Connect with us

Published

on

GRAPEVINE, Texas — It was between 1:30 and 2 a.m. CT on Sunday after the conference championship games when the 13 members of the College Football Playoff selection committee finally left their meeting room. They had been sequestered for hours as they determined the top four teams in the country.

They knew what they could potentially wind up with — and it didn’t feel good.

As difficult as it was for them to remove their emotions from the process, the sinking feeling about excluding an undefeated Power 5 conference champion was tempered by the belief that they did what they were tasked to do — vote for the four best teams.

“All of us had the emotional tie, like, ‘Holy s—, this is really going to suck to do this,'” one committee member told ESPN. “We talked about that over and over, and we just kept coming back [to] are they good enough with what they have to win a national championship, and it just kept coming back [to] we didn’t think they could.”

There wasn’t any discussion about the SEC being left out because the committee maintains that it talks about teams, not conferences. There wasn’t any serious consideration to include Alabama without Texas because there was so much respect in the room for the Longhorns’ Week 2 win in Tuscaloosa. There also wasn’t enough support in the room to deem Georgia “unequivocally” one of the four best teams in the country — the standard for teams that don’t win their conference title.

Instead, the crux of the debate into the wee hours of Sunday morning centered on how to evaluate Florida State, which beat Louisville with its third-string quarterback after both Jordan Travis and his backup, Tate Rodemaker, were sidelined by injuries. While the Seminoles’ defense impressed the committee — and had all year — there were significant concerns about FSU’s offense.

Undefeated Michigan had won the Big Ten. Undefeated Washington won the Pac-12. Alabama knocked off the selection committee’s No. 1 team, Georgia, to win the SEC, and one-loss Texas, which easily won the Big 12, had knocked off the SEC champion in September.

And now Florida State had found a way to win — again.

It was the final layer of complication in what was already the most difficult, controversial decision any CFP committee has had to make in a decade of the four-team playoff. Never before has an undefeated Power 5 conference champion been excluded from the CFP — but never before have seven Power 5 teams finished the regular season with one or fewer losses. “We’ve never had a year with eight teams at the top as good as these are, and the five conference champions 1 through 5, we’ve never had it come out that way,” CFP executive director Bill Hancock said. “My feeling is it probably was the toughest.”


FOR 2½ DAYS on conference championship game weekend, the CFP’s selection committee hid in plain sight.

While families clad in Christmas-themed clothes infiltrated the sprawling Gaylord Texan resort for its annual ice sculpture exhibit, the most powerful people in college football went nearly unnoticed, save for one cardboard sign bearing the CFP logo that some fans paused to look at as they exited the elevator and headed to their rooms.

“Is Bama in?!” one man asked a security guard sitting on a stool outside the meeting rooms Saturday night after the Tide’s SEC championship win against No. 1 Georgia.

The guard just shrugged.

As it turned out, one-loss Bama was in — at the expense of undefeated ACC champion Florida State. It was an unprecedented decision that sparked outrage throughout the sport. FSU coach Mike Norvell said he was “disgusted and infuriated.” ACC commissioner Jim Phillips said, “It’s unfathomable.” Travis, the Seminoles’ injured quarterback, said he wished he had broken his leg earlier in the season so the committee could have seen that the team was still great without him.

The committee is steadfast in its belief it got the decision right.

“At the end of the day, everybody had the same goal in mind — do we have the four best teams?” a committee member said. “And we all felt pretty good that we do.”

It wasn’t until the ACC championship game began to unfold, though, that the members’ opinions began to truly take shape. The group grew concerned as it watched the Noles struggle to get a first down in the first half. There is a section in the committee’s protocol that specifically refers to the “unavailability of key players … that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.” That allowed the committee to do something it intentionally avoids every other week: look ahead.

“People really wanted to talk about it,” a committee member said. “We don’t really have that conversation while we’re watching games. But we’ve got to talk about the elephant in the room. What just happened? We talked about 13-0. We talked about the teams they beat. And they were a conference champ. All of that. It took a while.”

Hancock rarely, if ever, shares voting results with the people in the room, though sometimes he’ll mention if they were close or not. The votes are cast privately on each committee member’s laptop. The committee members simply hover their mouse over a team and click to vote. If a committee member is recused from voting for a certain team, it’s shaded in gray on his or her laptop, making it impossible to click on.

