Inside the meetings that officially moved the A’s out of Oakland
-
Tim Keown, ESPN Senior Writer
THIS WAS John Fisher’s moment. It was a cold and rainy morning at Sutter Health Park in West Sacramento, with the microphone glitching whenever Kings owner Vivek Ranadive tried to heap praise upon the Oakland Athletics owner, but this was the place — the single, solitary place in the entire known universe — where people gathered to willingly extol the virtues of Fisher.
They cheered lustily, and perhaps naively, for this singularly uncharismatic billionaire. He owns something they believe they want and now — temporarily — have. The moment was the announcement that his historically bad baseball team, a team he systematically dismantled and stripped for parts to maximize profits, will play in a minor league ballpark in their neighborhood starting next season. For how long? Two years, three — whatever works. For how much? Well, for nothing, as it turns out.
On this morning, the first Thursday of April, none of it mattered. They cheered because they are employed by him, or might be soon, or by an entity that might profit from what this man owns. They stood and cheered because they gave this man whatever he wanted, despite knowing people in Oakland will lose their jobs and fans in Oakland will lose their team. They stood and cheered despite the piles upon piles of evidence that any affiliation with this man and his baseball franchise is likely to end in frustration and anger.
Ranadive, the dealmaker and owner of the Triple-A Sacramento River Cats, talked about the vision of his “great friend.” The mayor of West Sacramento, Martha Guerrero, addressed Fisher directly: “John, it’s hard work running a team.” Barry Broome, the president and CEO of the Greater Sacramento Economic Council (GSEC), touted Sacramento’s civic bona fides and suggested when the time comes for Major League Baseball to consider expansion, they just might have a champion for their city working on the inside. Later, drunk on the zeal of the moment, Broome said, “I think the Fishers are thrilled with the reception they’re getting today.”
He had to take it on faith. The man himself spoke for roughly 140 seconds. He stumbled through the perfunctories before waving his arm behind him, toward the minor league ballpark and each of its 10,000 seats, and ruminated on how exciting it will be to watch “Athletics players or Aaron Judge” hit homers in “the most intimate ballpark in the big leagues.”
His unwillingness, or inability, to name one of his own players is perhaps understandable. This is a man who, for the past year, has created such a toxic environment in Oakland that he can’t attend even a single one of his team’s games. That most basic act of attentiveness — sitting in the stands — is something he can’t do, despite his operatives continually criticizing Oakland’s fans for the same offense. It is perhaps the most joyless aspect of a joyless enterprise.
But here he was, about a week after thousands of fans in Oakland paid for parking in order to remain outside the stadium on Opening Day and yell at him to sell the team. He will bask in the glory of two or three rent-free seasons in Sacramento before he packs up for Las Vegas. It’s the never-ending formula, one Fisher plays clumsily but somehow successfully: There’s always a city overeager for big league recognition, willing to prostrate itself for the opportunity to stare into the void and believe it’s the sun.
John Fisher: hero.
Who would have thought?
And when the brief ceremony was over, and the wind and the rain swept sideways under the concourse down the left-field line, the hero was gone. Vanished. He shook no hands and took no questions. He walked right past the catered croissants and jugs of coffee and disappeared into the gloom of the late morning, the first to leave his own party.
THE VIEWS FROM the waterfront offices of the A’s in Oakland’s Jack London Square are magnificent: ferries coming in and out, light shimmering off the Bay, San Francisco’s skyline nearly close enough to reach out and touch (the site of the team’s abandoned Howard Terminal project is just a slight lean to the north). In a conference room situated to maximize the view, representatives from the team and the city of Oakland met at 8:30 a.m. on April 2, precisely 49½ hours before the festivities in West Sacramento, to discuss a lease extension at the Oakland Coliseum and settle, once and for all, the team’s fate in the city.
It was an upset of sorts that meetings with Oakland happened in the first place. After the A’s pulled out of a $12 billion project to build a ballpark at Howard Terminal — an undoable ballpark/retail/office deal the city was inching closer and closer to doing — last April, the mayor’s office sat back and waited to see if the team was interested in extending its lease. Spurned and exhausted by what it perceived as the disingenuousness of the A’s negotiating stance, the city was in no mood to make the first overture.
By early February, with no movement from the A’s, the city’s representatives assumed the team had found somewhere else to play. The MLB scheduling deadline for 2025 loomed, and commissioner Rob Manfred had decreed only that the A’s would play “somewhere in the West.” A’s president Dave Kaval floated possibilities with varying levels of feasibility: Oakland, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, the A’s Triple-A stadium in Las Vegas, Oracle Park in San Francisco.
The city went forward with leases for the Oakland Roots and Soul, the men’s and women’s professional soccer teams in the United Soccer League. And then, in mid-February, the team reached out to Oakland, in a move that echoed the clumsy “parallel paths” approach Kaval announced when the team pitted Las Vegas against Oakland.
“Approaching us halfway through February indicated to us it wasn’t super serious,” Oakland chief of staff Leigh Hanson said. “A normal negotiation would have started two months after they pulled out last April. So much trust had deteriorated, but we thought we’d give them the benefit of the doubt and realize their organization was going through a lot of transition. We felt it was our responsibility to the fans and the city to go forward and try to make it work on our terms.”
By April 2, the city was on its fourth meeting with the A’s, though little progress had been made. In this one, as was the case in each of the previous three, Kaval sat at the head of the table. Hanson sat to his left, directly across from A’s chief of staff Miguel Duarte. Oakland councilmember Rebecca Kaplan sat to Hanson’s left, with Alameda County supervisor David Haubert and Oakland policy chief Zach Goldman across from her.
