quote:
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.

I stated previously the difference in the rankings between the selection committee and the AP and Coaches Poll rankings and obviously UCF was different, but the other top teams were the same. The CFPC decided UCF was worthy of a #10 spot in their final rankings prior to their win over Auburn. I can't argue with that assessment based solely on the games UCF played this year.

You seem to keep forgetting that UCF isn't the only team being evaluated here. The rankings have to consider all teams, not just UCF, and then rank them accordingly based on the information available. UCF was competing against several very good teams from P5 conferences to nudge their way in, and their resume just wasn't as compelling to get them in as some other teams who have proven time and time again how talented they are and who have played many games against other talented teams.

quote:
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.

Who were your top 10 teams (prior to the bowl games), then, and what criteria are you using to determine that? Clearly you know more than the supposed experts.

quote:
I don't need to have the perfect solution to call the current system bad.

"Bad" is a relative term. In order to call it "bad", you have to have some idea of what "good" looks like. I'm just asking you for what your idea of "good" is.

quote:
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.

UCF scheduled Georgia Tech and Maryland and they didn't even play their game against Tech. What's the committee supposed to do with that? There are FCS teams that have taken down big programs. UCF can do that if they are good enough.

By the way, the teams in the AAC are almost equivalent to Samford and Mercer in terms of talent, which is part of UCF's problem with their SoS. UCF has a schedule full of Samfords (or slightly better than Samford) and they need to schedule more UGAs, Oklahomas, and Oregons. Beating up on nobodies will get them into a good bowl game so that they can upset Auburn, but if they want a real shot at the national championship, they need to get those games scheduled during the regular season. Just because it's harder for them to succeed than a team in a P5 conference just means they have to work harder. The ceiling is only as high as the talent and level of competition.

quote:
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.

Yeah, we all can agree that UCF can say whatever they want, no matter how baseless their claims are. That's why what matters is what has been agreed upon and that agreement is what binds the NCAA schools together to encourage them to compete against each other. If UCF wants to have an existential crisis and decide to define their own reality, they are free to do so, but they are going to suffer for it if other teams don't want to play by their made-up rules.