They vote on the teams in small batches and continue through the process of voting and debating in groups until the entire list of 25 is compiled. So it’s not as if they begin talking about Texas and Alabama and vote around them to make it fit.

“People may not believe it, but we don’t say, ‘Oh gosh, if we vote this way, the SEC is going to be left out,” one source said. “That never came up. Ever. We literally look at teams, put them up against each other, and say, ‘Who did they beat? Who did they not beat? Who have they beaten on the road? What’s their strength of schedule?’ Look at the matrix and all the data.”

The only time the committee members know the vote is when it’s a tie, because they have to vote again. There was a sense within the room Saturday night, though, that the more they voted, the closer the group came to agreeing that Florida State should be No. 5.

Boo Corrigan, the chair of the committee and the athletic director at NC State, said the group voted six to eight times on the top four, and there was “never a moment of rushing it.” One source said the conversations were “tense” at times. Another said it “never got heated, never got ugly,” but it was “way more complicated and way more agonizing than some people may think.”

The committee met again at 8:30 a.m. CT on Sunday morning and began discussions and voting again.

Because the selection committee is composed of people from different backgrounds — former coaches, players, sitting athletic directors and a former sports reporter — there are different perspectives in the room.

Kentucky athletic director Mitch Barnhart is one of them, and he had the unique experience of having seen Alabama, Georgia and Louisville, FSU’s title game opponent, in-person because his Wildcats faced them, too. He was given opportunities to share his thoughts on each of those teams with the group. Corrigan said the coaches had conversations about: “Who do they want to play? Who do they not want to play?”

“They’ve got a significant voice in the room,” he said.

In the end, though, the difference between Alabama and Florida State boiled down to the committee’s written protocol, particularly the emphasis on strength of schedule — which gave Alabama the edge — and the section that allowed committee members to project what Florida State might look like in a semifinal without their star quarterback.

Not having Heisman hopeful starter Travis “changes their offense in its entirety,” Corrigan said, “and that was really a big factor with the committee as we went through everything.”

So was the Longhorns’ double-digit win at Alabama in Week 2. The committee had been consistent in honoring the head-to-head result all season and felt it was important to be consistent with that on Selection Day — even though they believed Alabama had improved since that September loss.

“That’s something you just can’t ignore,” one person said. “At the end of the day, they scheduled them, they played them at their house, they won and they beat them — and that was big.”

It wasn’t just the committee’s decision to exclude Florida State that drew criticism Sunday afternoon.

The group rewarded undefeated No. 23 Liberty with a New Year’s Six bowl bid instead of two-loss No. 24 SMU, which beat a ranked team in its AAC title game. In addition to voting multiple times at the top of the ranking, the committee also voted repeatedly at the bottom, which pushed the morning meeting to its cutoff time of 11 a.m. CT. The results kept flipping between Liberty and SMU, but ultimately, the group deemed Liberty better.

American Athletic Conference commissioner Mike Aresco was fuming.

“For a decade, that committee used an unfair strength of schedule argument against our great undefeated UCF, Cincinnati and Houston teams, which played genuinely tough schedules with P5 opponents,” he told ESPN, “and then they apply a clear double standard to this situation.”

One former selection committee member was stunned and said the inconsistencies in this year’s ranking were “glaring.”

“This may need a complete reset before next year,” the former committee member said. “If Liberty is a Group of 5 playoff team over others, that’s a problem. No Power 5 opponents on the schedule, and the record of teams they’ve beaten is weak.”


NOT SINCE 2014, the inaugural season of the CFP, has the committee generated anything close to this much controversy. That year, the committee dropped TCU from No. 3 to No. 6 in the final rankings in large part because the Big 12 at the time didn’t have a conference championship game.

Now, in the final season of a four-team system, an entirely different group of 13 committee members snubbed an undefeated team that won its conference title. The backlash, according to multiple sources, has been significant, including some from colleagues, friends and peers, in addition to vitriol from Florida State fans.