Kaval spoke first, as had become his custom, and expressed surprise that the city’s lease terms had been reported by ESPN two days before the meeting. Those terms, as outlined on sheets passed around the room on this morning, included a five-year lease with a team opt-out after three, a $97 million “extension fee” and an agreement for the A’s to pay for the field conversion when the Roots and Soul begin playing in the Coliseum next year. The city also wanted the A’s to help secure assurances from MLB that the city would receive a one-year window to solicit ownership groups for a future expansion franchise.
Taken collectively, it was a big ask. Broken down individually, the extension fee was clearly the biggest obstacle for the team. With the A’s, money always is. Kaval said $97 million, payable whether the team stayed for five years or opted out at three, was a nonstarter and wondered how the city had come up with that number. He was told that Mayor Sheng Thao’s team had done its research, and the number factored in the cost the team would incur by relocating twice in the next three to five years, the $67 million annually the team receives from NBC Sports for its television rights for being in the Bay Area — a figure, the city says, that includes just $10 million in ad revenue, meaning NBC Sports subsidizes to the tune of $57 million per year — and the sweetheart $1.5 million rent the team currently pays at the Coliseum.
“This is above market rate,” Kaval said, and Hanson agreed. “It is,” she said, “and your deal now is criminally below market.” The city receives no parking revenue from the Coliseum, no cut of the food and beverage sales, only a small share of ticket revenue. The extension fee, Hanson emphasized, was not to be misconstrued as rent; it was simply the cost of staying in Oakland. “The goal,” she said, “is not to make this the cheapest deal possible. The goal is to make this work for the city.”
“Well,” Kaval said. “This isn’t going to work for us.”
Hanson said she shrugged. “It’s your responsibility to decide where you’re going to play baseball,” she said. “We pick up trash and we do cops and we care about economic development, but it’s not our responsibility to house you.”
This was perhaps the clearest sign yet that Oakland’s patience had worn paper-thin, and that the team would have to agree to city-friendly terms or find another place to play. Although the current administration had been in office just 15 months, the cumulative weight of the past 20 years of uncertainty fell on its shoulders. The benefits of staying in Oakland were self-evident: no relocation costs, no need to uproot employees, that television contract available only in the nation’s 10th-largest media market as ranked by Nielsen. And despite its many faults, some of them self-inflicted by the A’s, the Coliseum remains a big league stadium.
Though the city didn’t present financial terms until the fourth meeting, the basic parameters — a five-year lease with the team opt-out — were on the table. Sources say the A’s, however, never laid out an offer sheet, never presented so much as a single piece of paper with demands or suggestions. At one point during the second meeting, in March, Kaval suggested the A’s might be willing to accept “the Raiders’ deal” — two years and $17 million, the arrangement Raiders owner Mark Davis struck for the two lame-duck years in Oakland before he moved his team to Las Vegas.
“First of all,” Hanson said. “Please don’t call it the ‘Raiders’ deal’ — that brings back bad memories for everyone in this town. And second, that’s not going to work.”
The “Raiders’ deal” was the only negotiation tactic Kaval employed, according to sources familiar with the negotiations. There was still some vigorous back and forth, though. Kaval took exception to the city’s offer of a five-year lease, since the team believes its future Vegas ballpark — start date unclear, financing undetermined — on the 9-acre site of the yet-to-be demolished Tropicana Casino and Resort will be ready for the 2028 season, maybe even a year earlier.
Hanson said the city had worked its own numbers there, too, and those numbers indicated the A’s will need five years, minimum, before the Vegas stadium is completed. Left unspoken, sources say, is that significant doubt remains whether the deal in Vegas will happen at all, and the five-year gambit was a hedge against ever having to negotiate with the A’s again.
By the final meeting, Sacramento was already thick in the air. Kaval had made it known the team was in daily conversations with Ranadive and Sacramento, weekly discussions with Salt Lake City. There were those on the Oakland side of the table who believed Sacramento was a done deal before this meeting began — and they weren’t the only ones. Broome, the GSEC CEO, was in the room during the negotiations with Ranadive, and he told ESPN he knew Sacramento was getting the A’s 10 days before the official announcement.
But after that fourth and final meeting with the A’s, and after Kaval’s visceral objection to the $97 million extension fee, the mayor’s staff left the A’s offices at 9:30 and reconvened at City Hall to review the details. The discussions continued throughout the day, and by early evening Hanson got Thao’s approval to present a revised offer: a three-year lease with a $60 million extension fee.
At 7:15 that night, Hanson called Kaval with the new offer. She said he seemed interested — although he would later say the two sides remained “far apart” even with the revision — and he thanked her for the call. Within 24 hours, rumblings that Sacramento was the choice filtered out through the Twitter feed of “Carmichael Dave,” a Sacramento radio personality well-connected to Ranadive and the Kings. The next morning, Kaval called Hanson at 7:36 a.m. to give her the news. Fisher followed, five minutes later, with a call to Thao. By 10 a.m., at about the same time the A’s were on a flight heading for Detroit, Ranadive was standing at the podium, wind whipping his hair, thanking his good friend.
