(01-04-2018 03:35 PM)RobUCF Wrote:  New to this thread, but your breakdown of the AAC's record gave me a thought. The post you were replying to stated that "The good G5 teams do so often", but also stated that "It's just that the P5 like to schedule body bag home games against the bottom of the G5."

So, in order to measure the influence of the factor of P5 teams playing lower level AAC teams at home, wouldn't it be a good idea to evaluate the win/loss percentage in the regular season that you posted vs. that in bowl games? If the percentages were similar that would eliminate the argument of scheduling lower levels teams at home since a bowl would presumably be at a neutral site and both teams would be bowl eligible.

I think that would be interesting and I think it would give more context.

I didn't put emphasis on the bowl games in my other post because I think post season games are a mixed bag. In this day and age, they are more or less exhibition games.

-You can get a team that's super motivated or you can get a team that doesn't really want to be there.

-The travel schedule is a little out of whack and routine practice is thrown off.

-You never know whether coaches and players were more worried about having fun and doing all the extracurriculars than they were about preparing for a game.

-Coaches are often changing jobs during this time of year. Their focus is often elsewhere. Some teams go to bowl games with interim staffs or incomplete staffs.

-Some players are now skipping bowl games and I think that lends credence to the idea that perhaps for some time now, some guys haven't necessarily played their best in these games. If you're thinking about going to the next level then maybe you think more about not getting hurt. Kind of like why the NFL Pro Bowl is so universally looked down upon as it's clear the players don't really care.

In my opinion, I think bowl games aren't necessarily irrelevant to this discussion, but I don't think they give us the best picture.

(01-04-2018 08:36 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 01:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  You are correct on a couple of points.

I'm usually correct on most things.

Either you count all games won with American conference patches on the uniform (i.e. include Louisville and Rutgers in 2013 but not Navy, ECU, Tulsa or Tulane until they joined)

OR

You count the current 12 teams back to 2013 and don't count Louisville and Rutgers in 2013.

These are logically consistent.

Any other way (i.e. your new formulation) is logically inconsistent and shows bias.

Still beating that horse huh?

Ok, I'll play your game.

Rutgers beat Arkansas in 2013 = Arkansas finished 3-9 that year and last in their division, this was also a home game for Rutgers

Louisville beat Kentucky in 2013 = Kentucky finished 2-10 and last in their division.

Updated stats...

Combined record for the year = 4-11

How in any way did those games affect the analysis or the conclusions? They obviously didn't. The record was still bad and the wins were against really crappy P5 teams. Same difference.

And there's nothing logically inconsistent with leaving them out either. The point, as I have attempted to lay out, was to judge the strength of schedule of the "best G5" league. The core of the AAC is the same today as it was in 2013. I only bothered going back that far because that's when the league began and I figured it would be more fair to give a complete picture of the league's performance over the course of a few years rather than selectively choosing one or two seasons.

With that said, it would also be fair of me to point out that the G5 didn't actually exist in 2013. The American was a BCS league and had automatic access to the same postseason games that the other Power leagues had. Your champion, UCF, went on to the Fiesta Bowl that season.

The only reason I bring it up is because you had and still have remnants of the Big East football conference: Cincinnati and South Florida

For several years, these schools benefitted from a TV contract that was much bigger than the current AAC deal. These schools benefitted from a share of the BCS money every season. Despite that, the quality of these programs didn't increase to any significant degree. The Big East devolved into the American in large part because most of the old BE schools were of higher quality and had the opportunity to move up as the economics of the game were changing.

Admittedly, the Big East TV contract was never particularly huge, but it was miles ahead of the current AAC. Point being, the quality of the AAC contract went down in real time as its membership changed. The schools that brought value to the Big East were almost entirely gone by 2013.

The value of a conference is always greater than the sum total of the parts, but as the parts change the value will change because the value isn't arbitrary.

In other words, there was no conspiracy to keep the little man down. The economics evolved naturally. I say that because the main reason I started commenting on this thread was to dispel the notion that G5 schools were being intentionally deprived of TV money...money that was derived from arbitrarily defined value at that.

