Joe Raedle/Getty Images
The move by the 13-member Select Committee (CFP) to deny the undefeated Florida State University Seminoles the opportunity to play for a national title is now at issue in a civil investigative demand (CID) issued by Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody.
The NFL, with a 13-0 record, was the first undefeated Power Five conference team in 25 seasons to be eliminated from the national championship game or playoffs in favor of a losing team — or, in this case, two teams: Alabama. and Texas, both with season marks of 12-1. Alabama will play in the Rose Bowl against No. 1 Michigan on Jan. 1, with No. 3 Texas playing No. 2 Washington in the Allstate Sugar Bowl on the same day.
Moody announced the CID on Tuesday, saying it wanted to know whether the CFP and its business partners, including ESPN, “engaged in any anticompetitive conduct” that might run afoul of antitrust law. Moody, a former federal prosecutor and circuit court judge, said the decision to exclude FSU “reeks of bias” and is inconsistent with merit-based decision-making. As discussed below, a CFP can challenge a CID on the grounds that it is seeking material protected as trade secrets and other privacy designations.
Modi joins a group of current and former elected officials demanding answers. Former President (and Florida resident) Donald Trump and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis have criticized the CFP as acting unfairly. U.S. Senator Rick Scott (R-Fla.) sent a letter to committee Chairman Beau Corrigan highlighting the resulting $2 million loss in revenue for the FFA and ACC. Scott is also requesting copies of emails, texts, memos and other forms of communication exchanged between members of the selection committee and other influential figures in college football, including SEC officials.
Moody, a graduate of the University of Florida and Stetson University College of Law, is relying on Scott’s request for materials through the CID release. It is a judicially enforceable request by a government agency for evidence and other materials that could lead to a lawsuit or other legal action.
Here, CID concerns potential violations of federal and Florida antitrust laws regarding “possible contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of trade, monopoly, or attempted monopoly… in connection with anticompetitive effects” at a college football game.
To this end, Moody’s is demanding answers by January 11, 2024, in writing and under oath by the CFP, covering a wide range of materials. It includes “all communications” related to the playoff deliberations, the decision, and the formulation of media talking points to explain the decision. Targeted communications include emails, contracts, memos, pencil memos, internal and external memos, charts, calendar entries, financial statements, registrations, receipts, purchase orders, and canceled checks. Moody also wants to know how each committee member voted and what number of votes are in effect during deliberations.
It would be a potential antitrust problem for the CFP, along with its associated conferences, ESPN and other business partners, if they conspired to cooperate to exclude FSU in an anticompetitive manner. It would be especially problematic for the CFP if FSU’s elimination process violated voting rules or violated normal operating procedures for selecting teams.
Moody could assert that Florida consumers were hurt because they lost the opportunity to watch a team from their state beat (arguably) Alabama. It can also assert that FSU, a public university funded in part by taxpayers, was unfairly deprived of money that could have been earned by playing the game.
There will be a number of defences. The CFP could insist that it followed rules that FSU, as an ACC and NCAA member school, contractually agreed to follow. The CFP can also point out that, according to its website, voting intentionally involves subjective attributions, with members being instructed to vote based on factors such as “evaluation of teams’ performance on the field, use of conference championships won, strength of schedule, and upside.” Results of direct confrontations and comparison of results with common competitors to choose between comparable teams. In this context, the injury of NFL star QB Jordan Travis could have been factored into the voter’s decision.
In the near future, the CFP must decide whether and to what degree to cooperate with Moody’s request.
A CFP can challenge the CID on a number of grounds and seek a court order to abolish or at least restrict it. Some of the requested material may be beyond the control of CFP or arguably unrelated to antitrust law. The CFP can also confirm that the scope of materials required is unnecessarily burdensome and will require significantly longer production time.
The CFP can also confirm that information relating to voting, decision-making and discussions with ESPN are trade secrets, because they (potentially) provide a competitive business advantage and are not known or shared with the public. The CFP will want to raise as many objections as possible if the evidence requested could embarrass its members or damage relationships with trading partners.
The recent snub of Florida State University from the College Football Playoff has sparked an investigation by the Florida Attorney General. The controversial decision has raised questions about the selection process and has prompted officials to look into potential bias or unfair treatment. As tensions rise in the college football community, the investigation aims to ensure transparency and accountability in the playoff selection system. The outcome of this investigation could have significant implications for the future of college football and the fairness of its playoff process.