Afterward, Kaval said the decision to choose Sacramento over Oakland was based partly on the abbreviated time frame and partly on factors out of the A’s control, such as the expansion team assurances Oakland sought from MLB. The team had to act quickly, he said, to ensure the league office could put together a 2025 schedule with something other than “TBD” next to the team’s name. In effect, the A’s created an untenable timeline for Oakland, and then used it against them.
At the end of the workday in Oakland, Hanson gathered the mayor’s staff and headed across the street to Fluid 510, their favorite bar, to toast the end — the end of the negotiations and the parallel paths and the false hope and the reading between the lines. They weren’t celebrating the A’s imminent departure so much as the conclusion of a seemingly endless, and endlessly frustrating, back and forth with a team they never felt they could trust.
FISHER CONTINUES TO fail forward: free rent in Sacramento, $380 million in public money in Las Vegas, no accountability in Oakland. He received unanimous approval from the other 29 owners to move to Vegas. MLB, at the behest of Manfred, waived the team’s relocation fee because — according to a league source — it would be too burdensome for Fisher to pay. “So if we say there’s a relocation fee of $2 billion,” the source said. “Realistically, how are we going to get that?”
It’s difficult to see the value Fisher brings to the other 29 teams. He seems to have benefited from a billionaire’s version of the comfort of low expectations. His front office has fielded playoff teams — cheap, brilliantly constructed playoff teams — but those days are so distant they belong to a different era. His team’s payroll is last in the league, but that doesn’t come close to placing it in the proper context. The A’s 2024 payroll of $60 million is 41% lower than the 29th-ranked team, the Pittsburgh Pirates, in a league where even the Tampa Bay Rays and Detroit Tigers field teams with payrolls of more than $100 million. Since Fisher assumed sole ownership of the team in 2016, the team has had the lowest payroll in baseball three times and has never ranked higher than 24th.
The condemnation of Fisher has been widespread. Former Athletics pitcher and current Mets broadcaster Ron Darling said, on air, that he is “appalled” by Fisher’s behavior over the past six months. Broadcasters from the Tigers and the Angels — team employees — have publicly condemned the abandonment of Oakland. Retired pitcher Trevor May, who played for the A’s as recently as last season, appeared on the “Foul Territory” podcast and said, “Losing fans is one thing, but treating them this way sends a message to all fans.”
There could be other options. Golden State Warriors owner Joe Lacob said he has a standing offer to purchase the A’s and build a new ballpark on the Coliseum site, the same offer he made when then-commissioner Bud Selig approved the sale of the team to his old fraternity buddy Lew Wolff — and Fisher — in 2005. “And what team does Lacob own?” the league source asked rhetorically, since the answer is a team that left Oakland for San Francisco.
Meanwhile Kaval, ever the optimist, has touted the idea that Vegas will cure all ills, that the A’s will abandon their Moneyball ways and spend like gamblers on tilt when the Vegas money rolls in. Even if that is true — and history provides no indication that it will be — the A’s face three seasons of further belt-tightening before then. In an all-hands Zoom meeting before the official Sacramento announcement, Kaval informed Oakland staff that there would be significant layoffs at the end of the season. Much of the work done by specific departments — marketing, ticket sales, public relations — will be done by employees of the Kings and River Cats.
The city, which has taken so much of the blame, now will find its citizens jobless. And while the A’s have sought a new home for the past 20 years, only the past eight have been centered on Oakland. Of those eight, two were spent on a doomed-before-it-started downtown site at Laney Community College, and two of the Howard Terminal years were slowed by a pandemic. Even then, the city was within $97 million — the original extension fee was a history-rhymes clapback — of providing Fisher with everything he sought for his $12 billion Howard Terminal mini-city.
None of that mattered within the owners’ fraternity, where patience eroded and Oakland, an easy target of scorn, became nothing more than a problem to be solved. “After 15 years of this, owners are on Rob,” the league source said. “They want to know, ‘What’s happening in Oakland? Let’s go, it’s time to s— or get off the pot.'”
IN WEST SACRAMENTO, there are logistical questions that remain outstanding. The physics of the Triple-A River Cats, a Giants affiliate, and the big league A’s sharing a ballpark have yet to be determined. Significant improvements to Sutter Health Park are necessary to comply with the collective bargaining agreement and receive the approval of the Major League Players Association. Lights will need to be upgraded, bullpens revamped and a second batting cage constructed. The home clubhouse is currently beyond the left-field wall, an arrangement that seems less than optimal.
As the rain fell and the wind blew last Thursday, though, unchecked exuberance ruled the day. Broome said, “The only thing I asked of the Fishers is when they win the World Series in the next three years, they put that parade right in the middle of our town.”
He is speaking about the A’s, a husk of a team. Winning isn’t even a talking point, let alone a goal. Just a few years ago, the front office assembled a vibrant, young core — Matt Chapman, Marcus Semien, Matt Olson, Sean Murphy — that could have contended for years if contending mattered. What remains is bound together by baling wire and twine and revenue sharing.
Broome is undeterred. “All we need is a 19-year-old kid named Vida Blue, a 20-year-old guy named Reggie Jackson,” he said. “We just need three, four, five guys. We need to look in the Dominican Republic for a shortstop, for Omar Vizquel.” (Vizquel is Venezuelan.)
In Sacramento, it all feels fresh and new, the possibilities endless. Ranadive, the man who saved the Kings from a future in Seattle in 2013, stood in front of the smiling crowd and said Sacramento is in “pole position” for a future expansion team. He said it will no longer play “second fiddle” to anyone, even though second fiddle is precisely what they will be if Fisher succeeds in his plan to squat for two or three years before moving to Las Vegas. The A’s aren’t even putting “Sacramento” in their name, opting for the location-free “A’s” or “Athletics,” as if attaching themselves to Sacramento might imply something permanent, or real.
