How to secretly lobby the College Football Playoff Committee

Hello and welcome to this week’s FOIAball.

We’re excited to give you loads of goodies in today’s newsletter. We’re revealing the behind-the-scenes lobbying effort conferences make to the College Football Playoff Committee. And we’ve got a juicy tidbit about Jordon Hudson that’s blowing up on social media.

But I’d like to talk to you all first.

When I started FOIAball, I hoped to make a living turning the college football world on its head. In just a few months, I’ve exposed secret state surveillance, massive NIL fraud, and shady foreign influence.

I think that’s pretty impressive for a brand-new outlet that’s just me. And all those scoops have been free to read.

So while I have a growing readership, I can’t survive on free subscriptions. I genuinely need you to step up and become a paid subscriber today.

But I wouldn’t ask for something without an offer in return. So how’s this?

A whole year of FOIAball for $3.50 a month.

That’s less than a dollar a newsletter (and doesn’t count the stories we drop outside our regular publishing cycle).

…

…

Look, I know you scrolled past that button. Maybe glossed over that entire section. We’re all guilty of doing that.

If you did, that’s okay. I just ask that, as you read on, you think about upgrading. Consider it. Understand how much it would mean to me. Picture all the great, fun stories coming in the future.

Because, like, I’m literally about to show you how secret CFP lobbying campaigns go down. I’m about to reveal how shockingly reckless Jordon Hudson is.

I think that’s worth a few bucks.

This week’s College Football Playoff Committee ranking set up a potential nightmare for the ACC. 

If Duke upsets Virginia on Saturday, the conference could be left entirely out of the 12-team playoff. 

But before that game is played, the ACC is likely making a strenuous, behind-the-scenes case for the Blue Devils to be included should they win.  

After all, the conference pushed the committee to rank Duke last year, too. 

And we can show you exactly how they made the case. 

Prior to Tuesday’s reveal, two coaches on the ranking’s periphery traded shots. 

After upsetting previously undefeated Texas A&M, Texas’ Steve Sarkisian called out Miami, which sat in the 12th spot the week prior. 

"There's teams that are ranked in front of us that haven't played any top-10 ranked teams … Is this about what your record is at the end? Or is this about beating quality teams and showing how good of a team you really are by beating quality teams on the field,” Sark told the SEC Network. 

Redundancy aside, he included a dig at the Hurricanes, who scored a touchdown last week with less than a minute left against Pitt. While up 24. 

“Or is it don't play good teams … Throw fade route touchdowns with 38 seconds to go when you're ahead 31-7 so that the score looks better.”

Miami’s Mario Cristobal shot back, knocking Texas for losing to Florida, which Miami beat handily.

(Hang on for dear life. The content of this blog is about to get very transitive.)

"I get it, everybody's trying to posture for their programs … when coaches try to speak about themselves like that, they also gotta take a look at the common opponent between us and that particular coach," Cristobal said, adding “We had the opportunity to really dominate that opponent while that opponent dominated them."

The CFP’s independent 12-member commission—made up of athletic directors, former coaches, and luminaries—is, ostensibly, above such posturing. 

On its website, it lays out its selection criteria quite succinctly. 

The committee looks at strength of schedule, head-to-head competition, and comparative outcomes of common opponents.

In practice, those principles are applied rather haphazardly. 

Despite playing a head-to-head competition, committee chair Hunter Yurachek defended putting Notre Dame ahead of Miami this week, because “We're not comparing Notre Dame and Miami side-by-side.”

But it is factoring in Texas’s loss to the Gators as one reason it’s behind Miami. 

"It's not that Texas lost to Ohio State, it is that Texas lost to Florida that's holding them back," Yurachek said on a conference call.  

But ignored in the debate over how closely the committee is hewing to its own playbook is that there’s another element at play. 

While furious pressers and fuming podcasts aren’t factored in, lobbying is. Conferences are allowed to directly pitch themselves to the committee members three times a year. And they can reach out to staffers whenever they want. 

