Started By
Message
re: SIAP UCF to hang a national championship banner in their stadium
Posted on 1/4/18 at 1:24 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 1/4/18 at 1:24 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Of course some people were; there thousands of people who write and talk about college football.
I'm not talking about them. Several on this site alone were doing it.
quote:
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.
Those were arguments that were being made under the system that we have.
UCF had a comparable SoS to Alabama, or at least comparable enough that their undefeated record and championships won on the field should have been considered. They were ranked low to keep them low.
1
Posted on 1/4/18 at 1:24 pm to Pickle_Weasel
They should get at least a share of it. They beat everyone on their schedule including Auburn. That is all a team can do, they shouldn't be punished for a ridiculous system that gave a sponsor exemption with only 4 available spots.
Posted on 1/4/18 at 1:27 pm to Pdubntrub
quote:
They should get at least a share of it. They beat everyone on their schedule including Auburn. That is all a team can do, they shouldn't be punished for a ridiculous system that gave a sponsor exemption with only 4 available spots.
bullshite.
Auburn did the same thing in 2004, and they played a much tougher schedule than UCF did. Sure, they bitched about being left out of the BCS title game, but I didn't hear them bitching about how they should be 2004 co-champs.
This post was edited on 1/4/18 at 1:30 pm
Posted on 1/4/18 at 1:28 pm to UGATiger26
quote:
Auburn did the same thing in 2004, and they played a much tougher schedule than UCF did. Sure, they bitched about being left out of the BCS title game, but I don't hear them bitching about how they should be 2004 co-champs.
You're right. We claimed the entire damn thing.
Posted on 1/4/18 at 1:29 pm to HailToTheChiz
quote:
You're right. We claimed the entire damn thing.
Fair and true enough...eventually. Due to those cheaters in Los Angeles. I had forgotten about that This post was edited on 1/4/18 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 1/4/18 at 1:32 pm to FooManChoo
What was the strength of schedule at the end of the regular season?
Posted on 1/4/18 at 1:38 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:OK.. there are a lot of football illiterates on this site. Like I said, there are thousands of people who write about or talk about college football and UCF wasn't a serious contender.
I'm not talking about them. Several on this site alone were doing it.
quote:Uh yeah, it's because it's the system that we have. Based on the final CFP rankings, UCF wouldn't have been invited to an 8-team playoff.
Those were arguments that were being made under the system that we have.
quote:Let's go back to the SoS as they existed on Dec. 3rd, when the selection committee listed their final rankings. At that time, UCF had played their championship game and their SoS was #66. Alabama was #10 and if you go to the link, you can see the other potential playoff contenders up there in the top 10. Ohio State was #2, which is why so many of them were pissed that they were passed over for Alabama.
UCF had a comparable SoS to Alabama, or at least comparable enough that their undefeated record and championships won on the field should have been considered. They were ranked low to keep them low.
The point is that UCF had a weak schedule and got passed over because of it. It happened in the BCS era and it will always happen until you let all Div I schools compete in a season-long tournament every year.
ETA: In case you're wondering, I'm only shunning you on the PT board
This post was edited on 1/4/18 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 1/4/18 at 1:41 pm to Pickle_Weasel
quote:Whose? UCF? On that same site, going back to Nov. 29th (a few days before the conference championship game) UCF was ranked 67th.
What was the strength of schedule at the end of the regular season?