What’s in it for Ranadive? An MLB source insisted Ranadive and Sacramento were promised nothing more than a temporary visit from the A’s. “We don’t even have an expansion process in place,” the source said. “The owners have to vote to explore expansion first, and then put a committee together. There are no guarantees.”
Sources close to the negotiations in both Oakland and Sacramento believe Ranadive is making a calculation that Las Vegas is never going to happen. “Vivek is definitely bright,” one source who requested anonymity said. “He made an assessment: Vegas will eventually fall apart and wherever the team is at that moment is where it will stay. He’s not the only one who believes that.”
Wherever the A’s play in 2028, the team appears eager in 2024 to make amends with a fan base it has pushed away in recent years. After walking away from Oakland and choosing nine acres in a Vegas parking lot, the A’s seem to believe fans will embrace the nostalgia of the past 56 years and bid a fond farewell.
“We think there are a lot of people who are excited to come out and see a final game at the Coliseum,” Kaval said. “I’m hopeful that can be a positive experience, and we’re going to do everything within our control to make it positive. New memories can be made, and we have a whole season to do that.”
Kaval is standing a few feet from the podium at Sutter Health Park, far enough under the overhang to be free of the rain. He is talking fast, his eyes big, the words a torrent of spin and hope and his own unique brand of untethered optimism. He is speaking for a fan base that, rightly or wrongly, loathes both him and Fisher, to the point where it stays away from the ballpark or attends games just to protest their very existence. And now he is standing in the concourse of the team’s temporary future home, a nice minor league ballpark near the Sacramento River with views of the Tower Bridge and the city beyond, a 15-minute walk from the Kings’ state-of-the-art arena, ready to cleanse the past.
“I know people are receptive,” Kaval said. “I think it can be done.”
There will be promotions. Cheap seats. Alumni events. Nods to past glory. Family fun. Seventy-four home games remain on the schedule. Come on out, Kaval says, and help the A’s send the old gray lady off with a bang. “It’s baseball,” he says, eyes widening, “and baseball is all about having fun.”
-
David Hale
The first College Football Playoff rankings came out five weeks ago. They looked a lot like tonight’s rankings.
We’ve had precious little movement at the top, with a few teams jockeying up or down a slot, but effectively no seismic shifts in the landscape. BYU and Texas are the only two teams that were projected in the field in the committee’s first ranking that aren’t now — and they’re just barely on the outside with reasonable arguments for inclusion.
Teams ranked in the top 18 by the committee this year are a combined 55-9, with six of those losses coming to other teams ranked in the top 18. All three outliers are courtesy of — you guessed it — the ACC (Louisville to Cal, Virginia to Wake and Georgia Tech to Pitt).
That’s a massive anomaly. Last year, top-18 teams at this point had lost 19 games, including 14 to teams outside their own grouping. Top-10 teams are 33-4 this year. In the first 11 years of the playoff, top-10 teams had lost an average of nine games by this point in the season.
The two words that best describe this year’s playoff push are “status quo.”
That, of course, has been bad news for all the teams on the outside looking in — from those with valid cases such as Miami, BYU and Vanderbilt, to underdogs such as USC, Utah or Arizona that might’ve had a shot in a more chaotic year.
But the real loser in this copy and paste rankings season is all the fans who just want to see things get weird. It’s a sad state of affairs when we’re left to rely on MACtion and the ACC to do all the heavy lifting when it comes to college football drama. The power players need to step up — or, perhaps, ratchet down — their game to add a bit more drama.
The good news is, the committee’s ad hoc reasoning, mushmouthed explanations and mind-boggling about-faces still leave plenty to argue about, even if the big picture hasn’t changed all that much.
Here’s this week’s biggest slights, snubs and shenanigans.
It’s not entirely clear how this committee values wins. For the past month, the priority has certainly appeared to be about which team has the better losses (unless, of course, you’re Alabama).
That seems a foolish way to prioritize playoff teams, since the goal of the playoff isn’t to lose to good teams but to win games.
Does Texas have a bad loss? Yes. A 29-21 defeat to woeful Florida — even if the Gators also played Georgia and Ole Miss close and just walloped a team that beat Alabama head-to-head — is problematic.
But look who Texas has beaten: No. 7 Texas A&M by 10, No. 8 Oklahoma by 17 and No. 14 Vandy by three (in a game they led by 24 in the fourth quarter). That’s the résumé of a team capable of winning a national championship — even if the Horns were also capable of losing to a second-rate SEC team.
Are we trying to find teams with the most upside or give participation trophies to the ones which have not lost an ugly one? (Except, again, Alabama.)
And it’s not as if the committee believes an extra loss is disqualifying. Oklahoma, Alabama, Notre Dame and Miami all have two losses and are ranked ahead of one-loss BYU (more on that in a moment), so what’s the harm of moving a three-loss Texas ahead of a two-loss team that has accomplished less?
This all comes back to the most frequent and justified criticism of the committee: The same rules aren’t applied evenly. In some cases, record matters. In some cases, best wins matter. In some cases, better losses matter. The standard varies based on the team being considered. But if the committee is going to err in favor of any team, it should probably do so for one that’s proved — not once, not twice, but three times — that it can beat an elite opponent.
