Started By
Message
re: SIAP UCF to hang a national championship banner in their stadium
Posted on 1/5/18 at 11:17 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 1/5/18 at 11:17 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
So, basically, the undefeated team with the toughest schedule did not.
1 undefeated team... no schedules to compare to... must then compare to the 1 loss teams... try harder bruh...
1
Posted on 1/5/18 at 11:19 am to diddlydawg7
Auburn had to start that trend
Posted on 1/5/18 at 11:55 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:While that may be true (I don't know their internal motivators, only what they've stated as their goal of finding the 4 best teams), the fact that their top 4 teams match the top 4 from both the Coaches Poll and the AP shows that regardless of their motivations, the results were aligned with two other respected and accepted projections.
Come on. They're making judgments based on a paycheck. Some of them are homers, some of them are rational, but most are doing whatever brings in viewers or gets the most clicks.
quote:Would you say it's a more reasonable way of determining the "best" team than the former model?
In most sports, sure, but we're talking about college football. It's no secret that the college football postseason is more about money than finding the "best" team. There's just no reasonable argument that 4/130 is a useful way to determine the "best" team.
I don't think I saw your answer, but if you're against the current playoff format so adamantly (it would appear so, at least), what would you suggest is a "useful way to determine the 'best' team"? I'm asking for specifics, mind you, not just "it needs to be more objective" which most people would agree should be how the best are determined.
quote:I said previously that the NCAA recognizes the championship but I just realized that they don't (and haven't) officially sanctioned official championships, only record the results based on what the conferences have agreed to recognize, as in the BCS era and now the CFP era. The CFP was agreed upon by the Div I conferences and independent teams as way of determining the top 4 teams and the rules were defined and agreed upon by the conferences. I found this (CFP protocol) to be very interesting to read.
The NCAA can point to whatever team they want and proclaim them the "best." That doesn't make them the best team in the country. Therefore, it isn't useful to use the NCAA as the authority in this discussion. The fact that UCF agreed to this system is also useless.
What we have here is all of the Div I conferences agreeing on a singular governing body to select schools to go to the playoffs and to declare an official champion based on the results of those games. If UCF doesn't want to recognize the authority of the CFP committee, they can take it up with their conference. However, if they want to name themselves champions, they are free to do so but they must understand that their title will not be recognized by other Div I schools.
quote:Wrong. It does mean something that Georgia and Alabama are playing for the national championship because the format and rules were agreed upon by the Div I conferences and independents. Compare that to a rogue school not liking the format and rules that their conference agreed to and declaring themselves champions, which won't be recognized by the other teams and conferences.
It doesn't, for the reason I just stated.
quote:Well, feel screwed, yes. UCF wasn't screwed out of anything and neither was Ohio State. "Screwed" in this sense denotes some sort of unfairness where one team was left out in favor of another team that clearly should not have been included. In this case, while there may be several teams that could make the case that they deserved that 4th spot, they can't argue that Alabama wasn't also deserving of consideration. Being screwed would be if Auburn and their 3 losses (at the time) was given that 4th spot over those other teams.
So, basically, just wait until enough teams are screwed..
quote:I don't think the committee got it wrong, though. There has to be a cut off for determining who the best 4 are. Right now, the final results are posted after the championship games (unless the Army vs Navy game would have an impact). That means if any team wants to boost their resume to prove that they deserve a shot, they have to do it before the cut off; they should schedule tougher opponents during the regular season. Should the committee just wait until after the bowl games are finished before making their selections? What is your estimation of a reasonable cut off point?
Right, and that's the entire point.
We can now look at this and say "hey, maybe we were wrong." Past results, analysis, all that good stuff..
quote:I haven't looked at what data they use. If you're going to say it's garbage, though, perhaps you should take a look at it and show that it's garbage. Since you're asking questions about what data it uses, that tells me that you don't know and therefore are making your assessment that it is garbage based on comparing it with the results of other sites. Not a great way to determine the truth of it, if I say so myself.
They probably are data driven. Which data? Who determines what data are important and how much weight they are given?
But like I've said a few times now, if you've got a better SoS source, I'd be more than happy to look at it. Feel free to provide that information if you think that other site is garbage.
quote:Yes, and those things are certainly taken into account. Going undefeated (including the conference championship) in a weak conference doesn't make you a top 4 team by default. There are many factors that need to be considered and that's the job of the selection committee. Clearly they felt that Alabama shredding all of their opponents in a strong conference (except for one team in an away game) was better than winning all games in a weak conference, but even if you disagree, the AP and Coaches Poll also thought the same thing. Do you disagree with their assessments, as well?