Of the old Big East teams that were still around in 2013, Louisville got better clearly, but not because of TV money as that revenue stream in the Big East was never that huge. It was internal improvement and a significant difference from where they were 20-30 years ago. Rutgers got a little bit lucky due to geography, but they also had stellar academics and were a large flagship university.

UC and USF have yet to achieve the same value that the departing members had. Thus, they don't bring significant value to any current Power league. Maybe they will one day, but not right now.

Now...

The only real reason I responded to you in the first place was because I found your response a little stunning. Why? Because I put forth dozens of data points to illustrate my conclusion. You poked holes in a couple of them and thought you had somehow undermined the entire premise. That was more than a little ridiculous.

You can say, if you wish, that my process was illogical or inconsistent even though I gave you very good reasons why I counted the data the way I did. More importantly though, your criticism of it was intellectually dishonest. You may be correct about most things, I don't know, but you weren't about this.

(01-04-2018 08:36 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 01:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  You are correct on a couple of points.

I'm usually correct on most things.

Either you count all games won with American conference patches on the uniform (i.e. include Louisville and Rutgers in 2013 but not Navy, ECU, Tulsa or Tulane until they joined)

OR

You count the current 12 teams back to 2013 and don't count Louisville and Rutgers in 2013.

These are logically consistent.

Any other way (i.e. your new formulation) is logically inconsistent and shows bias.

To me, the fair way to count the "American" in terms of football is from 2014 onwards, and just those schools that were in the conference during the relevant years. 2013 doesn't count because the AAC was still effectively the Big East, it was an AQ conference which makes it fundamentally different from the current AAC. As a football conference, the AAC has just completed its 4th year.

Also, it makes no sense to count say what Navy did in 2014 because Navy wasn't a AAC member then.

JMO of course, but to me the most telling event concerning timeline will be the advent of full membership. Ratings have increased, and the committee has voted both the American champ and runner up in the final CFP rankings since inception. I think the addition of Navy and the champ game will prove to be the catalyst for future rewards. Of course I may be totally off too, but visibility and press have really taken off since then.

(01-05-2018 07:46 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 08:36 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 01:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  You are correct on a couple of points.

I'm usually correct on most things.

Either you count all games won with American conference patches on the uniform (i.e. include Louisville and Rutgers in 2013 but not Navy, ECU, Tulsa or Tulane until they joined)

OR

You count the current 12 teams back to 2013 and don't count Louisville and Rutgers in 2013.

These are logically consistent.

Any other way (i.e. your new formulation) is logically inconsistent and shows bias.

Still beating that horse huh?

Ok, I'll play your game.

Rutgers beat Arkansas in 2013 = Arkansas finished 3-9 that year and last in their division, this was also a home game for Rutgers

Louisville beat Kentucky in 2013 = Kentucky finished 2-10 and last in their division.

Updated stats...

Combined record for the year = 4-11

How in any way did those games affect the analysis or the conclusions? They obviously didn't. The record was still bad and the wins were against really crappy P5 teams. Same difference.

And there's nothing logically inconsistent with leaving them out either. The point, as I have attempted to lay out, was to judge the strength of schedule of the "best G5" league. The core of the AAC is the same today as it was in 2013. I only bothered going back that far because that's when the league began and I figured it would be more fair to give a complete picture of the league's performance over the course of a few years rather than selectively choosing one or two seasons.

With that said, it would also be fair of me to point out that the G5 didn't actually exist in 2013. The American was a BCS league and had automatic access to the same postseason games that the other Power leagues had. Your champion, UCF, went on to the Fiesta Bowl that season.

The only reason I bring it up is because you had and still have remnants of the Big East football conference: Cincinnati and South Florida

For several years, these schools benefitted from a TV contract that was much bigger than the current AAC deal. These schools benefitted from a share of the BCS money every season. Despite that, the quality of these programs didn't increase to any significant degree. The Big East devolved into the American in large part because most of the old BE schools were of higher quality and had the opportunity to move up as the economics of the game were changing.

Admittedly, the Big East TV contract was never particularly huge, but it was miles ahead of the current AAC. Point being, the quality of the AAC contract went down in real time as its membership changed. The schools that brought value to the Big East were almost entirely gone by 2013.