Oh, and moving Texas up ahead of, say, Notre Dame would also have the added bonus of allowing the committee to sidestep another tricky situation. Which leads us to…
We’re putting these two teams together because we’ve already lamented the committee’s utterly disingenuous evaluation of them repeatedly, so it feels redundant to keep going down the same rabbit hole. But, for the sake of two programs being astonishingly misevaluated, let’s do one more round.
For Miami, the logic is obvious: The Canes beat Notre Dame head-to-head.
But let’s keep going. Miami’s two losses — SMU and Louisville — would rank as the fourth- and fifth-toughest games on Notre Dame’s schedule, had the Irish played them. Instead, Notre Dame has cruised through an essentially listless slate. Six of Notre Dame’s 10 wins came against teams that beat zero or one other Power 4 opponent. Stanford — seriously, Stanford! — is Notre Dame’s fourth-best win (by record). Yes, Notre Dame played well enough in losses to two very good teams, but one of those teams has the same record and is somehow ranked lower! Even if this is strictly about the “eye test,” there’s little argument for ignoring the head-to-head outcome. Notre Dame’s strength of record is 13th. Miami’s is 14th. Notre Dame’s game control is fifth. Miami’s is sixth. If all else is the same, how is head-to-head not the deciding factor?
Yet, here’s a little more salt in the wound for the Canes: Had Florida State finished 6-2 instead of 2-6 in ACC play, Miami would’ve won the (fifth) tiebreaker for a spot in the ACC title game and could’ve locked up its place in the playoff by simply beating Virginia. Instead, the Canes will sit at home and watch and hope and, at this point, probably get left out. Chess, not checkers, by rival FSU.
As for BYU, the committee’s desire to overlook the Cougars makes no sense. Let’s take a look at a blind résumé, shall we? (Note: Best wins and composite top 40 based on an average of SP+, FPI and Sagarin ratings.)
Team A: No. 6 strength of record, No. 14 game control, best win vs. No. 11, next vs. No. 28, loss to No. 5, four wins vs. composite top 40, five wins vs. teams that finished 7-5 or better
Team B: No. 7 strength of record, No. 10 game control, best win vs. No. 13, next vs. No. 27, loss to No. 7, three wins vs. composite top-40, two wins vs. teams that finished 7-5 or better
Now, just based on that information, Team A would seem the obvious choice. Now what if I told you Team B just lost its head coach, too?
That’s right, Team A is BYU and Team B is Ole Miss. Every bit of data here suggests the Cougars are, at worst, on even footing with the Rebels or ahead, and yet the committee has Ole Miss ranked five spots higher.
This is, arguably, the second year in a row in which BYU was clearly the most overlooked team in the country.
A week ago, Notre Dame was ranked one spot ahead of Alabama.
Then on Saturday, the Irish beat 4-8 Stanford by 29 (in a game they at one point led 42-3), while Alabama beat 5-7 Auburn by seven (in a game the Tigers had a chance to tie before fumbling in Tide territory late).
The committee looked at those two results and said, “You know what, we like what we saw from the Tide! Move ’em up!”
What could possibly be the logic for shifting opinions on these two teams? The only other team that jumped another winning team was Texas, and the Longhorns beat the No. 3 team in the country emphatically, not a second-tier team that fired its head coach a month ago.
Oh, and hasn’t the committee made it pretty clear losses are supposed to matter? Well, Notre Dame has two losses to teams ranked in the top 12. Alabama got beat by a Florida State team that finished 5-7.
Even by the eye test, this makes little sense. Notre Dame has proved to be one of the most complete, dominant teams in the country, with a secondary that’s near impossible to throw on, a rookie quarterback who has been nearly flawless and a running back who might well be the best player in the country. Alabama, on the other hand, has a one-note offense that can’t run the football.
We’re not believers in using advanced metrics as a ranking of accomplishment, but if this is simply a “who’s better” debate…
-
SP+ ranks Notre Dame fifth and Alabama 12th.
-
FPI ranks Notre Dame third and Alabama sixth.
-
Sagarin ranks Notre Dame second and Alabama seventh.
-
FEI ranks Notre Dame fourth and Alabama ninth.
So, again, we ask: Why would the committee possibly make this change?
We’d wager you know the answer. That sticky Canes vs. Irish head-to-head debate is a real headache for the committee. But if Notre Dame’s currently the last team in and something unexpected happens this weekend (hello, BYU over Texas Tech), then the committee can do as it did in 2014 and wash its hands of a tough choice and keep both Notre Dame and Miami out.
(It’s also interesting that a seven-point win over a team with a losing record is enough to jump Notre Dame, but a 31-point win over a ranked Pitt did nothing for Miami’s relative placement with the Irish despite — and we’re not sure anyone has mentioned this yet — a head-to-head win!)
But, speaking of Alabama…
4. Championship game participants
Step into the time machine with us for a moment, all the way back to championship week 2024. Here’s the state of play: Alabama, at 9-3, is ranked No. 11, the first team out of the playoff and also out of the SEC title game. Still, the Tide and the SEC hope there’s a pathway to salvation because SMU — 11-1 and ranked eighth — still has a game to play against Clemson in the ACC championship. If the Mustangs were to lose, couldn’t the committee then justify slotting SMU behind Alabama based on another data point, even though the Tide were simply sitting at home watching the action?