This would have been the perfect season for the new 12-team playoff format to begin. Next year, the CFP will include the five highest-ranked conference champions and the next seven highest-ranked teams, assuming the proposed new format is rubber-stamped by the presidents and chancellors at their annual meeting before the national championship game in Houston. That guarantees a spot for each power-conference champ and a Group of 5 conference champion. As excited as fans might be for the more inclusive system, Hancock warned that it won’t solve the problem of a talented team being left out.

“People look for perfection, and there will be some teams that don’t quite make it in 12 who are going to be asking some serious questions,” said Hancock, who will retire after this season. “I laugh because the easy answer is to say, ‘Yeah, I wish we had 12.’ But that’s not going to be the panacea that some of us might think it might be. It’s going to be great, don’t get me wrong, but it won’t be perfect.”

Continue Reading

Sports

How a baseball behemoth plans to get … better? 3 offseason questions as Dodgers eye three-peat

Published

on

By

How a baseball behemoth plans to get ... better? 3 offseason questions as Dodgers eye three-peat

The Los Angeles Dodgers greeted their fans at the tail end of their championship parade on Nov. 3, and virtually every player who grabbed the microphone atop a makeshift stage at Dodger Stadium expressed the same goal:

Three-peat.

Only two franchises, the Oakland Athletics of the early 1970s and the New York Yankees of the late 1990s, have won three consecutive World Series titles since Major League Baseball introduced divisional play in 1969. And yet the current Dodgers are unabashed in their desire to do the same.

“It’s not whether or not [or] how we’re going to do it,” Dodgers president of baseball operations Andrew Friedman said, “it’s just that we’re going to be extremely driven and do everything we can to put ourselves in the best position to do it again.”

What that looks like, exactly, is a source of intrigue throughout the sport.

The Dodgers have spent the past two offseasons throwing around money at jaw-dropping levels. In signings and extensions, they added five nine-figure contracts to their payroll, which, for competitive-balance-tax purposes, stood at roughly $415 million in 2025. The industry seemed to bend to their will because of it. Now the Dodgers operate as a sort of boogeyman. Agents attach them to their clients in an attempt to drive up prices, rival executives worry they’ll swoop in on trade targets they’re eyeing.

The Dodgers, though, continue to fight an internal battle, one voiced by general manager Brandon Gomes at last week’s general managers meetings in Las Vegas.

“How do you win this year,” he asked rhetorically, “without falling off that cliff?”

Friedman, Gomes and the rest of the Dodgers’ decision-makers are constantly trying to balance winning now with winning later, an inexact science that periodically strays them from the middle. Over these past two winters, the Dodgers leaned heavily into the present. Now they hope to find more of a balance, said multiple sources familiar with their thinking, though to what degree remains to be seen.

On one side, the Dodgers are cognizant of how much depth they have coming back and how much older their roster has become. On the other, they’re determined to maximize what Friedman has deemed this franchise’s “golden era,” mindful of how a third straight title can cement that legacy.

“I think definitionally, it’s a dynasty,” Friedman said after watching his team claim a third championship in six years. “But that to me, in a lot of ways, kind of caps it if you say, ‘OK, this is what it is.’ For me, it’s still evolving and growing, and we want to add to it and we want to continue it and do everything we can to put it at a level where people after us have a hard time reaching.”

How they do that will depend on how they answer three key questions.


How do they fix their bullpen?

With everything on the line in Game 7 of the World Series, Dodgers manager Dave Roberts deployed six starting pitchers, including his entire postseason rotation (Shohei Ohtani, Tyler Glasnow, Blake Snell and Yoshinobu Yamamoto) and two young starters who had become relievers out of necessity (Emmet Sheehan and Justin Wrobleski).

It said everything about how hard the Dodgers’ bullpen fell in 2025, and yet it runs in stark contrast to the front office’s staunch belief at this moment, according to sources — that their bullpen depth should inspire confidence in 2026.

There’s some truth to that. If everyone is healthy, seven of the Dodgers’ eight bullpen spots are already accounted for: Tanner Scott, Blake Treinen, Alex Vesia, Evan Phillips, Brock Stewart, Brusdar Graterol and Anthony Banda. Then there are as many as eight optionable relievers on the 40-man roster, all of whom are promising in their own right: Edgardo Henriquez, Ben Casparius, Will Klein, Jack Dreyer, Paul Gervase, Bobby Miller, Kyle Hurt and Wrobleski, assuming the latter three remain in the bullpen.

