(01-01-2018 06:12 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 05:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 05:07 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 05:04 PM)Halfcourt Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 04:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It was a great season by a great team.

That’s all you can say.

Not really. You can say they deserved a shot at the NC. If you disagree, you must be one of those scared little b----es.

I have no problem saying I don’t think they deserved a shot.

Playing in the AAC just isn’t impressive or difficult enough.

That said, congrats to UCF for a fantastic season.

Which is why there should be a lawsuit. The criteria espoused by the selection committee essentially eliminates the G5 before a single game is played. This is a fundamental departure from their fiduciary duty to treat all teams and conferences equally and to determine the BEST 4 teams in an unbiased manner. Their job is not to determine the best 4 schedules. Their duty is to determine the best 4 teams without bias. Instead, not only has the committee brought P5 bias to the selection room by leaving the G5 with virtually no representation, the committee has essentially codified their own bias by making SOS the be all end all of the selection committee process (then they were stupid enough to say so publically time and time again).

Its actually a pretty easy case to win. All you need to do is show that a G5 cannot possibly ever have a top 50 schedule (which you cannot if you play an 8 game G5 conference schedule) and play the tapes of the committee explaining their own process.

I dont think you can lose. The G5 wont do it because they would endanger what little access they by creatiing the environment that might cause a split--but the G5 would win that case with ease.

Plus, it could cause a lot of stink that lawmakers could go after the NCAA and the P5 for anti-trust. I would like someone in a higher above position to knock these greedy P5 officials on their knees where all G5 will now be known as P10. Look at the PAC 12 and Big 10? They both got locked out of the playoffs this year as well. Look what the the committee is bias too? They favored SEC schools over other conferences. Look at what UCF did to their second placed team?

The issue with getting states involved is that they would be playing both sides. Utah was unique when they went after the BCS, because they didn’t have a school in a BCS conference. Florida has UF and FSU. Texas has UT, TAMU, and Tech. Ohio has OSU. So, the states with the best option would probably be Idaho and Connecticut.

(For the above, I left out the private schools.)

Who was the player with no hand? Was it CGI ala Ltn. Dan in Gump?

(01-01-2018 06:17 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 06:10 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 05:20 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 05:07 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 05:04 PM)Halfcourt Wrote:  Not really. You can say they deserved a shot at the NC. If you disagree, you must be one of those scared little b----es.

I have no problem saying I don’t think they deserved a shot.

Playing in the AAC just isn’t impressive or difficult enough.

That said, congrats to UCF for a fantastic season.

Agree with you. Great season by UCF, but they were not one of the top 4 teams in the country. They need to schedule better then Maryland and Georgia Tech (I know it was cancelled) in OOC games. And, before anyone says the Big P5 schools wont schedule home and homes, then you may have to play a 1 and done. It may not be fair, but it’s what needs to happen if you want to be taken seriously.

Here’s the problem with that. Not many schools answer our calls, why? It’s no good if they lose to us and it’s doesnt help them if they win either. Not only that, but schedules are made years in advance how do we know who’s going to be good and who isn’t.

Understand. But, what I read a lot from G5 schools, especially on the AAC board, is that they think they’ve “earned” home and homes with big P5 teams,and they haven’t. Heck, even smaller P5 schools can’t get those games.

There has to be creativity when creating schedules for G5 schools. TCU did it in 2010 when they took a 1 and done with Clemson.

How does one “earn” a home and home? Who determines when somebody has “earned” it?

(01-01-2018 06:34 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 06:17 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 06:10 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 05:20 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 05:07 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I have no problem saying I don’t think they deserved a shot.

Playing in the AAC just isn’t impressive or difficult enough.

That said, congrats to UCF for a fantastic season.

Agree with you. Great season by UCF, but they were not one of the top 4 teams in the country. They need to schedule better then Maryland and Georgia Tech (I know it was cancelled) in OOC games. And, before anyone says the Big P5 schools wont schedule home and homes, then you may have to play a 1 and done. It may not be fair, but it’s what needs to happen if you want to be taken seriously.