This was the case being made throughout the run up to the ACC championship last season. SMU, which should’ve been celebrating a miraculously successful first season in the Power 4, spent hours upon hours defending itself against criticism that it didn’t belong in the same conversation with big, bad Bama. Rhett Lashlee hinted he thought the committee’s vote was rigged, SMU players lamented their status on the chopping block despite a ranking that should’ve put them safely in the playoff field, and SEC commissioner Greg Sankey made the rounds arguing that Alabama’s (and Ole Miss’ and South Carolina’s) strength of schedule ought to put them ahead of SMU (and others).
OK, back to the present day. Here we are with Alabama sitting perilously on the dividing line between in the field and out — a week ago, it would have been the last team in, but of course the committee had other ideas this time around — with a game to play against Georgia in the SEC championship. An ACC team (Miami) sits just a tick behind the Tide in the rankings, but it will be off this week.
So, what happens if Alabama loses?
The comparison to last year’s SMU isn’t even a particularly fair one. The Mustangs were at No. 8 before the ACC title game. Alabama is at No. 9 (and probably should be a spot or two lower). SMU’s game against Clemson was new territory. A loss to Georgia will actually undermine Alabama’s best argument for inclusion — the three-point win in Athens in September. And while SMU did make the playoff field last year, a last-second loss on a 56-yard field goal still dropped the Mustangs from No. 8 to No. 10 in the rankings.
Play this scenario out now: Alabama, ranked at No. 9, plays a team that currently counts as the Tide’s best win. Imagine if Georgia wins the rematch and does so convincingly. The committee docked SMU two spots for a last-second loss, so surely it will do at least that much to Alabama for a more convincing defeat, right? And here’s the other thing: Even with the ACC title game loss last year, SMU was 11-2 — one less loss than Alabama had. A Tide loss in the SEC title game will be defeat No. 3 — one more than Notre Dame or Miami or (presumably) BYU.
It’s hard not to see a conspiracy here given the committee’s inexplicable flip-flop between Alabama and Notre Dame. It’s hard not to see brand bias in how the Tide’s championship week narrative diverges from SMU’s a year ago. It’s not at all hard to envision a scenario where Alabama loses to Georgia, gets in as the last team anyway, and it’s all explained away as a completely reasonable decision.
Well, the committee finally weighed in on more than one team outside the Power 4 — mostly because it was just impossible to find enough Power 4 teams worth ranking — and the news isn’t good for JMU. With the committee deciding already that North Texas is the higher ranked team, the Dukes’ only hope for the playoff would seem to be a Duke win in the ACC title game.
But what exactly has the committee seen to warrant that decision? Check out the numbers.
Best win (by average FPI, SP+ and Sagarin ranking)
JMU: No. 54 Old Dominion
UNT: No. 62 Washington State
Next best
JMU: No. 62 Washington State
UNT: No. 68 Navy
Loss
JMU: No. 29 Louisville
UNT: No. 24 USF
Wins vs. bowl-eligible
JMU: six
UNT: five
Strength of record
JMU: 18th
UNT: 22nd
FPI
JMU: 28th
UNT: 37th
There are certainly some check marks in North Texas’ favor, including a more impressive win over common opponent Washington State and a slightly better SP+ ranking, but on the whole, James Madison has had the tougher path here. That can change should UNT beat Tulane, but the committee should’ve waited for that to happen. Instead, it has made it clear JMU isn’t sniffing the playoff unless it comes at the expense of the ACC.
Also angry this week: Vanderbilt Commodores (10-2, No. 14); The ACC leadership who voted on its tiebreaker policies; Manny Diaz, who has to try to make a coherent argument for his five-loss Duke Blue Devils getting in ahead of a one-loss JMU; Every 8-4 team with a markedly better résumé than 9-3 Houston, which isn’t ranked this week; and Lane Kiffin’s yoga instructor and Juice Kiffin’s dog walker.
Welcome to the party, James Madison.
With the inclusion of JMU at No. 25 in the selection committee’s penultimate ranking — its first appearance all season — the possibility of the ACC being excluded from the playoff entirely just got real. Five-loss Duke is nowhere to be found in the ranking.
If Duke beats Virginia in the ACC championship game, it’s not guaranteed a spot in the 12-team field. It could open the door for two Group of 5 conference champions to compete for a national title, and if the playoff were today, it would be Tulane out of the American and JMU from the Sun Belt. The ACC’s best team, Miami, is still on the outside.
At No. 12, the Hurricanes still need some help, but Alabama increased its chances of earning a spot as the SEC runner-up with a small promotion to No. 9. The conference championship games can still alter the picture, but hope on the bubble is dwindling.
Bubble Watch accounts for what we have learned from the committee so far — and historical knowledge of what it means for teams clinging to hope. Teams with Would be in status below are looking good after the committee’s fifth ranking. For each Power 4 conference, we’ve also listed Still in the mix. Teams that are Out will have to wait until next year.
The conferences below are listed in order of the number of bids they would receive, ranked from the most to least, based on the selection committee’s latest ranking.
Jump to a conference:
ACC | Big 12 | Big Ten
SEC | Independent | Group of 5
Bracket
SEC
Would be in: Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, Ole Miss, Texas A&M. Right now, the Crimson Tide are the last SEC at-large team in the field. Alabama will face Georgia in the SEC championship game, but the committee could have a difficult decision if Alabama loses and finishes as a three-loss runner-up. The Tide would have defeated Georgia during the regular season but lost to the Bulldogs in the championship game. Even in moving up a spot to No. 9 this week — ahead of Notre Dame — it still seems as if they have a little more margin for error, but how the SEC title game unfolds could matter. And how far Alabama drops could determine if the SEC gets four or five teams in the field. Alabama could finish as the committee’s highest-ranked three-loss team and still be excluded from the playoff to make room for a conference champion — as they were last year.