This certainly does not mean the Dodgers are set here. Their bullpen is coming off a season in which it posted a 4.27 ERA, 21st in the majors. And there are a litany of questions surrounding their returning arms, whether it’s coming back from injury (Graterol and Phillips), advanced age (Treinen and Stewart), control issues (Henriquez, Klein, Hurt and Gervase) or stark memories of a disastrous 2025 (Scott). But if there is one thing to take away from all that, it’s this:

The Dodgers will carry a high bar when it comes to their pursuit of bullpen help.

A solidified closer, or at least one leverage arm capable of handling the ninth inning on a championship team, will be what they spend the most time on in the coming weeks. And though the trade option remains their ideal path, free agency is primed with standout closers. The headliner is Edwin Diaz, though the thought of a long-term deal and the presence of a qualifying offer might scare away the Dodgers. More likely is someone such as Devin Williams, who they’ve already expressed interest in, according to sources. And a tier below are a host of others who, like Williams, can be had for the type of short-term deal the Dodgers prefer, including Brad Keller, Pete Fairbanks, Emilio Pagan, Kyle Finnegan, Luke Weaver, Raisel Iglesias and Robert Suarez.


How badly do they need another bat?

You know what else the Dodgers didn’t do all that well this past season? Hit. For a decent chunk of it, at least. Over a 33-game stretch from early July to mid-August, they batted .235 and averaged the sixth-fewest runs in the majors. Over their past three playoff rounds, they slashed a combined .213/.303/.364. If this sounds a bit harsh, well, it might be: 33 games represents only about 20% of the regular season, and hitting in the playoffs has proved to be quite difficult for any team. Keep this group intact, and on paper, it would represent arguably the best lineup in the sport.

But last season’s lulls help to underscore another important point about the Dodgers’ offseason: They can stand to add another bat, and chances are they will.

The easiest path is to add an outfielder, and this year’s free agent options just so happen to be headlined by two of them in Kyle Tucker and Cody Bellinger. The Dodgers aren’t expected to be one of the more aggressive suitors for Tucker, sources have indicated, but they’ll remain on the periphery if his market collapses and a short-term, high-dollar deal becomes appealing to his representatives at Excel. They’ve also expressed interest in a reunion with Bellinger, according to sources, though it remains to be seen whether they’d be motivated enough to win a potential bidding war with the Yankees.

ESPN’s Kiley McDaniel projects an 11-year, $418 million contract for Tucker, who turns 29 in January, and a much more modest six-year, $165 million contract for Bellinger, who will be 31 in July.

The cost for a Bellinger deal makes more sense, but so does his ability to play center field. The Dodgers are a far better defensive team if they can slide Andy Pages to right and shift Teoscar Hernández to left. Doing so would require an everyday center fielder, and perhaps it would be unfair to ask Tommy Edman to take that on in the wake of offseason ankle surgery. Bellinger — a fourth-round pick by the Dodgers in 2013, a Rookie of the Year in 2017, an MVP in 2019 and a champion in 2020 before being non-tendered only two years later — would fit the bill, and perhaps even slide to first base after Freddie Freeman‘s contract expires.

But the Dodgers can also sign someone such as Harrison Bader, whom they targeted at midseason, for less money, or, given the dearth of free agent outfielders beyond him, pivot to a trade option. Two players who might fit are Cleveland Guardians outfielder Steven Kwan and St. Louis Cardinals utility man Brendan Donovan, both of whom have a knack for putting together good at-bats and making contact. Some high-ranking members of the organization believe there is a need for more of that in their lineup, given the swing and miss of guys like Pages and Hernández. Addressing that could help limit the lulls.


Do they need to get younger?

Mookie Betts gathered his teammates for a post-parade podcast recently, and at one point the 18-inning World Series game came up. Betts argued that the second half of it was boring, to which Clayton Kershaw playfully responded that, for everyone’s sake, the offense should have ended it early.

“Our team’s so old,” Kershaw said. “We were tired the next two [games].”

What Kershaw said off the cuff was something felt by many who watched the Dodgers, both inside and outside the organization. Playing the equivalent of two full games in Game 3 of the World Series seemed to drain them more than it did their opponents, as evidenced by lethargic performances in Games 4 and 5, during which the Dodgers totaled three runs and suffered back-to-back losses.