The value of a conference is always greater than the sum total of the parts, but as the parts change the value will change because the value isn't arbitrary.

In other words, there was no conspiracy to keep the little man down. The economics evolved naturally. I say that because the main reason I started commenting on this thread was to dispel the notion that G5 schools were being intentionally deprived of TV money...money that was derived from arbitrarily defined value at that.

Of the old Big East teams that were still around in 2013, Louisville got better clearly, but not because of TV money as that revenue stream in the Big East was never that huge. It was internal improvement and a significant difference from where they were 20-30 years ago. Rutgers got a little bit lucky due to geography, but they also had stellar academics and were a large flagship university.
UL got better because of cheating, hiring hookers, and big time Adias meddling.
UC and USF have yet to achieve the same value that the departing members had. Thus, they don't bring significant value to any current Power league. Maybe they will one day, but not right now.

Now...

The only real reason I responded to you in the first place was because I found your response a little stunning. Why? Because I put forth dozens of data points to illustrate my conclusion. You poked holes in a couple of them and thought you had somehow undermined the entire premise. That was more than a little ridiculous.

You can say, if you wish, that my process was illogical or inconsistent even though I gave you very good reasons why I counted the data the way I did. More importantly though, your criticism of it was intellectually dishonest. You may be correct about most things, I don't know, but you weren't about this.

(01-05-2018 07:46 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 08:36 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 01:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  You are correct on a couple of points.

I'm usually correct on most things.

Either you count all games won with American conference patches on the uniform (i.e. include Louisville and Rutgers in 2013 but not Navy, ECU, Tulsa or Tulane until they joined)

OR

You count the current 12 teams back to 2013 and don't count Louisville and Rutgers in 2013.

These are logically consistent.

Any other way (i.e. your new formulation) is logically inconsistent and shows bias.

Still beating that horse huh?

Ok, I'll play your game.

Rutgers beat Arkansas in 2013 = Arkansas finished 3-9 that year and last in their division, this was also a home game for Rutgers

Louisville beat Kentucky in 2013 = Kentucky finished 2-10 and last in their division.

Updated stats...

Combined record for the year = 4-11

How in any way did those games affect the analysis or the conclusions? They obviously didn't. The record was still bad and the wins were against really crappy P5 teams. Same difference.

And there's nothing logically inconsistent with leaving them out either. The point, as I have attempted to lay out, was to judge the strength of schedule of the "best G5" league. The core of the AAC is the same today as it was in 2013. I only bothered going back that far because that's when the league began and I figured it would be more fair to give a complete picture of the league's performance over the course of a few years rather than selectively choosing one or two seasons.

With that said, it would also be fair of me to point out that the G5 didn't actually exist in 2013. The American was a BCS league and had automatic access to the same postseason games that the other Power leagues had. Your champion, UCF, went on to the Fiesta Bowl that season.

The only reason I bring it up is because you had and still have remnants of the Big East football conference: Cincinnati and South Florida

For several years, these schools benefitted from a TV contract that was much bigger than the current AAC deal. These schools benefitted from a share of the BCS money every season. Despite that, the quality of these programs didn't increase to any significant degree. The Big East devolved into the American in large part because most of the old BE schools were of higher quality and had the opportunity to move up as the economics of the game were changing.

Admittedly, the Big East TV contract was never particularly huge, but it was miles ahead of the current AAC. Point being, the quality of the AAC contract went down in real time as its membership changed. The schools that brought value to the Big East were almost entirely gone by 2013.

The value of a conference is always greater than the sum total of the parts, but as the parts change the value will change because the value isn't arbitrary.

In other words, there was no conspiracy to keep the little man down. The economics evolved naturally. I say that because the main reason I started commenting on this thread was to dispel the notion that G5 schools were being intentionally deprived of TV money...money that was derived from arbitrarily defined value at that.

Of the old Big East teams that were still around in 2013, Louisville got better clearly, but not because of TV money as that revenue stream in the Big East was never that huge. It was internal improvement and a significant difference from where they were 20-30 years ago. Rutgers got a little bit lucky due to geography, but they also had stellar academics and were a large flagship university.