Here’s the problem with that. Not many schools answer our calls, why? It’s no good if they lose to us and it’s doesnt help them if they win either. Not only that, but schedules are made years in advance how do we know who’s going to be good and who isn’t.

Understand. But, what I read a lot from G5 schools, especially on the AAC board, is that they think they’ve “earned” home and homes with big P5 teams,and they haven’t. Heck, even smaller P5 schools can’t get those games.

There has to be creativity when creating schedules for G5 schools. TCU did it in 2010 when they took a 1 and done with Clemson.

How does one “earn” a home and home? Who determines when somebody has “earned” it?

No clue. Ask G5 fans.

(01-01-2018 06:23 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Who was the player with no hand? Was it CGI ala Ltn. Dan in Gump?

Shaquem Griffin. He's the twin brother of Seahawks stud rookie CB Shaquille Griffin. The way he plays I could definitely see him playing on Sundays as well.

UCF should make sure to claim the NC. No one beat them this year, and they beat several ranked teams including the runner up of the SEC that knocked off not one but two undefeated #1 ranked teams, the same ones that are in the playoffs. Hopefully some of the AP writers have the spine to recognize it as well with their votes.

The same debate has risen once again based on a G5 winning a big bowl.

BTW, I am glad to see UCF come out with a victory and look fairly good while doing it.

And, no, they are not deserving of a title shot.

For those that say the G5 can't schedule stronger, that is obviously not true because Houston just did and, unfortunately, the wheels fell off. Schedule 3 good to very good teams OOC and beat them. Then if you're left out, you have a real gripe.

Don't schedule Illinois and Rutgers and wonder why no one considers you having a competitive schedule.

It's also not a guessing game. Everyone knows who the good and very good P5 teams are "on average" (Alabama, Ohio State, etc) each season. And we know the scrub P5 teams "on average" (Illinois). Yeah, they might have the occasional anomaly season, but it's fair to say they always return to form (good or bad).

Boise always seemed to get these games (and win). And they still continue to get these games, so the argument that good P5 "won't" schedule is not true. Now, if you just have to have a 1 for 1 series, then the G5 is just limiting their opportunities themselves.

(01-01-2018 06:37 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 06:34 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 06:17 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 06:10 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  [quote='leofrog' pid='14948320' dateline='1514845225']
Agree with you. Great season by UCF, but they were not one of the top 4 teams in the country. They need to schedule better then Maryland and Georgia Tech (I know it was cancelled) in OOC games. And, before anyone says the Big P5 schools wont schedule home and homes, then you may have to play a 1 and done. It may not be fair, but it’s what needs to happen if you want to be taken seriously.

Here’s the problem with that. Not many schools answer our calls, why? It’s no good if they lose to us and it’s doesnt help them if they win either. Not only that, but schedules are made years in advance how do we know who’s going to be good and who isn’t.

Understand. But, what I read a lot from G5 schools, especially on the AAC board, is that they think they’ve “earned” home and homes with big P5 teams,and they haven’t. Heck, even smaller P5 schools can’t get those games.

There has to be creativity when creating schedules for G5 schools. TCU did it in 2010 when they took a 1 and done with Clemson.

How does one “earn” a home and home? Who determines when somebody has “earned” it?

No clue. Ask G5 fans.
[/quote

No- you were the one who brought up the point about “earning” it. Explain what this means? Who is the arbiter who decides and how do they reach that conclusion?

(01-01-2018 06:54 PM)wleakr Wrote:  The same debate has risen once again based on a G5 winning a big bowl.

BTW, I am glad to see UCF come out with a victory and look fairly good while doing it.

And, no, they are not deserving of a title shot.

For those that say the G5 can't schedule stronger, that is obviously not true because Houston just did and, unfortunately, the wheels fell off. Schedule 3 good to very good teams OOC and beat them. Then if you're left out, you have a real gripe.