A Georgia win should lock up a first-round bye and a top-four finish for the Bulldogs, while a loss should still put them in position to host a first-round game. Georgia beat Ole Miss, so it would be surprising to see the Bulldogs drop below the Rebels with a loss, even though the Bulldogs would have one more defeat. With a 35-10 drubbing of Texas also on its résumé, Georgia would still have a strong enough case to finish as the committee’s top two-loss team.
At No. 6, the selection committee moved the Rebels up one spot, so clearly the departure of coach Lane Kiffin to LSU didn’t hurt Ole Miss or its chances of hosting a first-round home game. The bigger reasoning was a promotion after winning the Egg Bowl combined with Texas A&M losing to Texas.
Still in the mix: Texas. The Longhorns moved up to No. 13, but the win against Texas A&M wasn’t enough to put them into the field after the fifth ranking. Texas is stuck behind Miami in part because of its loss to Florida, which Miami beat. Even if BYU and Alabama were knocked out with title game losses, that still probably won’t be enough for Texas to get into the field because the bracket has to make room for conference champions.
Out: Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi State, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Big Ten
Would be in: Indiana, Ohio State, Oregon. Both Indiana and Ohio State are CFP locks — even if they lose in the conference title game — and the runner-up will still have a strong case for a top-four finish and a first-round bye. The loser’s only loss will be to a top-two team, but it could fall behind Georgia in the top four if the Bulldogs win the SEC, and/or Texas Tech if it wins the Big 12.
The Ducks punctuated their résumé with a respectable win at Washington and should be secure in their playoff position, probably hosting a first-round game. Oregon received a small boost to No. 5 after Texas A&M lost to Texas.
Still in the mix: None.
Out: Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, UCLA, USC, Washington, Wisconsin
Big 12
Would be in: Texas Tech. The Red Raiders will play BYU in the Big 12 title game and have a great case to be in the playoff regardless of the outcome. It’s highly unlikely the selection committee would drop the Red Raiders out of the field as a two-loss Big 12 runner-up — especially considering they would have a regular-season win against the eventual conference champion. It’s also possible Texas Tech earns a first-round bye as a top-four seed if the Red Raiders win the Big 12. The committee moved them into the top four Tuesday night following Texas A&M’s loss during Rivalry Week.
Still in the mix: BYU. If BYU doesn’t win the Big 12, it’s unlikely to earn an at-large bid as the conference runner-up because the Cougars are already on the bubble and would be eliminated during the seeding process if the playoff were today. It’s not impossible, though. If Alabama finishes as a three-loss SEC runner-up, it could at least open the door for debate. BYU would have lost to Texas Tech twice, and Alabama would have defeated Georgia, the eventual SEC champ once — and it was on the road. If BYU wins the Big 12, it’s the ideal scenario for the conference because it would have two teams in the playoff.
Out: Arizona, Arizona State, Baylor, Cincinnati, Colorado, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, TCU, UCF, Utah, West Virginia
ACC
Would be in: TBD. The ACC championship game will feature Virginia and Duke, and if five-loss Duke wins, it’s possible the ACC is excluded from the playoff since Duke is not part of the CFP rankings. If Virginia wins, it will represent the league in the playoff, as the two-loss Cavaliers are ranked in the top 20. And no, Miami did not play Duke or Virginia during the regular season. Duke lost to Tulane, which is the top Group of 5 playoff contender and will reach the playoff if it wins the American. Duke also lost to UConn. And it has already lost to Virginia 34-17 on Nov. 15.
Still in the mix: Miami. The Canes are still the committee’s highest-ranked ACC team, but they would be excluded if the playoff were today to make room for a conference champion. That means the ACC winner could knock the league’s best team out of the playoff. The committee isn’t ignoring Miami’s head-to-head win against Notre Dame, but it also isn’t comparing the Canes only to the Irish. Miami also needs to earn an edge against BYU — which the committee has deemed better than Miami to this point. Miami inched closer to Notre Dame because Bama moved up Tuesday, but with neither team playing in a conference championship game, would the committee flip them on Selection Day with a BYU loss?
Out: Boston College, Cal, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, North Carolina, NC State, Pitt, SMU, Stanford, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
Independent
Would be in: Notre Dame. The Irish have done everything right since their 0-2 start, running the table and doing it with consistent dominance regardless of opponent. At No.10, Notre Dame is in a precarious position. If BYU wins the Big 12 and enters the field, that could bump out the Irish. If BYU wins the Big 12, both BYU and Texas Tech are highly likely to make the playoff, which means someone currently in the top 10 would have to be excluded.
Group of 5
Would be in: Tulane. If the Green Wave win the American, they will represent the Group of 5 in the playoff. Tulane is currently the highest ranked Group of 5 team, but if North Texas beats Tulane on Friday, the Mean Green would be the most likely team to reach the CFP, given the overall strength of the American Conference this season.
Still in the mix: James Madison, North Texas. JMU (11-1) has clinched the East Division and a spot in the Sun Belt Conference championship game, where it will face Troy (8-4) on Friday. North Texas will face Tulane in the American, and if it wins, it’s more likely to represent the Group of 5 in the playoff than JMU because of its schedule strength. JMU could still be considered, though, if Duke wins the ACC, giving the Group of 5 two playoff teams in the 12-team field. With JMU earning a spot in the top 25 this week, the situation became more probable.
