Started By
Message
re: SIAP UCF to hang a national championship banner in their stadium
Posted on 1/4/18 at 11:47 am to CapstoneGrad06
Posted on 1/4/18 at 11:47 am to CapstoneGrad06
quote:
The Prince George Journal.
PRINCE GEORGE JOURNAL CHAMPS!
0
Posted on 1/4/18 at 11:48 am to fibonaccisquared
quote:
rhetorical question/statement
Now maybe we can get somewhere...
quote:
What is there to "prove" about that?
Link to what I need to "prove," and be objective when doing so.
Posted on 1/4/18 at 11:57 am to fibonaccisquared
quote:
So... hypothetical scenario is set up: Blueblood drops down in SOS difficulty > goes undefeated > you would want them in the playoffs because they were undefeated > rhetorical question mark
That rhetorical question doesn't cover enough. How about this scenario:
1. You have two teams that beat the same number of teams that finished ranked at the end of the season.
2. Team A went undefeated and won their conference.
3. Team B not only didn't go undefeated, they didn't even win their division.
Oh, throwing a "crystal ball look" at the above scenario, Team A was better than the team that beat Team B.
Which team should make the playoffs?
Posted on 1/4/18 at 12:03 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Now maybe we can get somewhere...
See my ETA... it was a series of hypothetical statements made in order to ask a rhetorical question... you elected to pull *one* statement out and then imply that because it was a sentence it was not *part* of a rhetorical question.
Again... intellectual dishonesty is your middle name, so I guess it's not terribly surprising.
quote:
Link to what I need to "prove," and be objective when doing so.
Was in the previous post... I have neither the time, nor the inclination to go find *your* post that I already quoted for you, and ask you the same question.
If you're scared... say you're scared.
Posted on 1/4/18 at 12:10 pm to fibonaccisquared
quote:
See my ETA... it was a series of hypothetical statements made in order to ask a rhetorical question... you elected to pull *one* statement out and then imply that because it was a sentence it was not *part* of a rhetorical question.
Again... intellectual dishonesty is your middle name, so I guess it's not terribly surprising.
Spin this however you want. It's amazing to me to watch you fall on your face and completely miss the nuances of what's happening, especially considering the way you behaved in that other thread.
No worries. Pseudo-intellectuals are fun.
Posted on 1/4/18 at 12:14 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
I believe UCF is the rightful national champion this year. I don't care what anyone else thinks, I have it marked down in my journal
Posted on 1/4/18 at 12:17 pm to diddlydawg7
Transative national titles are a dime a dozen.
Posted on 1/4/18 at 12:22 pm to Pickle_Weasel
quote:
That rhetorical question doesn't cover enough
That's fair... it wasn't mine to begin with... DisgracedB1G poster just seemed to be struggling to grasp a basic concept... was trying to help him out
quote:
How about this scenario:
1. You have two teams that beat the same number of teams that finished ranked at the end of the season.
2. Team A went undefeated and won their conference.
3. Team B not only didn't go undefeated, they didn't even win their division.
Oh, throwing a "crystal ball look" at the above scenario, Team A was better than the team that beat Team B.
Which team should make the playoffs?
Sure let's take a look at that... slight problem, your "crystal ball look" does not, in any capacity have any bearing, because the information was not available at the time the decision had to be made. You can only make the judgement based on facts in evidence... so looking at bullet points 1-3:
quote:
1. You have two teams that beat the same number of teams that finished ranked at the end of the season.
"finished ranked at the end of the season" is an interesting qualifier... what happens when say a ranked team loses a key player... say a starting QB... late in or after this game occurred... are we to discount the game because they sucked afterwards, or do we rate them based on where they were when the game was played.
At some point, you have to look at the quality of the wins AND losses in a holistic capacity.
quote:
2. Team A went undefeated and won their conference.
Again... caliber of opponent not included here. For example, undefeated and winning the Conference USA title is simply not a meaningful accomplishment when it comes to finding the best 4 teams in the country in and of itself.
Now... if the C-USA managed to have a bunch of ranked teams, or if said conference champion also scheduled say 2-3 P5 teams and beat them similarly to what they did in conference, that might help to build a case.
quote:
3. Team B not only didn't go undefeated, they didn't even win their division.
Again... what was the scenario that led them to miss out on their division title? Was this a 2 loss team for example? One loss? Who were the losses to? Who did they beat?
If you want to talk about not "covering enough", your hypothetical here is more lacking than the original. The original was quite simple...