Each conference is given two point people who serve as “an effective and efficient channel for providing facts to the committee.”

The calls happen in advance of the first and fourth rankings, and this week, before Selection Sunday. 

The committee describes the calls as “purely for the purpose of objective fact-gathering.”

But they’re lobbying. How do we know? Because FOIAball got the presentations conferences make on behalf of their teams. 

Last year’s penultimate playoff rankings had a similar ACC issue. 

Heading into championship week, Miami was iced out of the conference title game, with SMU facing Clemson. 

At 11-1, the Mustangs were likely in no matter what. 

But Clemson was also ranked in the top 25, so an upset by the Tigers would guarantee them a slot. 

And Miami had just lost to Syracuse, meaning several three-loss SEC teams were looming. 

The day before the new rankings, the ACC sent its weekly College Football Playoff Report, with messaging the conference hoped to sell that week. 

In all caps, it laid out the “FACTS.” 

The report is a series of one-pagers that impressively cherry-pick stats to show how good ACC teams are against their peers, including handy charts for easy “Resume Comparison.” 

Like how Miami should be above Alabama because it has a higher “Percentage of Games with 30 or more points.”

Or how SMU should get a bye because, unlike Texas and Georgia, it never lost by more than 14 points. 

Or that Clemson should be ranked in the Top Four because it has more tackles for a loss than Arizona State. 

Yes, the ACC was arguing for two first-round byes. On the basis of TFLs.

That email from the ACC did not explicitly state this information would be presented to the committee. But in advance of the fourth rankings, another email discussed the lobbying effort. 

“Please note that we continue to push the clear facts about ACC Football to our television partners, media and CFP committee members,” a Friday, Nov. 15 email read.  

Two days later, the ACC wrote that, “the conference office continues to work on updating/preparing materials for this week's CFP committee members, as well as our television partners and media.” 

So while we can’t say these exact points were delivered on a video conference, we know the ACC had a chance to speak with the committee the same week these documents were prepared. So we can assume, at least, the arguments were the same.

And because this was an internal email, we got some fun dunks on other teams that probably weren’t meant to see the light of day. 

For SMU, the ACC said that it “should only be rewarded for playing in the ACC FCG—win or lose, they are IN.” 

They noted that “SMU is 9-0 with Kevin Jennings as starting QB,” adding an aggrieved note. “As we know from the CFP Committee, QB play matters.”

While QB play is not part of the committee’s selection process, that is the conference likely still smarting from Florida State’s 2023 snub after Jordan Travis went down. 

In the attached one-pager, it said SMU was a Top Four team at 11-1, one of only four teams with two or more wins and no losses against Top 25 teams. 

It boasted that SMU was ahead of Texas, Penn State, and Georgia based on relevant stats like conference record and wins against .500 teams. 

There was less relevant info to hype up the Mustangs, like its sacks and tackles for losses per game and its 7-0 record in games decided by more than 14 points. 

It also wanted the committee to know SMU had shed its Group of Five past.

“Not a G5 roster,” it proclaims, highlighting the team’s 48 transfers and freshmen. 

SMU wound up an 11 seed and, uh, well…

Should Clemson upset SMU, the ACC was ready to make the case that the Tigers, despite three losses, somehow also deserved a first-round bye. 

“With a win, they deserve to be one of the four highest ranked conference champions.”

Clemson’s “resume is demonstratively better than Arizona State/Iowa State, Boise State/UNLV,” it said, bashing the Big Twelve and Mountain West title game participants.

It cited the Tigers as the only ranked team to “play 2 Top 15 nonconference opponents—more than the other four teams combined,” which gave it a “much higher FPI (#15) and a higher strength of schedule than MW teams.” 

The Tigers’ three defeats, it said, were against teams that went a combined 27-9, making it one of only four teams whose losses were all against teams with at least eight wins. 

As for the tackles for a loss case, we’re not sure why that made the one-pager, as both Mountain West teams ranked higher. 