UC and USF have yet to achieve the same value that the departing members had. Thus, they don't bring significant value to any current Power league. Maybe they will one day, but not right now.

Now...

The only real reason I responded to you in the first place was because I found your response a little stunning. Why? Because I put forth dozens of data points to illustrate my conclusion. You poked holes in a couple of them and thought you had somehow undermined the entire premise. That was more than a little ridiculous.

You can say, if you wish, that my process was illogical or inconsistent even though I gave you very good reasons why I counted the data the way I did. More importantly though, your criticism of it was intellectually dishonest. You may be correct about most things, I don't know, but you weren't about this.

Actually, it wasnt that much more. Only about 4 million. lol...we only get 2 million now. The Big East did get a full share of the BCS--but that paid less than the CFP. In truth, when the AAC qualifies for the access bowl and finishes first in G5 performance--it makes about the same money as the BE got from the BCS (about 1 million less--it was the only conference that took an actual pay cut under the CFP distribution).

Frankly, old big east money or old Big East players hasnt much factored into AAC football success. Since 2013--the league has been won by UCF, Temple, Houston, and UCF. The reamining year was a 3-way tie with Memphis/Cinci/UCF. The 3-way tie year is the only year a former Big East member ever could claim an AAC conference championship (co-champs with 2 former CUSA programs).

(01-05-2018 08:36 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 07:46 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Of the old Big East teams that were still around in 2013, Louisville got better clearly, but not because of TV money as that revenue stream in the Big East was never that huge. It was internal improvement and a significant difference from where they were 20-30 years ago. Rutgers got a little bit lucky due to geography, but they also had stellar academics and were a large flagship university.

UC and USF have yet to achieve the same value that the departing members had. Thus, they don't bring significant value to any current Power league. Maybe they will one day, but not right now.

UL got better because of cheating, hiring hookers, and big time Adias meddling.

Cheating is not unique to UL so I don't think that's a fair characterization, but it doesn't matter.

Point is, it wasn't dumb luck or random. Louisville moved up because they brought value to an existing Power league. They made big strides over the course of 20-30 years that many other schools on the same level did not make.

(01-05-2018 09:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Actually, it wasnt that much more. Only about 4 million. lol...we only get 2 million now.

I think we were both a little off actually. I had in the back of my mind that the BE was getting about 7M in the old days while the American was getting about 1M now.

According to this article though:

Big East shopping for new TV deal

The old Big East deal was worth about $3.12M to each full member.

Quote:The Big East's current six-year media rights deal is worth $3.12 million annually for each of the eight full members and $1.5 million annually for each of the eight non-football members. The eight football members split $13 million; the 16 basketball members split $24 million.

In April of 2011, former Big East commissioner John Marinatto recommended the Big East accept a nine-year deal from ESPN worth $1.17 billion, an average of $130 million annually. That deal would have earned full members $13.8 million a year and non-football members $2.43 million a year. However, the league's presidents voted to turn it down.

At that time, that offer was comparable to the ACC's media rights deal (then worth $155 million annually), but the Big East's presidents gambled they could get a better deal by waiting until now.

Looks like the current deal is about 1.8M per school.

The Big East left a lot of money on the table though in 2011.

Big East and ESPN agree to new TV rights deal

Big East signs new TV deal for almost $1 Billion Less

The free market would have given the BE a nice bump, but the leaders at the time didn't see it that way. Several members left to get better value elsewhere after the debacle. ESPN ended up matching a bid from a competitor to arrive at the current total.

(01-05-2018 09:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The Big East did get a full share of the BCS--but that paid less than the CFP. In truth, when the AAC qualifies for the access bowl and finishes first in G5 performance--it makes about the same money as the BE got from the BCS (about 1 million less--it was the only conference that took an actual pay cut under the CFP distribution).

BCS money wasn't as big for anyone though. The CFP is generating a lot more for the Power leagues than the BCS did so the gap wasn't as great as it is now in that regard.