Don't schedule Illinois and Rutgers and wonder why no one considers you having a competitive schedule.

It's also not a guessing game. Everyone knows who the good and very good P5 teams are "on average" (Alabama, Ohio State, etc) each season. And we know the scrub P5 teams "on average" (Illinois). Yeah, they might have the occasional anomaly season, but it's fair to say they always return to form (good or bad).

Boise always seemed to get these games (and win). And they still continue to get these games, so the argument that good P5 "won't" schedule is not true. Now, if you just have to have a 1 for 1 series, then the G5 is just limiting their opportunities themselves.

Houston and at times in the past Boise, got help from the networks in scheduling last year. That Oklahoma game last year was a one off at a neutral site made by TV, with an assist from the NFL. ESPN knew that game would be a ratings hit in Houston (and across TX)

(01-01-2018 06:08 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 05:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 05:27 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 05:20 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 05:07 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I have no problem saying I don’t think they deserved a shot.

Playing in the AAC just isn’t impressive or difficult enough.

That said, congrats to UCF for a fantastic season.

Agree with you. Great season by UCF, but they were not one of the top 4 teams in the country. They need to schedule better then Maryland and Georgia Tech (I know it was cancelled) in OOC games. And, before anyone says the Big P5 schools wont schedule home and homes, then you may have to play a 1 and done. It may not be fair, but it’s what needs to happen if you want to be taken seriously.

We'll never know.

Actually, we do because they aren’t in the playoff.

(01-01-2018 05:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 05:07 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 05:04 PM)Halfcourt Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 04:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It was a great season by a great team.

That’s all you can say.

Not really. You can say they deserved a shot at the NC. If you disagree, you must be one of those scared little b----es.

I have no problem saying I don’t think they deserved a shot.

Playing in the AAC just isn’t impressive or difficult enough.

That said, congrats to UCF for a fantastic season.

Which is why there should be a lawsuit. The criteria espoused by the selection committee essentially eliminates the G5 before a single game is played. This is a fundamental departure from their fiduciary duty to treat all teams and conferences equally and to determine the BEST 4 teams in an unbiased manner. Their job is not to determine the best 4 schedules. Their duty is to determine the best 4 teams without bias. Instead, not only has the committee brought P5 bias to the selection room by leaving the G5 with virtually no representation, the committee has essentially codified their own bias by making SOS the be all end all of the selection committee process (then they were stupid enough to say so publically time and time again).

Its actually a pretty easy case to win. All you need to do is show that a G5 cannot possibly ever have a top 50 schedule (which you cannot if you play an 8 game G5 conference schedule) and play the tapes of the committee explaining their own process.

I dont think you can lose. The G5 wont do it because they would endanger what little access they by creatiing the environment that might cause a split--but the G5 would win that case with ease.

Doubt it. The issue is that the G5 conferences agreed to the setup, the committee makeup, and the criteria for selection. So, you can’t say “yes, we helped setup the rules, but now we don’t like them!”

Also, how can you not use metrics as SOS in choosing the best 4 teams? Because there are only 12-13 data points to use for 120+ teams, you can’t go by record alone. It’s basically the same selection process they use for the NCAA basketball tournament. There has to be some subjectivity when it comes to this.

I think it would have been interesting if Houston had ran the table last year. They certainly would have finished with a better resume than UCF this year.

Any system fails if its run corruptly. The CFP system isnt really flawed. Its the way its being run that is flawed. For instance, we all agree that a popular election is a reasonable way to elect a leader. We would also agree that a popular election in N Korea isnt the same as a popular election in the US.

The CFP system is ok. Its being corruptly run. Look, make the selection committee 10 members with each conference appointing one member. That single simple reasonable move would make the CFP system fair and equitable. I doubt the G5 would be eliminated before the season starts. I suspect that committee would manage to fine some way to compare the top G5's and the top P5's and fairly balance the issues of schedules and win/loss records. If you have an election governed entirely by only one party, dont be surprised if you end up with a North Korean election. Right now, the CFP is a North Korean election.