It also pointed out that both Big 12 teams had losses to non-Top 25 teams, a statement that leans hard on the fact that Louisville, who Clemson lost to, was briefly ranked by the CFP in the first weeks.  

Anyway, they lost all those arguments and the Tigers had to travel to Austin to face the Longhorns. 

We’re excited to find out how they did.  

For the Hurricanes, the conference said that Miami, despite falling to Syracuse that week, should “be ranked as a Top 10 team.”

It may want to get its messaging straight, as its one-pager says Miami is a Top 11 team. 

Semantics aside (although this entire debate is semantics), the ACC flagged that its two losses were no different than those of teams currently ranked higher.

Miami “finished the regular season 10-2 … same as the three current top 10 CFP ranked teams (Ohio State, Georgia, Tennessee).”

The conference went hard on the playoff committee’s own criteria to make a case for the Hurricanes. 

It noted the comparative wins over Florida (just like this year). 

“Miami has dominant win over Florida—margin of victory was more than Tennessee's and Georgia's combined over the Gators.”

The ACC said the Canes’ losses weren’t so bad, though it involved some stretching. 

“Lost AT Georgia Tech who took Georgia to 8 OTs this weekend and the Yellow Jackets have 2 top 10 wins.”

It also laid out the case against SEC teams it was worried would leapfrog it.

“In comparing Miami to Alabama and South Carolina … Miami has MOST wins and FEWEST losses of the teams. Alabama has more losses (3) with 2 of them to unranked opponents (Oklahoma and Vanderbilt). South Carolina has more losses (3) with a home loss to unranked and not receiving votes LSU.”

A FOIAball programming note: Until Lane Kiffin does something worthwhile, we will be calling his new school “unranked and not receiving votes LSU.”

It strenuously argued that the selection committee should play by its own rules. 

The “Selection Committee is required by policy to use Head-to-Head Competition and Comparative Outcome of Common Opponents to distinguish among otherwise comparable teams.”

The Miami one-pager provided a handy graphic to show how Miami performed better than Alabama against USF. 

“Miami won by a larger margin,” the email said, “Scored more points, had more total yards, had more passing yards, made more first downs, and Miami won the road compared to Alabama winning at home.”

But because of Clemson’s victory and both Big 12 teams being ranked prior to their title game, neither Miami nor Alabama made it in. 

Which means we can only hope the ACC makes a better case for the Hurricanes this year. 

Oh, right, we mentioned the argument they made for Duke. 

Alongside the big three, the school also whipped up one-pagers for Syracuse, Louisville, Georgia Tech, and the Blue Devils, which they said should all be ranked in the Top 25

For Duke, it cited its five wins in home games and its spot as one of two teams ranked in the top 25 for sacks and sacks allowed. 

Which didn’t appear to sway the committee.

The enervating thing about running a state-focused FOIA website is that all 50 states have maddeningly different rules. 

But there’s charm in those quirks, especially when they help you do reporting without having to file any requests. 

North Carolina, for instance, makes every request sent to the state public.

So I like to trawl UNC’s portal and see what people want to find out about the drama in Chapel Hill. 

At the top of the list this week was the one causing most of the drama: Jordon Hudson. 

We can’t say for certain how the relationship between Bill Belichick and UNC is right now, but we can’t imagine his girlfriend filling requests for emails from the school’s top athletics communication official is a sign of a healthy marriage. 

In the request, Hudson asks for all messages between UNC’s Senior Associate Athletic Director for External Affairs and Strategic Communications Robbi Pickeral Evans and Draggan Mihailovich, the executive editor of 60 Minutes.

Why 60 Minutes, we aren’t quite sure. The Athletic’s Matt Baker shared some records he got back that show the school was considering a segment. But that didn’t happen.

The interview that went viral for Hudson shutting down questions was with CBS Sunday Morning. 

We will give props to Hudson for covering her bases in that regard. She also asked for all messages from any @cbsnews.com domains.