(01-05-2018 09:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Frankly, old big east money or old Big East players hasnt much factored into AAC football success. Since 2013--the league has been won by UCF, Temple, Houston, and UCF. The reamining year was a 3-way tie with Memphis/Cinci/UCF. The 3-way tie year is the only year a former Big East member ever could claim an AAC conference championship (co-champs with 2 former CUSA programs).

I understand. What I was really getting at is that a few of the current American schools were better off for several years under the banner of the Big East. They didn't parlay that into truly better results.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...ew-comment

http://colleyrankings.com/scgi-bin/playgod.cgi

NCAA uses the Colley Matrix for rankings. If Alabama beats Georgia on Monday? The NCAA would put UCF down in history as the National Champions.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/7o..._bowl_2nd/

8.3 Million viewers for the Peach Bowl watching UCF beat Auburn.

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/football/fo...43d73.html

Bobby Bowden believes UCF as co-national champions.

Many newspaper and tv news in the PAC 12 and Big 10 are claiming UCF as true champs. It seems that they are saying this because their schools have been locked out of the playoffs. This could be were the split would be in the AP Polls. UCF could get 1st place votes from writers in areas of the country who are upset that two SEC teams are playing in the title game.

(01-06-2018 01:15 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...ew-comment

http://colleyrankings.com/scgi-bin/playgod.cgi

NCAA uses the Colley Matrix for rankings. If Alabama beats Georgia on Monday? The NCAA would put UCF down in history as the National Champions.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/7o..._bowl_2nd/

8.3 Million viewers for the Peach Bowl watching UCF beat Auburn.

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/football/fo...43d73.html

Bobby Bowden believes UCF as co-national champions.

Many newspaper and tv news in the PAC 12 and Big 10 are claiming UCF as true champs. It seems that they are saying this because their schools have been locked out of the playoffs. This could be were the split would be in the AP Polls. UCF could get 1st place votes from writers in areas of the country who are upset that two SEC teams are playing in the title game.

Good luck with that.

(01-06-2018 01:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 01:15 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...ew-comment

http://colleyrankings.com/scgi-bin/playgod.cgi

NCAA uses the Colley Matrix for rankings. If Alabama beats Georgia on Monday? The NCAA would put UCF down in history as the National Champions.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/7o..._bowl_2nd/

8.3 Million viewers for the Peach Bowl watching UCF beat Auburn.

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/football/fo...43d73.html

Bobby Bowden believes UCF as co-national champions.

Many newspaper and tv news in the PAC 12 and Big 10 are claiming UCF as true champs. It seems that they are saying this because their schools have been locked out of the playoffs. This could be were the split would be in the AP Polls. UCF could get 1st place votes from writers in areas of the country who are upset that two SEC teams are playing in the title game.

Good luck with that.

Getting a lot of talk by local news across the country. I saw an article that Alabama had false claims as national champions in the past.

(01-06-2018 01:28 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 01:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 01:15 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...ew-comment

http://colleyrankings.com/scgi-bin/playgod.cgi

NCAA uses the Colley Matrix for rankings. If Alabama beats Georgia on Monday? The NCAA would put UCF down in history as the National Champions.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/7o..._bowl_2nd/

8.3 Million viewers for the Peach Bowl watching UCF beat Auburn.

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/football/fo...43d73.html

Bobby Bowden believes UCF as co-national champions.

Many newspaper and tv news in the PAC 12 and Big 10 are claiming UCF as true champs. It seems that they are saying this because their schools have been locked out of the playoffs. This could be were the split would be in the AP Polls. UCF could get 1st place votes from writers in areas of the country who are upset that two SEC teams are playing in the title game.

Good luck with that.

Getting a lot of talk by local news across the country. I saw an article that Alabama had false claims as national champions in the past.

David, let's reason this through:

(1) "Split championships" don't happen when sportswriters write about this or that, or when talking heads yakk about this or that. They happen when the two major polls that everyone recognizes disagree. E.g., 1997 was a split champion because the AP voted for Michigan but the Coaches voted Nebraska #1. That's a split championship. It's not when some random people have the opinion that someone else should be champion. E.g., 2010 isn' a split champion, Auburn is the consensus champion, even though some thought unbeaten TCU deserved a title or something too.