So does an undefeated season, or a conference championship...
quote:Clearly you think the committee got it wrong. If so, do you also disagree with what the AP and Coaches Poll thought were the 4 best teams? They just happen to match the committee's selections.
"Four very best teams..."
"Deserve" means whatever the committee needs it to mean to make sure they can justify the four teams they pick during any particular week.
quote:You've done an awful lot of complaining about the current system to not provide any specifics about your own view of the best way to determine the best teams when given the opportunity.
For starters, a clearly defined standard that all teams are aware of before the season starts. If it's just an eye test, followed up with whatever data you need to use to explain away the four teams that you think look like the best, fine. Just say so and stop passing it off as something it's not.
The link I provided earlier in this response has the criteria clearly defined.
quote:There is no ceiling for any team. If more of the top teams lost games, it would have pushed UCF up higher. If UCF played tougher games during the regular season, they would have gone higher in the selection. Maybe UCF will adjust their schedule in the future.
If the ceiling for UCF's season was #12, no matter what they did, just say that and stop pretending that 130 teams have a chance.
quote:Uh yeah. That's the entire point. The CFP has been agreed upon by all DI conferences as having the authority to decide the top 4 teams. UCF has no authority to do that. They can claim to be champions all they want but no other schools have agreed to accept that.
That the only difference between "according to the committee" and UCF is the "authority" they are given.
Posted on 1/5/18 at 11:56 am to skrayper
quote:Yep, that's what it looks like. 3 of the 4 are conference champs, too.
So, basically, the 4 1-loss teams with the toughest schedules got into the playoffs.
Posted on 1/5/18 at 12:04 pm to biggsc
quote:
Auburn had to start that trend
Auburn? Well its nice to be on your mind, but where are banners for championships like this? However, I could probably show you a 1941 championship banner in Tuscaloosa
This post was edited on 1/5/18 at 12:05 pm
Posted on 1/5/18 at 12:34 pm to fibonaccisquared
1 > 0
Posted on 1/5/18 at 12:35 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
1 > 0
Agreed, glad they didn't let any 2 loss teams in the playoff.
Posted on 1/5/18 at 12:42 pm to rockiee
And still couldn't manage to get it right...
Posted on 1/5/18 at 12:44 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
And still couldn't manage to get it right...
Posted on 1/5/18 at 1:08 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
While that may be true (I don't know their internal motivators, only what they've stated as their goal of finding the 4 best teams), the fact that their top 4 teams match the top 4 from both the Coaches Poll and the AP shows that regardless of their motivations, the results were aligned with two other respected and accepted projections.
The Coaches Poll is respected out of tradition more than anything else. No one looks at that and seriously believes these coaches are giving any critical thought to this. They absolutely have their own agendas. I simply go a step further and say the same about the other two.
quote:
Would you say it's a more reasonable way of determining the "best" team than the former model?
Yes. It's an improvement, but there's no reason to pretend that it's a good system.
quote:
I don't think I saw your answer, but if you're against the current playoff format so adamantly (it would appear so, at least), what would you suggest is a "useful way to determine the 'best' team"? I'm asking for specifics, mind you, not just "it needs to be more objective" which most people would agree should be how the best are determined.
Well, first, results on the field need to matter more than subjective opinions. "Alabama looks like they're better than UCF" is not a good excuse. Neither is "this subjective SoS ranking says this about this team, but that about that team." Another positive move would be to identify things that need to be accomplished to make the playoff, and stick to them. Then, even if we do end up with some controversy, we can actually say that everyone knew what they needed to do when the season started. We don't have that now. We have a committee that changes the criteria to fit their four teams.
Standardized scheduling. No more FCS teams. Sorry SEC. Nine game conference schedules. Determine your champion any way you want, but don't bitch if you think your champion might not be the best team in the country. Six teams. All P5 champions, plus the highest ranked G5 champion.
It's not perfect, but it's a start.
quote:
I just realized that they don't (and haven't) officially sanctioned official championships
Correct.
quote:
Wrong.
Nope. I'm correct. You're just shifting how much weight you give to various organizations.
quote:
Well, feel screwed, yes. UCF wasn't screwed out of anything and neither was Ohio State. "Screwed" in this sense denotes some sort of unfairness where one team was left out in favor of another team that clearly should not have been included. In this case, while there may be several teams that could make the case that they deserved that 4th spot, they can't argue that Alabama wasn't also deserving of consideration. Being screwed would be if Auburn and their 3 losses (at the time) was given that 4th spot over those other teams.
