is somewhat more nuanced than that. Twenty Four of FSU's players opted out of the game using loss of future earnings and a potential pro career as the main excuse. Leaving the other members of the team to fend for themselves in a game that they felt was forced upon them unfairly and weren't really invested in playing. Georgia had no such defections and played as if they had a point to prove about having a single bad game. That's how we got the game we got.

JQuest wrote:

Some will choose to use this as an indication that they were right. That FSU had no business in the CFB Championship playoffs, however the reality is somewhat more nuanced than that. Twenty Four of FSU's players opted out of the game using loss of future earnings and a potential pro career as the main excuse. Leaving the other members of the team to fend for themselves in a game that they felt was forced upon them unfairly and weren't really invested in playing. Georgia had no such defections and played as if they had a point to prove about having a single bad game. That's how we got the game we got.

Why bother with these silly minor bowls, when top players opt out to protect their "interests"?

Focuspuller wrote:
Why bother with these silly minor bowls, when top players opt out to protect their "interests"?

Primarily it's about money.

JQuest wrote:

Some will choose to use this as an indication that they were right. That FSU had no business in the CFB Championship playoffs, however the reality is somewhat more nuanced than that. Twenty Four of FSU's players opted out of the game using loss of future earnings and a potential pro career as the main excuse. Leaving the other members of the team to fend for themselves in a game that they felt was forced upon them unfairly and weren't really invested in playing. Georgia had no such defections and played as if they had a point to prove about having a single bad game. That's how we got the game we got.

-
You have a valid point in response to the question, but the now question begs, based on your contribution, what kind of team is it that was considered to be the fifth best in the nation- and whose state affiliate sponsor seeks to prove they were disenfranchised with suits, investigations, threats and derogatory comments by a person who seeks to be the nation's chief executive- decides to sit out and surrender a preeminent stage?  Sometimes as athletes we have no chance to win and yet, do we not launch ourselves from the blocks and compete?  Sometimes when we have something to prove, we enter the field and prove it- one way or another.  What do we prove when we don't show up?

When the NFL is evaluating players for future drafts, does the choice to protect future earnings contribute to a unfavorable rating regarding the level of commitment of the player?  Does it matter that many players left the field and allowed others to take the risk of injury and risk their future earnings?

Should FSU ever again be offered a bowl game slot?

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
You have a valid point in response to the question, but the now question begs, based on your contribution, what kind of team is it that was considered to be the fifth best in the nation- and whose state affiliate sponsor seeks to prove they were disenfranchised with suits, investigations, threats and derogatory comments by a person who seeks to be the nation's chief executive- decides to sit out and surrender a preeminent stage

A self important clown?

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Sometimes as athletes we have no chance to win and yet, do we not launch ourselves from the blocks and compete?  Sometimes when we have something to prove, we enter the field and prove it- one way or another.  What do we prove when we don't show up?

There can be more than one right (or wrong) answer to these questions. I cannot speak to the actions of the participants involved as their motivations are not known to me.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
When the NFL is evaluating players for future drafts, does the choice to protect future earnings contribute to a unfavorable rating regarding the level of commitment of the player?

Purely from a speculative point of view on my part I doubt that the talent evaluators at the NFL put any weight at all into whether a prospective draft choice opts to participate in a bowl game or not.They have so much individual data on each player available to them that one more game is meaningless from an evaluation standpoint. 

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Does it matter that many players left the field and allowed others to take the risk of injury and risk their future earnings?

Not to the players that left, and at the end of the day they're the ones that need to live with that decision.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Should FSU ever again be offered a bowl game slot?

Why not? Should FSU be penalized in the future for players that exercised a right not to participate? Should FSU be penalized in the future because a clown tried to score political points in a flailing effort to staunch the free fall of his own campaign?

JQuest wrote:
Why not? Should FSU be penalized in the future for players that exercised a right not to participate? Should FSU be penalized in the future because a clown tried to score political points in a flailing effort to staunch the free fall of his own campaign?

As you said, about everything is speculative.  Some people are going to judge the FBS was right.  Some will disagree. 

As to the future of the ability of FSU to play in bowl games or the playoffs- some of the people ranking the teams during the next season may vote them into lower positions because the team members that didn't play will also be a reflection on the leadership of the team.  The FBS made the decision to keep FSU out because of the injury to the FSU quarterback.  They are looking at facets other than the win loss columns and they didn't want a weakened team that would lead to a blowout.  I understand it was a subjective decision that left plenty of room for disagreement.  There is no reason to believe that subjectivity will not be a future issue.

The NCAA regularly punishes athletes for what coaches and staff do.  I doubt that will change anytime soon.

I don't want to demean clowns- clowns contribute joy to society- so, as far as the killjoy extremist trying to score political points with the whatchamacall 'ems- it seems the killjoy doesn't mind hurting people for political points.  As with Disney, if you stand up against him you can expect trouble.  FSU, other schools and students can be caught in the crossfire between him and the NCAA. 

I realize that the subject is all conjecture and I certainly do not want to channel Southguy type of arguments.  So, a year from now there may be something to talk about- or there may not.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
As you said, about everything is speculative.  Some people are going to judge the FBS was right.  Some will disagree. 

The FBS made the decision to keep FSU out because of the injury to the FSU quarterback.  They are looking at facets other than the win loss columns and they didn't want a weakened team that would lead to a blowout.  I understand it was a subjective decision that left plenty of room for disagreement.  There is no reason to believe that subjectivity will not be a future issue.

That is the standard answer from the FBS, however it doesn't explain why FSU was elevated from the 5th position in the week 13 poll to the 4th position in the playoff series at week fourteen of the rankings. Week 14 was Dec. 2nd. Jordan Travis's season ending injury occurred on Nov. 18th. The committee realized they had a problem when Georgia lost to a one loss Alabama team in the SEC Championship. There was no way they were going to leave an SEC (arguably the best conference in the country) team out of the playoff in favor of an ACC(arguably the weakest of the power 5 conferences) team, and there was no way that a one loss Alabama team could be allowed in without allowing the one loss Texas team in that beat them. The week 14 poll that elevated FSU from number 5 to number 4 also had Texas and Alabama in positions in 7&8 respectively. So what happened in week 15? All three teams won. However Texas and Alabama moved from 7&8 to 3&4 with their win while FSU's win dropped them from 4 to 5. Only one week after the same committee had moved them up to number 4 knowing that their QB was out for the season.

With all due respect, I think if anyone's motives for not wanting to play in the Orange Bowl vs.Georgia are to be questioned it shouldn't be the players from FSU. What the choosers of the FBS playoff teams have not done (nor will they) is admit that they created the problem themselves when they moved FSU with an injured quarterback to #4 in week 14, and then used that as an excuse to penalize the same team from week 14 and deny them an opportunity at the playoffs in week 15.

Do I believe FSU was one of the four best teams in week 15? No, I do not, but I also don't believe they were in week 14 either, the week that the "experts" said they were. I also believe that if Georgia beats Alabama in the SEC Championship game thereby remaining undefeated FSU stays at number 4 in the final poll and Alabama and Texas don't get a chance.

JQuest wrote:

-
You made an excellent argument and post!  Lots of pertinent information. 

Your post does show how arbitrary the system is to begin with.  What happened to change things from week to week?  The views of those that do the ranking where more  whimsical  than normal?