(2) Since the CFP title game determines the official champion of the 10 FBS conferences + Notre Dame (that's a signed contract, btw), the only plausible claim to even a quasi-split title would be if the AP were to vote someone other than the CFP title game winner as #1.

(3) That isn't going to happen, and heck, if it did, the team *other* than the title game winner who did get the AP vote would almost certainly NOT be UCF. It would be Ohio State.

If you disagree, consider that in the last AP poll, Alabama was #4, Georgia was #3, and UCF was #10. What has happened since then?

UCF had a close win over #7, 3-loss (now 4-loss) Auburn.

Alabama crushed AP #1 Clemson.

Georgia squeaked by #2 Oklahoma.

Now, on that basis alone, if there was a vote right now, before the CFP title game, it's 100% certain that BOTH Georgia and Alabama would be ranked ahead of UCF by the AP! No chance at all that UCF would be ahead of either of them.

Then, on Monday night, Georgia and Alabama are going to play, and one of those teams that is already ahead of UCF in the AP poll, is going to get a win over either the #3 team (if Alabama wins) or the #4 team (if Georgia wins).

So in total, since the last AP poll, UCF will have beaten #7 Auburn, while (let's just say) Alabama, SIX places ahead of UCF to start, will have beaten #1 Clemson and #3 Georgia.

And you seriously think there is a chance that UCF will get the AP vote?

That a mass of AP voters will say "WOW, I used to think Alabama was a lot better than UCF (#4 to #10), and even though Alabama just beat #1 Clemson and #3 Georgia, UCF just accomplished the unbelievable, mind-boggling achievement of beating #7 Auburn, therefore I am putting UCF #1 on my ballot!"

(01-06-2018 01:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 01:28 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 01:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 01:15 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...ew-comment

http://colleyrankings.com/scgi-bin/playgod.cgi

NCAA uses the Colley Matrix for rankings. If Alabama beats Georgia on Monday? The NCAA would put UCF down in history as the National Champions.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/7o..._bowl_2nd/

8.3 Million viewers for the Peach Bowl watching UCF beat Auburn.

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/football/fo...43d73.html

Bobby Bowden believes UCF as co-national champions.

Many newspaper and tv news in the PAC 12 and Big 10 are claiming UCF as true champs. It seems that they are saying this because their schools have been locked out of the playoffs. This could be were the split would be in the AP Polls. UCF could get 1st place votes from writers in areas of the country who are upset that two SEC teams are playing in the title game.

Good luck with that.

Getting a lot of talk by local news across the country. I saw an article that Alabama had false claims as national champions in the past.

David, let's reason this through:

(1) "Split championships" don't happen when sportswriters write about this or that, or when talking heads yakk about this or that. They happen when the two major polls that everyone recognizes disagree. E.g., 1997 was a split champion because the AP voted for Michigan but the Coaches voted Nebraska #1. That's a split championship. It's not when some random people have the opinion that someone else should be champion. E.g., 2010 isn' a split champion, Auburn is the consensus champion, even though some thought unbeaten TCU deserved a title or something too.

(2) Since the CFP title game determines the official champion of the 10 FBS conferences + Notre Dame (that's a signed contract, btw), the only plausible claim to even a quasi-split title would be if the AP were to vote someone other than the CFP title game winner as #1.

(3) That isn't going to happen, and heck, if it did, the team *other* than the title game winner who did get the AP vote would almost certainly NOT be UCF. It would be Ohio State.

If you disagree, consider that in the last AP poll, Alabama was #4, Georgia was #3, and UCF was #10. What has happened since then?

UCF had a close win over #7, 3-loss (now 4-loss) Auburn.

Alabama crushed AP #1 Clemson.

Georgia squeaked by #2 Oklahoma.

Now, on that basis alone, if there was a vote right now, before the CFP title game, it's 100% certain that BOTH Georgia and Alabama would be ranked ahead of UCF by the AP! No chance at all that UCF would be ahead of either of them.

Then, on Monday night, Georgia and Alabama are going to play, and one of those teams that is already ahead of UCF in the AP poll, is going to get a win over either the #3 team (if Alabama wins) or the #4 team (if Georgia wins).