I disagree. "Screwed" is one of the four best teams in the country not being placed into a four team playoff. UCF is one of the four best teams in the country, and there's nothing that shows different.
quote:
I don't think the committee got it wrong, though. There has to be a cut off for determining who the best 4 are. Right now, the final results are posted after the championship games (unless the Army vs Navy game would have an impact). That means if any team wants to boost their resume to prove that they deserve a shot, they have to do it before the cut off; they should schedule tougher opponents during the regular season. Should the committee just wait until after the bowl games are finished before making their selections? What is your estimation of a reasonable cut off point?
I do think they got it wrong. So do many others. That this is a discussion suggests that there is plenty of merit to that.
UCF schedules two P5 opponents every year. They've been doing this for years. Do you know how difficult that is for a smaller school like them to make happen? They've done their part. It's time for the rest of college football to meet them on that.
quote:
I haven't looked at what data they use. If you're going to say it's garbage, though, perhaps you should take a look at it and show that it's garbage. Since you're asking questions about what data it uses, that tells me that you don't know and therefore are making your assessment that it is garbage based on comparing it with the results of other sites. Not a great way to determine the truth of it, if I say so myself.
But like I've said a few times now, if you've got a better SoS source, I'd be more than happy to look at it. Feel free to provide that information if you think that other site is garbage.
Unfortunately, I do know. It's circular, much like ESPN's FPI nonsense. They use rankings that primarily benefit other highly ranked teams. "Team A is good because they beat Team B, who is also good because they lost to Team A because they're good, too." It isn't useful.
quote:
Yes, and those things are certainly taken into account. Going undefeated (including the conference championship) in a weak conference doesn't make you a top 4 team by default. There are many factors that need to be considered and that's the job of the selection committee. Clearly they felt that Alabama shredding all of their opponents in a strong conference (except for one team in an away game) was better than winning all games in a weak conference, but even if you disagree, the AP and Coaches Poll also thought the same thing. Do you disagree with their assessments, as well?
No they weren't. The committee said UCF wasn't even a top eleven team. If you look at the results on the field, I'd say it'd be hard to argue that they aren't.
quote:
Clearly you think the committee got it wrong. If so, do you also disagree with what the AP and Coaches Poll thought were the 4 best teams? They just happen to match the committee's selections.
Yes. I don't place any more value on the opinions of writers and coaches than I do on the opinions of committee members or the posters on this site.
quote:
You've done an awful lot of complaining about the current system to not provide any specifics about your own view of the best way to determine the best teams when given the opportunity.
The link I provided earlier in this response has the criteria clearly defined.
I don't need to have the perfect solution to call the current system bad.
quote:
There is no ceiling for any team. If more of the top teams lost games, it would have pushed UCF up higher. If UCF played tougher games during the regular season, they would have gone higher in the selection. Maybe UCF will adjust their schedule in the future.
Sure there is, unless the committee changes their minds next year, which is certainly a possible given their history so far.
Again, UCF scheduled two P5 teams, as they do every other year. Perhaps they need to start getting teams like Samford and Mercer on their schedule instead.
quote:
Uh yeah. That's the entire point. The CFP has been agreed upon by all DI conferences as having the authority to decide the top 4 teams. UCF has no authority to do that. They can claim to be champions all they want but no other schools have agreed to accept that.
Sure they do. No other school needs to accept it, and neither do the posters on this site. I'm glad we can at least agree on that.
As far as validity goes, the CFP doesn't have any more validity to claim national titles than any other organization, agreed upon or not.
Posted on 1/5/18 at 1:23 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Again, UCF scheduled two P5 teams, as they do every other year. Perhaps they need to start getting teams like Samford and Mercer on their schedule instead.
Wow 2... I hope SEC teams can schedule at least two next year. They[UCF] already have teams like Mercer and Samford on their schedule, it makes up the majority of it.
This post was edited on 1/5/18 at 1:24 pm
Posted on 1/5/18 at 1:29 pm to NYCAuburn
Is this where you try to pretend there's a huge difference between beating Arkansas and Cincinnati?
Posted on 1/5/18 at 1:38 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Is this where you try to pretend there's a huge difference between beating Arkansas and Cincinnati?
maybe not this year but Arky>Cincy for most years. Your logic in that statement says UCF schedules 2(wow) P5 teams, but you failed to acknowledge that the P5 teams generally play 9-11+ a year. And then you say they need to schedule the likes of samford and mercer, despite the fact, that the majority of their schedule are those types of teams.