If say USC decided... frick the Pac12... we're going independent and playing games against the Mountain West, C-USA, and FCS schools to round it out... does their undefeated season get them in the playoffs? We know they have P5 level talent... They just won their conference this year... So if in 2018 when they hypothetically do this, do they get a spot if the P5 conference champions are:
12-1
12-1
12-1
11-2
11-2
Assuming fairly "normal" P5 schedules for all of the above (affix conference to whichever record that you want *except* "your conference" is in one of the 11-2 spots).
Posted on 1/4/18 at 12:24 pm to diddlydawg7
Something I haven't seen mentioned but UCF did not play their full regular season schedule. They canceled a game with Georgia Tech and did not make it up. Shouldn't that be taken into consideration when a team wants to make championship claims?
Posted on 1/4/18 at 12:24 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
miss the nuances of what's happening
Elaborate for me please. My feeble mind is simply incapable of grasping them. Would appreciate you helping me along.
quote:
fall on your face
Gonna have to help me out here as well...
quote:
Pseudo-intellectuals are fun
I tend to think so as well. Some of us are intellectually honest... and then again... some of us are DisgracedBuckeye...
Posted on 1/4/18 at 12:25 pm to fibonaccisquared
quote:
Elaborate for me please. My feeble mind is simply incapable of grasping them. Would appreciate you helping me along.
I'm making fun of you for trying to get me to prove something that I don't need to prove, and incorrectly assessing the post that I replied to in order to do that.
Like I said, though, it is fun. Please continue.
Posted on 1/4/18 at 12:28 pm to GenesChin
quote:
have it marked down in my journal
Thank you Prince Goerge
Posted on 1/4/18 at 12:30 pm to GetmorewithLes
quote:
Need 8 team playoff. All P5 conference winners and 3 at large. Play first round week after conference championship games and then second and final round in format used now.
And UCF still wouldn't have made it.
Posted on 1/4/18 at 12:30 pm to diddlydawg7
They should be co-national champs this year. It's the right thing to do.
Posted on 1/4/18 at 12:43 pm to Rhino5
Who was clamoring to put UCF in the playoffs before they beat an unmotivated Auburn team?
The fact of the matter is that it matters who you play. Going undefeated in the SEC is far more impressive than going undefeated in the AAC, for example.
Let's look at strength of schedule:
1 Auburn (10-4)
2 Oklahoma (12-2)
3 Ohio State (12-2)
4 Clemson (12-2)
5 Penn State (11-2)
6 Alabama (12-1)
7 Georgia (13-1)
8 TX Christian (11-3)
9 Notre Dame (10-3)
10 Iowa (8-5)
...
54 Central FL (13-0)
Source
There's a reason why they weren't a serious contender for the playoffs in spite of their record. If they want to be taken seriously, they should schedule serious OOC opponents. If they scheduled Auburn for the regular season and beat them, they would probably be in the discussion. Winning a meaningless bowl game doesn't mean you're worthy of a National Championship.
The fact of the matter is that it matters who you play. Going undefeated in the SEC is far more impressive than going undefeated in the AAC, for example.
Let's look at strength of schedule:
1 Auburn (10-4)
2 Oklahoma (12-2)
3 Ohio State (12-2)
4 Clemson (12-2)
5 Penn State (11-2)
6 Alabama (12-1)
7 Georgia (13-1)
8 TX Christian (11-3)
9 Notre Dame (10-3)
10 Iowa (8-5)
...
54 Central FL (13-0)
Source
There's a reason why they weren't a serious contender for the playoffs in spite of their record. If they want to be taken seriously, they should schedule serious OOC opponents. If they scheduled Auburn for the regular season and beat them, they would probably be in the discussion. Winning a meaningless bowl game doesn't mean you're worthy of a National Championship.
Posted on 1/4/18 at 12:56 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Who was clamoring to put UCF in the playoffs before they beat an unmotivated Auburn team?
Several people were doing just that.
Posted on 1/4/18 at 1:03 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If they scheduled Auburn for the regular season and beat them, they would probably be in the discussion.
Exactly.
If UCF proponents want to make the argument that the playoff system is tilted in favor of P5 teams, then great. I'm more than happy to support a change in the process that would make it more equitable for non-P5 teams.
But the system we have is the system we have for the time being. If you are a non-P5 team and you want to compete for the playoffs, then do yourself a favor and schedule non-conference games that are going to get the playoff committee's attention. FAU opens next season at Oklahoma...good for them. That's what lots of P5 teams are doing too. With only four playoff spots, even P5 teams are scheduling tough non-conference games knowing that they might need that edge. It's why we're seeing so many marquee early season non-conference games.
But to go outside the system and declare yourselves national champions is asinine. We have a system in place to crown a national champion, and sorry you didn't make it this year.
BTW, if UGA were to beat Alabama, I'd love to hear someone argue with a straight face that UCF has an equal or better claim than UGA to the national title.