So in total, since the last AP poll, UCF will have beaten #7 Auburn, while (let's just say) Alabama, SIX places ahead of UCF to start, will have beaten #1 Clemson and #3 Georgia.

And you seriously think there is a chance that UCF will get the AP vote?

That a mass of AP voters will say "WOW, I used to think Alabama was a lot better than UCF (#4 to #10), and even though Alabama just beat #1 Clemson and #3 Georgia, UCF just accomplished the unbelievable, mind-boggling achievement of beating #7 Auburn, therefore I am putting UCF #1 on my ballot!"

Quo:
My favorite part of your post to DavidSt was "David, lets reason"---BawHahahahahahahahahahahaha

(01-06-2018 03:27 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 01:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 01:28 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 01:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 01:15 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...ew-comment

http://colleyrankings.com/scgi-bin/playgod.cgi

NCAA uses the Colley Matrix for rankings. If Alabama beats Georgia on Monday? The NCAA would put UCF down in history as the National Champions.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/7o..._bowl_2nd/

8.3 Million viewers for the Peach Bowl watching UCF beat Auburn.

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/football/fo...43d73.html

Bobby Bowden believes UCF as co-national champions.

Many newspaper and tv news in the PAC 12 and Big 10 are claiming UCF as true champs. It seems that they are saying this because their schools have been locked out of the playoffs. This could be were the split would be in the AP Polls. UCF could get 1st place votes from writers in areas of the country who are upset that two SEC teams are playing in the title game.

Good luck with that.

Getting a lot of talk by local news across the country. I saw an article that Alabama had false claims as national champions in the past.

David, let's reason this through:

(1) "Split championships" don't happen when sportswriters write about this or that, or when talking heads yakk about this or that. They happen when the two major polls that everyone recognizes disagree. E.g., 1997 was a split champion because the AP voted for Michigan but the Coaches voted Nebraska #1. That's a split championship. It's not when some random people have the opinion that someone else should be champion. E.g., 2010 isn' a split champion, Auburn is the consensus champion, even though some thought unbeaten TCU deserved a title or something too.

(2) Since the CFP title game determines the official champion of the 10 FBS conferences + Notre Dame (that's a signed contract, btw), the only plausible claim to even a quasi-split title would be if the AP were to vote someone other than the CFP title game winner as #1.

(3) That isn't going to happen, and heck, if it did, the team *other* than the title game winner who did get the AP vote would almost certainly NOT be UCF. It would be Ohio State.

If you disagree, consider that in the last AP poll, Alabama was #4, Georgia was #3, and UCF was #10. What has happened since then?

UCF had a close win over #7, 3-loss (now 4-loss) Auburn.

Alabama crushed AP #1 Clemson.

Georgia squeaked by #2 Oklahoma.

Now, on that basis alone, if there was a vote right now, before the CFP title game, it's 100% certain that BOTH Georgia and Alabama would be ranked ahead of UCF by the AP! No chance at all that UCF would be ahead of either of them.

Then, on Monday night, Georgia and Alabama are going to play, and one of those teams that is already ahead of UCF in the AP poll, is going to get a win over either the #3 team (if Alabama wins) or the #4 team (if Georgia wins).

So in total, since the last AP poll, UCF will have beaten #7 Auburn, while (let's just say) Alabama, SIX places ahead of UCF to start, will have beaten #1 Clemson and #3 Georgia.

And you seriously think there is a chance that UCF will get the AP vote?

That a mass of AP voters will say "WOW, I used to think Alabama was a lot better than UCF (#4 to #10), and even though Alabama just beat #1 Clemson and #3 Georgia, UCF just accomplished the unbelievable, mind-boggling achievement of beating #7 Auburn, therefore I am putting UCF #1 on my ballot!"

Quo:
My favorite part of your post to DavidSt was "David, lets reason"---BawHahahahahahahahahahahaha

On top of that. Aresco was asked about UCF claiming a national title and he said that while UCF can have fun with that, the national champion will be decided by Monday night's game.

At least Aresco has his head screwed on straight, lol.

That fact that quo has posted so many times so often disputing UCF national championship claims, has made my year and we’re only 6 days into 2018. Lol