ETA:
Here's the list going down to UCF on Nov. 29th:
1 Auburn (10-2)
2 Penn State (10-2)
3 Ohio State (10-2)
4 Oklahoma (11-1)
5 Florida St (5-6)
6 Clemson (11-1)
7 Alabama (11-1)
8 Notre Dame (9-3)
9 Iowa (7-5)
10 TX Christian (10-2)
11 Georgia (11-1)
12 Oklahoma St (9-3)
13 Michigan (8-4)
14 Texas (6-6)
15 Wake Forest (7-5)
16 Stanford (9-3)
17 Michigan St (9-3)
18 Iowa State (7-5)
19 NC State (8-4)
20 Boston Col (7-5)
21 Miss State (8-4)
22 USC (10-2)
23 GA Tech (5-6)
24 Louisville (8-4)
25 UCLA (6-6)
26 W Virginia (7-5)
27 Texas Tech (6-6)
28 Miami (FL) (10-1)
29 Purdue (6-6)
30 Northwestern (9-3)
31 VA Tech (9-3)
32 Maryland (4-8)
33 Wash State (9-3)
34 LSU (9-3)
35 Kansas St (7-5)
36 Arizona St (7-5)
37 Nebraska (4-8)
38 Duke (6-6)
39 Syracuse (4-8)
40 Utah (6-6)
41 Washington (10-2)
42 Indiana (5-7)
43 Pittsburgh (5-7)
44 Oregon (7-5)
45 Wisconsin (12-0)
46 California (5-7)
47 Texas A&M (7-5)
48 Florida (4-7)
49 N Carolina (3-9)
50 Virginia (6-6)
51 Baylor (1-11)
52 Arkansas (4-8)
53 Arizona (7-5)
54 S Carolina (8-4)
55 Navy (6-5)
56 Minnesota (5-7)
57 Colorado (5-7)
58 Missouri (7-5)
59 Rutgers (4-8)
60 Mississippi (6-6)
61 Kentucky (7-5)
62 Oregon St (1-11)
63 Tennessee (4-8)
64 Vanderbilt (5-7)
65 Boise State (9-3)
66 Houston (7-4)
67 Central FL (11-0)
This post was edited on 1/4/18 at 1:44 pm
Posted on 1/4/18 at 1:44 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
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.
What did I incorrectly assess? I went to the post of yours that I replied to, and used the direct link to jump to the post that you commented on... if there was more to it, or I missed some context in the thread, I gave you the opportunity to clear it up.
One of us continues to make themselves look like a jackass... the other is me.
You asked me to "prove" a comment that I didn't even make... You made a claim, I asked you to provide some kind of factual basis for how it was true... For something like 5 posts or so now... you've failed to come remotely close. You don't *have* to prove anything... you can simply ignore my comments and we can all assume that you have no ability to back up the claim.
Posted on 1/4/18 at 1:50 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
OK.. there are a lot of football illiterates on this site.
No argument there.
quote:
Like I said, there are thousands of people who write about or talk about college football and UCF wasn't a serious contender.
A lack of attention in the media isn't really all that important, and besides, there were several media outlets making that point anyway.
quote:
Uh yeah, it's because it's the system that we have. Based on the final CFP rankings, UCF wouldn't have been invited to an 8-team playoff.
Right...that's kind of the point.
quote:
Let's go back to the SoS as they existed on Dec. 3rd, when the selection committee listed their final rankings. At that time, UCF had played their championship game and their SoS was #66. Alabama was #10 and if you go to the link, you can see the other potential playoff contenders up there in the top 10. Ohio State was #2, which is why so many of them were pissed that they were passed over for Alabama.
The point is that UCF had a weak schedule and got passed over because of it. It happened in the BCS era and it will always happen until you let all Div I schools compete in a season-long tournament every year.
That source is complete garbage. I'm not sure why people keep bringing it up. Actually I am. It's the first result when you Google it, isn't it?
More reputable sources had them within 15-20 spots of each other. So, sure, Alabama had a stronger SoS. Should that small difference have been enough to put Alabama in ahead of UCF? Maybe, but it shouldn't have been enough to have them eight spots higher considering UCF's undefeated record and championships won on the field.
Posted on 1/4/18 at 1:51 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
ETA: In case you're wondering, I'm only shunning you on the PT board
I know you've seen me say that I don't care about that several times. I've seen the downvotes.
The ultimate point here is that the committee sucks. Do we at least agree on that?
Posted on 1/4/18 at 1:53 pm to diddlydawg7
Folks, you gotta remember...it's the home of Disney World!
Posted on 1/4/18 at 1:54 pm to fibonaccisquared
quote:
What did I incorrectly assess?
What was happening during that entire exchange.
quote:
You asked me to "prove" a comment that I didn't even make
When was this? I don't remember asking you to prove anything.
Foo, get this dude under control.
Posted on 1/4/18 at 1:54 pm to UGATiger26
Bull shite.
Auburn did the same thing in 2004, and they played a much tougher schedule than UCF did. Sure, they bitched about being left out of the BCS title game, but I didn't hear them bitching about how they should be 2004 co-champs.
---------------------------------------
Oh you mean the year Auburn claimed the national championship. UCF has a claim and that's part of CFB until we get a merit based system. This isn't ice skating and recruiting rankings shouldn't matter when deciding championships.
