Conf Champs won - Tie - - - both won their conf and both are Power 5. ESPN/Committee have made it clear all attempts to keep non-P5 out will be made.
SOS - ALA edge
Head to Head - FSU edge - - - They did not play each other - So look to the conf H2H and ALA played in a weaker conference based on ACC having a 6-4 record over SEC.
Common Opponent - FSU edge - - - FSU scored more against LSU and LSU scored less on FSU than ALA. Both ALA and FSU won against the common opponent, but FSU had a wider margin of victory 21 vs. 16 for ALA.
Based on these 4 criteria:
FSU: 2 + 1 tie = 3
ALA: 1 + 1 tie = 2
FSU met more "actual qualifiers" than ALA
"members evalution of the performance on the field" is a subjective criteria and not an "actual qualifier" because there is no logic whatsoever. This is the, "we need to make sure to have the largest potential revenue producing game regardless of onfield results for ESPN to make a lot of money". ESPN has a conflict of interest with the SEC, and as we saw the subjective qualifier was the one that made them the most money.
Sorry, but the "subjective" call gets in the way of your logic because based on the "actual qualifiers" the one's numbers can be equated to, FSU won. The QB missing is a big deal but it's subjective. Yes, Ala would be a better game based on that, but they didn't have a higher score based on criteria than FSU. I do appreciate you posting all of that because I would not have looked it up but knew the result.
David never would have beaten Goliath if a committee had been involved because they would have determined based on "members evaluation" that he was too small to go to battle.
Sorry, believing this kind of horse-fed bs from MSM (subjective logic) is why society is f'd up and we have a bunch of blue hair kids running around with nose rings and tats on their faces while championing a weak president.