They only played one p5 team in the regular season and also played FIU and Austin Peay.
Which teams on UCF's regular schedule would you say are comparable to MSU, Auburn, LSU, etc...?
This post was edited on 1/5/18 at 1:39 pm
Posted on 1/5/18 at 1:39 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Standardized scheduling. No more FCS teams.
I'll agree with that. You play FBS football, so you should only play FBS teams. MLB teams don't play AAA teams during their season.
I get that it's a nice, cool opportunity for FCS teams to play in big stadiums and whatnot, but they'd just have to deal with it. The FBS teams would have to deal with it too. No more rent-a-wins.
quote:
Determine your champion any way you want, but don't bitch if you think your champion might not be the best team in the country.
Not sure I'm following you here...
quote:
Six teams. All P5 champions, plus the highest ranked G5 champion.
I say go 8 teams. I'm not convinced there is a big enough gap between the #1 and #2 seed and #3-6 to justify giving #1 and #2 a bye (if that's what you're insinuating).
Similar to your idea, P5 champs get auto-bids. Don't know the best way to decide the other 3 spots, but have some sort of qualifier that allows a G5 champ to automatically qualify given they met some sort of criteria (like defeated at least two P5 teams and finished in the Top 12).
My reasoning would be that the #12 minimum ranking would incentivize G5 teams to schedule the toughest P5 teams they can (something that would doubly justify their playoff spot if they win those games).
UCF would've been in this year under that system.
This post was edited on 1/5/18 at 1:45 pm
Posted on 1/5/18 at 1:41 pm to fibonaccisquared
quote:
As I said, I have no preference for Bama to be in, but UCF was not a top 4 team prior to bowl season by any reasonable standard.
Peter Wolfe had them at #1 and his system is with reason.
Posted on 1/5/18 at 1:41 pm to UGATiger26
quote:
get that it's a nice, cool opportunity for FCS teams to play in big stadiums and whatnot, but they'd just have to deal with it. The FBS teams would have to deal with it too. No more rent-a-wins.
The FCS schools only survive because of these games FWIW. Without them, they would have a team. There really should be a preseason or something like that for these games, but would never happen
Posted on 1/5/18 at 1:45 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
maybe not this year but Arky>Cincy for most years.
Cool. I only care about this year.
quote:
Your logic in that statement says UCF schedules 2(wow) P5 teams, but you failed to acknowledge that the P5 teams generally play 9-11+ a year. And then you say they need to schedule the likes of samford and mercer, despite the fact, that the majority of their schedule are those types of teams.
What I'm really getting at is that there isn't a big enough gap between Alabama's schedule and UCF's schedule to outright dismiss UCF. Considering that, as well as an undefeated record and the championships they won on the field, it's an embarrassment for the committee to have them ranked where they were.
quote:
Which teams on UCF's regular schedule would you say are comparable to MSU, Auburn, LSU, etc...?
Memphis and South Florida are comparable wins to Mississippi State and LSU. Also,
at bringing up Auburn.
Posted on 1/5/18 at 1:50 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
DisplacedBuckeye
Where did you stand last year on the ability of the committee to pick the best 4 teams?
Posted on 1/5/18 at 1:51 pm to UGATiger26
quote:
I'll agree with that. You play FBS football, so you should only play FBS teams. MLB teams don't play AAA teams during their season.
I get that it's a nice, cool opportunity for FCS teams to play in big stadiums and whatnot, but they'd just have to deal with it. The FBS teams would have to deal with it too. No more rent-a-wins.
Yep. If an FCS program is only staying afloat by letting their kids get beat down by Alabama, run the program better or shut it down.
quote:
Not sure I'm following you here...
There's no reason to complain that Alabama might be the best team in the SEC, and should therefore make the playoff, if they weren't good enough to name them your champion. No more back doors into the playoff.
quote:
I say go 8 teams. I'm not convinced there is a big enough gap between the #1 and #2 seed and #3-6 to justify giving #1 and #2 a bye (if that's what you're insinuating).
The gap was big enough to hold all but two teams out of a shot at the championship game for years. Plus, it gives teams a reason not to rest their players in The Game or the iron bowl.
I just think eight teams is too many most years, but I wouldn't oppose it strongly enough to argue against it.
Posted on 1/5/18 at 1:52 pm to ArabianKnight
quote:
Where did you stand last year on the ability of the committee to pick the best 4 teams?
They got it wrong.
Page 9 of 11
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News