The average age of the Dodgers’ position players was 30.7 this past season, making them the oldest group in the majors (slightly ahead of the Philadelphia Phillies at 30.3). Seven of their starting position players are now heading into their age-31 season or older, and all but one of them — Max Muncy, whose 2026 option was picked up earlier this month — are signed for multiple years.

Friedman’s longtime quest to balance the present with the future faces a difficult test with this current construction. Freeman, Betts, Ohtani and Will Smith will continue to be cornerstone players for years, but the Dodgers will spend some time this offseason wondering how they can plug in more youth around them.

They can do it the more conventional way, by slowly transitioning some of their upper-level prospects into everyday players (infielder Alex Freeland, outfielder Ryan Ward and catcher Dalton Rushing, who will return as Smith’s backup but could get time at first base and in left field in 2026). Or they can make impact moves via trade.

The Dodgers have a glut of highly regarded outfield prospects at the moment, namely Josue De Paula, Eduardo Quintero, Zhyir Hope and Mike Sirota. The Dodgers’ preference is to pluck from that group to address needs through a trade, according to sources. And though they can use them to access the closer they desire, they can also add young, controllable position players, ideally at second base, shortstop or center field. And if they need to dip into their starting pitching, River Ryan and Gavin Stone are returning from injury and don’t have a spot in a six-man rotation given the presence of Yamamoto, Snell, Glasnow, Ohtani, Sheehan and Roki Sasaki.

Ryan and Stone, though, have options. The Dodgers, coming off setting franchise records by deploying 40 pitchers in back-to-back seasons, can simply stash them in the minors and wait until they’re inevitably needed.

Once again, they can do everything and nothing.

Continue Reading

Sports

Montas cut by Mets with $17M left on contract

Published

on

By

Montas cut by Mets with M left on contract

NEW YORK — Frankie Montas was designated for assignment Tuesday by the New York Mets, who owe the injured right-hander $17 million for the final season of a $34 million, two-year contract.

Montas, who turns 33 in March, had Tommy John surgery Sept. 9 and is expected to miss the 2026 season. Because of his contract and health, he is expected to pass through waivers and be released.

New York selected the contract of outfielder Nick Morabito from Double-A Binghamton, protecting the 22-year-old from next month’s Rule 5 draft.

Montas signed with the Mets as a free agent in December and was 3-2 with a 6.28 ERA in seven starts and two relief outings, making his last appearance Aug. 15. He is 47-48 with a 4.20 ERA in 10 big league seasons with the Chicago White Sox (2015), Oakland (2017-22), the New York Yankees (2022-23), Cincinnati (2024), Milwaukee (2024) and the Mets.

Morabito hit .273 with 6 homers, 59 RBIs and 49 stolen bases in 60 attempts this year for the Rumble Ponies and has 108 steals in the past two seasons.

Continue Reading

Sports

Teams have until Jan. 2 to sign Japan RHP Imai

Published

on

By

Teams have until Jan. 2 to sign Japan RHP Imai

NEW YORK — Right-hander Tatsuya Imai is entering Major League Baseball’s posting system and will be available to teams to sign as a free agent from Wednesday through Jan. 2.

He joins power-hitting corner infielder Munetaka Murakami, whose 45-day window to sign expires Dec. 22.

A 27-year-old right-hander, Imai went 10-5 with a 1.92 ERA this season with the Pacific League’s Seibu Lions. He struck out 178 batters in 163⅔ innings.

Imai is 58-45 with a 3.15 ERA in eight seasons with Seibu, with 907 strikeouts in 963⅔ innings. He is a three-time All-Star.

Imai pitched eight innings of a combined no-hitter against Fukuoka on April 18. He struck out 17 against Yokohama on June 17, breaking Daisuke Matsuzaka’s previous team record of 16 from 2004.

Under MLB’s posting agreement with Nippon Professional Baseball, the posting fee would be 20% of the first $25 million of a major league contract, including earned bonuses and options. The percentage drops to 17.5% of the next $25 million and 15% of any amount over $50 million.

There would be a supplemental fee of 15% of any earned bonuses, salary escalators and exercised options.

Continue Reading

Trending