UGA:
(current AP #14) Notre Dame (will finish higher)
(#24) Mississippi State (will finish higher)
(#7) Auburn (will drop)
(#2) Oklahoma (will probably finish top 5)
(#4) Alabama (will probably finish top 5)
UCF:
(#19) Memphis (will drop)
(#23) USF (will finish probably a tad higher after close bowl win over a 6-7 Texas Tech team)
(#19) Memphis (see above)
(#7) Auburn (will drop)
So I see potentially anywhere from two to four top 10 wins for UGA. Maaaybe one for UCF, if Auburn doesn't drop too much.
Seeing as UGA's only loss was to a team that they later beat by more than UCF did, it's not even close. Sorry.
It's one thing to argue that UCF should've been in the playoffs. But to argue that they should be national champs is inane.
If Alabama wins, maybe UCF can somewhat make a case. But it's still pretty weak seeing as Bama will have beaten the current #1 and #3 teams to do it. Again, the discrepancy in achievements is too much to ignore.
This post was edited on 1/4/18 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 1/4/18 at 1:04 pm to Damone
quote:
UCF's record and body of work looks better
Record, maybe.
Body of work? Only if you don't know anything about football.
Posted on 1/4/18 at 1:17 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Of course some people were; there thousands of people who write and talk about college football. That's I asked "who", because the consensus was that if Alabama didn't deserve to be in it (due to not playing in their conference championship), Ohio State or a few others from the top 10 did, but UCF was an afterthought at best.
Several people were doing just that.
Clemson, Oklahoma, and Georgia were all the right calls and very few people had complaints about that. The only question mark was Alabama, and there were many notable teams that could have filled that 4th spot. Since the CFPC was looking for the four best teams, they had to look at a lot of factors to determine that. Strength of schedule is one of those factors. UCF didn't measure up there which is why they were listed as 10th by the committee in the final rankings.
This post was edited on 1/4/18 at 1:19 pm
Posted on 1/4/18 at 1:18 pm to fibonaccisquared
quote:
Sure let's take a look at that... slight problem, your "crystal ball look" does not, in any capacity have any bearing, because the information was not available at the time the decision had to be made. You can only make the judgement based on facts in evidence... so looking at bullet points 1-3:
Fair enough. Just wanted to throw out a "in hindsight" out there...
quote:
"finished ranked at the end of the season" is an interesting qualifier... what happens when say a ranked team loses a key player... say a starting QB... late in or after this game occurred... are we to discount the game because they sucked afterwards, or do we rate them based on where they were when the game was played.
Reason I put that out there is a gauge to illustrate quality of teams that they beat. Look at FSU - they were ranked highly at the start of the season when Alabama beat them (#3), but we saw what FSU turned out to be. So, using how the team performed throughout the entire season seemed to be much more subjective of a look.
quote:
At some point, you have to look at the quality of the wins AND losses in a holistic capacity.
Quality of wins - yes. Quality of losses - okay, how are you wanting to use this for your argument? In retrospect, it would go against your argument.
quote:
Again... caliber of opponent not included here. For example, undefeated and winning the Conference USA title is simply not a meaningful accomplishment when it comes to finding the best 4 teams in the country in and of itself.
Now... if the C-USA managed to have a bunch of ranked teams, or if said conference champion also scheduled say 2-3 P5 teams and beat them similarly to what they did in conference, that might help to build a case.
Okay, which SEC teams do you think would have beaten UCF that Alabama beat? This could be a fun discussion with hypotheticals. My guess is LSU or MSU may have be the only ones that would have been able to pull off the win. But I still think UCF would have beaten both of them.
quote:
Again... what was the scenario that led them to miss out on their division title? Was this a 2 loss team for example? One loss? Who were the losses to? Who did they beat?
Oh, they lost to another team in their division that ended up losing in the conference championship game. :)
quote:
If say USC decided... frick the Pac12... we're going independent and playing games against the Mountain West, C-USA, and FCS schools to round it out... does their undefeated season get them in the playoffs? We know they have P5 level talent... They just won their conference this year... So if in 2018 when they hypothetically do this, do they get a spot if the P5 conference champions are:
12-1
12-1
12-1
11-2
11-2
Assuming fairly "normal" P5 schedules for all of the above (affix conference to whichever record that you want *except* "your conference" is in one of the 11-2 spots).
So, you're asking if they get in over P5 conference champions? No, I don't think any independent school should get in. I believe only teams that are part of a conference and actually won their conference should take up the limited spots in the CFP. But if the question is changed to, "Should they get in over a P5 team that didn't win their division, and had the same number of wins over opponents that ended up ranked?" You bet they should.
Page 5 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News