Bill Hancock explains 'so-called P5 conference' comment in letter to Senator Rick Scott
Controversy continues to swirl over the College Football Playoff committee’s decision to leave an undefeated Florida State team out of the playoffs this year, with two different state legislatures getting involved. On Friday, CFP executive director Bill Hancock joined the fray.
Hancock responded with a letter to Florida Senator Rick Scott laying out why the Seminoles were left out.
In the letter, Hancock had some choice wording, noting that eight undefeated teams have now been left out of the playoffs and that “while this is the first year such a team was from a so-called P5 conference, strength of schedule remains a crucial factor.”
The phrase “so-called P5 conference” seemed to question the legitimacy of the ACC and drew immediate backlash from Florida State and others on social media. Hancock provided an explanation to ESPN’s Andrea Adelson on Saturday.
“It is important to know that CFP doesn’t use the term ‘Power-5’ or ‘P5,'” Bill Hancock told ESPN. “While the media and others use the term P5 to refer to the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC, we use the term ‘A5’ or ‘Autonomy-5’ instead.”
Bill Hancock also indicated that he used “so-called” to indicate that it was not the official language used by the playoff committee.
Whatever the case, the ongoing back-and-forth has continued and Florida State fans remain upset that the program wasn’t included in this year’s mix, Jordan Travis injury or not. As noted, two state legislatures — Florida and Georgia — have now publicly taken some action demanding transparency and/or inclusion of teams that missed the College Football Playoff.
Florida’s AG is investigating the CFP for potential antitrust violations
On Tuesday, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody announced an investigation into the College Football Playoff selection committee and its “secretive selection process.” Moody has sent a Civil Investigation Demand to the CFP selection committee seeking a number of communications and other documentation.
Top 10
- 1New
Desean Jackson
Finalizing deal to be college HC
- 2
Jim Larranaga
Miami HC set to step down
- 3Hot
CFP selection process
Urban Meyer predicts changes
- 4
National Championship odds
Updated odds are in
- 5
LaNorris Sellers
South Carolina QB signs NIL deal to return
Get the On3 Top 10 to your inbox every morning
By clicking "Subscribe to Newsletter", I agree to On3's Privacy Notice, Terms, and use of my personal information described therein.
Moody, who claims to be a “lifelong Gator,” called the exclusion of the Seminoles an injustice in a statement announcing the investigation.
“I’m also the Florida Attorney General, and I know injustice when I see it. No rational person or college football fan can look at this situation and not question the result. The NCAA, conferences, and the College Football Playoff Committee are subject to antitrust laws,” Moody said in the release. “My Office is launching an investigation to examine if the Committee was involved in any anticompetitive conduct. As it stands, the Committee’s decision reeks of partiality, so we are demanding answers—not only for FSU, but for all schools, teams and fans of college football. In Florida, merit matters. If it’s attention they were looking for, the Committee certainly has our attention now.”
Moody, as part of the investigation, is trying to suss out the specific votes and deliberations of each of the committee’s 13 members.
Moody is also seeking a spate of communications from the committee, including the following, per the CID and the press release:
- All communications relating to deliberations to or from the SEC, ACC, NCAA, ESPN, Group of Five conferences, Power Five conferences or any other person relating to the deliberations;
- All documents relating to public statements relating to the deliberations, including media talking points and interview notes;
- Documents relating to restrictions of the Conferences against having alternate playoff schedules;
- Documents showing compensation of members in 2023;
- Documents sufficient to show all recusals of Committee members from deliberations; and
- The Committee’s standards relating to ethics and conflicts of interest.
On3’s Andrew Graham also contributed to this report.