The request covers a time frame from when Belichick was hired to a few days after the piece showing Hudson intervening aired.  

In the aftermath of the interview, Belichick said his book publisher’s PR team set up the interview, not UNC, and that there were established parameters for what would be discussed.

That was a charge interviewer Tony Doukupil denied, saying that when he agreed to do the interview, nothing was off-limits.

What could Hudson find out? Well, another fun quirk of FOIA is you can just ask for the records someone else got.

So we, this morning, asked to get all records released under her request, when they are released. 

You know we’ll let you know.

Times are so tough right now that offering that acknowledgement feels like blithely papering over reality.

Unless you’re in the economic stratosphere (and if you are, subscribe, my wealthy reader), you know someone who has been laid off. Or you’ve been laid off yourself. You know someone who’s skipped a wedding because money is tight. Who, like you, has seen their spending power diminish and their bank account dwindle. 

FOIAball exists because I was laid off in early May. The first lifestyle change I made, after refusing to cancel a dinner planned for the next day, was to stop eating out. 

For all I love about New York City, trying new restaurants and visiting stalwarts for the first time has been my favorite part of living here. But after losing half our income, it wasn’t worth the expense. 

That sucks to admit, because I understand the realities and struggles of the hospitality industry right now. But dropping $150 on a casual Tuesday dinner, without drinks, was no longer worth it.

What I haven’t been able to cut down on is eating well at home. I still love food. Good food. I have just needed to be more judicious with my spending. But that’s also opening me up to new adventures.

At the start of chilly season, we were craving something slow-cooked and hearty, settling on braised short ribs. 

When I got to the butcher counter, they were nearly as pricey as actual steaks. 

It’s been an annoying trend in the meat market, even if I'm part of the problem. As inflation drives prices up, shoppers search for value. Underappreciated cuts get more attention. Attempting to be frugal instead drives up prices. 

Look no further than oxtail the past few years. 

And short ribs are good, but they are not $22 a pound good, not when they’re mostly bone and a fat rubber band of sinew. 

A row over, though, was a jiggly mound of dense, deep maroon flesh, something I’d only ever eaten at restaurants. Beef cheeks. Sorta ovular, slightly pyramidal, long striations of muscle stacked like a cord of wood. 

And even better, $8.99 a pound. 

I’d never bought them, but knew they could be treated the same way. 

We started by salting and searing them on all sides and threw together an unfussy braising liquid. Some carrot, onion, and celery. A can of tomato puree and some water.

Given the work that goes into chewing cud all day, they do take longer than even the most stubborn braising cuts. I gave myself a full five hours at 300 degrees. They probably could have gone longer.

That’s it. You’ll know they are ready when you can easily tear off a fiber of the meat and it darn near melts in your mouth. 

After pulling out the cheeks, the braising liquid got strained and simmered on the stovetop, reducing down to a thick, glossy, unctuous sauce. 

These cheeks would go great over polenta. Instead, keeping with our frugality, I cooked up some years-old grits we had in the pantry with stock from the freezer.

The one extra ingredient we did buy was fresh parsley. Finely mince it, then zest a ton of lemon on top. Toast up bread crumbs, in this case panko, with a little butter, and add those to the pile.

That’s gremolata, and it’s got all the extra oomph a slow-cooked dish needs. Freshness, bitterness, and crunch.  

Place a nearly collapsing piece of cheek atop a mound of grains. Adorn with spoonfuls of your reduction. Sprinkle over gremolata. 

Then admire how you’ve brought something incredible to life that works within whatever strictures life places on you. Be proud of how you can achieve something even better than normal by being challenged and rolling with it.

It’s a great feeling, especially because these are tastier than short ribs could ever be. 

And because these first few months of FOIAball have been a blast.

Are you all the way down here? I hope you enjoyed all that.

And I hope you thought more about becoming a paid subscriber to FOIAball.

Here’s another chance.

Jordon Hudson via Instagram; Press hat via PNGTree