Auburn did the same thing in 2004, and they played a much tougher schedule than UCF did. Sure, they bitched about being left out of the BCS title game, but I didn't hear them bitching about how they should be 2004 co-champs.
---------------------------------------
Oh you mean the year Auburn claimed the national championship. UCF has a claim and that's part of CFB until we get a merit based system. This isn't ice skating and recruiting rankings shouldn't matter when deciding championships.
Posted on 1/4/18 at 2:01 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
What was happening during that entire exchange.
Generic response... please try again. Specifically, what was incorrectly assessed, and how was it incorrect. It's like I'm speaking to a fricking child.
quote:
When was this? I don't remember asking you to prove anything.
LINK
NB4 "I didn't say *you* had to prove it"...
Posted on 1/4/18 at 2:03 pm to fibonaccisquared
quote:
please try again
Pass. I have zero desire to explain this to you.
quote:
I responded to someone else's claims. Once those are proven, we can dig into anything else.
Any other questions?
Thanks. You'll notice that I never once asked anyone to prove anything, let alone "you."
Let me know what's confusing, and I might explain it. We'll see.
Posted on 1/4/18 at 2:04 pm to Pdubntrub
quote:
Oh you mean the year Auburn claimed the national championship.
Not really. I mean USC did have to vacate their title, but everyone recognized (and pretty much still does recognize) them as national champions that year. Auburn's own football website doesn't even care about claiming it.
LINK
quote:
This isn't ice skating and recruiting rankings shouldn't matter when deciding championships.
Recruiting rankings? What?
Posted on 1/4/18 at 2:08 pm to UGATiger26
Do you honestly not see how recruiting rankings play a part. If so I will see myself out
Posted on 1/4/18 at 2:13 pm to Pdubntrub
quote:
Do you honestly not see how recruiting rankings play a part. If so I will see myself out
UCF didn't make the cut this year. Just like...
Auburn in 2004
Boise State in 2006
Utah in 2008
Boise State in 2009
TCU in 2010
I don't see any national championship banners in their stadiums.
So go cry me a river for UCF.
This post was edited on 1/4/18 at 2:15 pm
Posted on 1/4/18 at 2:17 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:I think a lack of attention in the media is important. National media purportedly hires those who know a thing or two about football and if the vast majority of them didn't have a problem with UCF being left out of the final rankings, I think that says something.
A lack of attention in the media isn't really all that important, and besides, there were several media outlets making that point anyway.
quote:The system we have is the system we have. Just because UCF thinks they are national champions doesn't mean much. If they are unhappy with the current system, they can lobby to get it changed like Ohio State probably will if they haven't already.
Right...that's kind of the point
The reasonable suggestions have been to expand the playoffs to 6 or 8 teams and if nothing else changed regarding the playoff committee, UCF would have been left out. Even if we went by the AP or Coaches Poll instead of the playoff committee, UCF wouldn't break into an 8-team playoff this year.
It still boils down to comparing an undefeated team in a weak conference to one- and two-loss teams in stronger conferences. Beating up on nobodies doesn't prove much.
quote:Depending on what you search, it is the first result. Care to explain why it's complete garbage?
That source is complete garbage. I'm not sure why people keep bringing it up. Actually I am. It's the first result when you Google it, isn't it?
quote:Great for them. When we're talking about one open spot in the playoffs, 15-20 places between SoS isn't trivial.
More reputable sources had them within 15-20 spots of each other. So, sure, Alabama had a stronger SoS.
Feel free to link to your preferred SoS sources and I'll use those going forward. The point will stand regardless: UCF didn't deserve a spot in the playoffs over Alabama, Ohio State, or several other possible teams.
quote:15-20 places on the SoS is not a small difference when you're talking about a single open spot in the playoffs. If you want to talk about the difference between Alabama and Ohio State, then sure, go ahead, but the facts speak for themselves when comparing programs like Alabama, Ohio State, and Wisconsin to teams like UCF in terms of their SoS.
Should that small difference have been enough to put Alabama in ahead of UCF? Maybe, but it shouldn't have been enough to have them eight spots higher considering UCF's undefeated record and championships won on the field.
By UCF declaring themselves national champions, they aren't just saying they are better (and more deserving of a CFP spot) than Alabama, but all 9 teams between them and the #1 spot according to the playoff committee, the AP, and the Coaches Poll. Regardless of what you think about the playoff selection committee, there's a reason why they were ranked 10th after their conference championship.
Page 6 of 11
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News