Bracket
Based on the committee’s fifth ranking, the seeding would be:
First-round byes
No. 1 Ohio State (Big Ten champ)
No. 2 Indiana
No. 3 Georgia (SEC champ)
No. 4 Texas Tech (Big 12 champ)
First-round games
On campus, Dec. 19 and 20
No. 12 Tulane (American champ) at No. 5 Oregon
No. 11 Virginia (ACC champ) at No. 6 Ole Miss
No. 10 Notre Dame at No. 7 Texas A&M
No. 9 Alabama at No. 8 Oklahoma
Quarterfinal games
At the Goodyear Cotton Bowl, Capital One Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl Presented by Prudential and Allstate Sugar Bowl on Dec. 31 and Jan. 1.
No. 12 Tulane/No. 5 Oregon winner vs. No. 4 Texas Tech
No. 11 Virginia/No. 6 Ole Miss winner vs. No. 3 Georgia
No. 10 Notre Dame/No. 7 Texas A&M winner vs. No. 2 Indiana
No. 9 Alabama/No. 8 Oklahoma winner vs. No. 1 Ohio State
-
Eli Lederman
Five-star quarterback Jared Curtis, ESPN’s No. 1 pocket passer prospect, has flipped his commitment from Georgia to Vanderbilt, he announced Tuesday night, sealing a seismic move atop the 2026 class less than 24 hours before the start of the early signing period.
Curtis, a senior at Nashville (Tennessee) Christian School, is the No. 5 recruit in the 2026 ESPN 300. Multiple sources told ESPN earlier on Tuesday that Curtis’ intention was to commit to the hometown Commodores during this week’s early signing period before closing his high school career at the Division II-A state championship Thursday night.
Curtis initially shot down reports that he’d made a final decision Tuesday afternoon. According to sources close to his recruitment, he finalized the move Tuesday night and announced his pledge to Vanderbilt following phone calls with each coaching staff. He’ll sign with the Commodores on Wednesday morning as the highest-ranked signee in program history.
“Being here in Nashville and seeing what Vandy has been doing this season has been amazing and over the past few weeks, I felt more and more that I wanna be a part of that, to be close to home, to play in front of family and friends and to be what I love to be, an underdog,” Curtis wrote in a statement posted to social media. “I am excited to be a [Commodore] and excited to be part of building something here at home with Coach [Clark] Lea.”
Curtis’ flip ends a winding recruitment for ESPN’s No. 2 quarterback, who first committed to Georgia in 2024. Per ESPN sources, Vanderbilt escalated its pursuit of Curtis in October, selling the 6-foot-4, 225-pound quarterback on the chance to stay home and the lure of early playing time as a potential day one successor to Heisman Trophy contender Diego Pavia.
That push continued into November after the Commodores hosted Curtis during the program’s 17-10 win over Missouri on Oct. 25. Although Curtis affirmed his commitment to Georgia’s coaching staff multiple times over the past month, per ESPN sources, conversations between Curtis’ camp and Vanderbilt continued into the final weeks of his senior season.
Per sources close to Curtis’ recruitment, Commodores coach Lea’s potential candidacy for multiple job openings across the country remained a sticking point among Curtis’ camp in recent weeks. After Lea agreed to a reported six-year contract extension on Nov. 28, sources told ESPN that Vanderbilt’s efforts with Curtis intensified further, culminating in his flip on Tuesday.
Curtis’ pledge marks the latest victory for the Commodores amid a historic season in which Vanderbilt achieved its highest AP Top 25 ranking since 1937 earlier this fall. He now stands as the cornerstone member of the program’s 19-man recruiting class in 2026, which ranked 50th in ESPN’s class rankings for the cycle prior to his commitment.
Curtis’ signature will hand Vanderbilt its first ESPN 300 addition since cornerback Martel Hight (No. 274) in the 2023 class. The program’s first-ever five-star signee, he’ll soon replace wide receiver Jordan Cunningham (No. 107 in the 2013 ESPN 300) as the Commodores’ highest-ranked recruit in school history. Curtis will also represent Vanderbilt’s first top-10 quarterback signee since Kyle Shurmer arrived as ESPN’s No. 7 pocket passer in the 2015 class.
Curtis rose to status as one of the nation’s top pocket passers as a four-year starter at Nashville Christian. He threw for 7,637 yards and 92 touchdowns across his first three varsity seasons and led Nashville Christian to a Division II-A state championship as a junior in 2024.
Curtis initially committed to Georgia in March 2024 before reopening his process late last fall. He rejoined the Bulldogs’ incoming class on May 5, picking Georgia over Oregon in a tight, two-school recruiting battle, and Curtis remained the program’s top-ranked 2026 pledge until Tuesday, maintaining frequent contact with the school’s coaching staff this fall.
His decommitment leaves Georgia without a quarterback commitment in the nation’s second-ranked recruiting class. First-year Bulldogs starter Gunner Stockton holds another season of eligibility beyond 2025. Behind him, Georgia’s current quarterback depth includes redshirt freshman Ryan Puglisi and class of 2025 signees Ryan Montgomery and Hezekiah Millender. It is not immediately clear whether the Bulldogs will pursue another quarterback in the 2026 class.
Wednesday marks the start of the three-day early signing period for the 2026 class. The recruiting cycle will officially close with national signing day on Feb. 4.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024