13-0 deserves no less than #5 and arguably #3 or #4 this year. There was a time when teams turned down Bowls. Didn’t have to prove anything to anybody else.
Unfortunately, the G5 Conference Commissioners legally negotiated the G5 teams rights away. They probably had little choice. 13-0 is incredible and UCF should be proud!

(01-01-2018 07:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 06:08 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 05:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 05:27 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 05:20 PM)leofrog Wrote:  Agree with you. Great season by UCF, but they were not one of the top 4 teams in the country. They need to schedule better then Maryland and Georgia Tech (I know it was cancelled) in OOC games. And, before anyone says the Big P5 schools wont schedule home and homes, then you may have to play a 1 and done. It may not be fair, but it’s what needs to happen if you want to be taken seriously.

We'll never know.

Actually, we do because they aren’t in the playoff.

(01-01-2018 05:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 05:07 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 05:04 PM)Halfcourt Wrote:  Not really. You can say they deserved a shot at the NC. If you disagree, you must be one of those scared little b----es.

I have no problem saying I don’t think they deserved a shot.

Playing in the AAC just isn’t impressive or difficult enough.

That said, congrats to UCF for a fantastic season.

Which is why there should be a lawsuit. The criteria espoused by the selection committee essentially eliminates the G5 before a single game is played. This is a fundamental departure from their fiduciary duty to treat all teams and conferences equally and to determine the BEST 4 teams in an unbiased manner. Their job is not to determine the best 4 schedules. Their duty is to determine the best 4 teams without bias. Instead, not only has the committee brought P5 bias to the selection room by leaving the G5 with virtually no representation, the committee has essentially codified their own bias by making SOS the be all end all of the selection committee process (then they were stupid enough to say so publically time and time again).

Its actually a pretty easy case to win. All you need to do is show that a G5 cannot possibly ever have a top 50 schedule (which you cannot if you play an 8 game G5 conference schedule) and play the tapes of the committee explaining their own process.

I dont think you can lose. The G5 wont do it because they would endanger what little access they by creatiing the environment that might cause a split--but the G5 would win that case with ease.

Doubt it. The issue is that the G5 conferences agreed to the setup, the committee makeup, and the criteria for selection. So, you can’t say “yes, we helped setup the rules, but now we don’t like them!”

Also, how can you not use metrics as SOS in choosing the best 4 teams? Because there are only 12-13 data points to use for 120+ teams, you can’t go by record alone. It’s basically the same selection process they use for the NCAA basketball tournament. There has to be some subjectivity when it comes to this.

I think it would have been interesting if Houston had ran the table last year. They certainly would have finished with a better resume than UCF this year.

Any system fails if its run corruptly. For instance, we all agree that a popular election is a reasonable way to elect a leader. We would also agree that an election in N Korea isnt the same as one in the US.

The CFP system is ok. Its being corruptly run. Look, make the selection committee 10 members with each conference appointing one member. That single simple reasonable move would make the CFP system fair and equitable. If you have an election governed entirely by only one party, dont be surprised if you end up with a North Korean election.

We’d be a lot better off without the committee. The BCS computers were better.

(01-01-2018 06:57 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 06:54 PM)wleakr Wrote:  The same debate has risen once again based on a G5 winning a big bowl.

BTW, I am glad to see UCF come out with a victory and look fairly good while doing it.

And, no, they are not deserving of a title shot.

For those that say the G5 can't schedule stronger, that is obviously not true because Houston just did and, unfortunately, the wheels fell off. Schedule 3 good to very good teams OOC and beat them. Then if you're left out, you have a real gripe.

Don't schedule Illinois and Rutgers and wonder why no one considers you having a competitive schedule.

It's also not a guessing game. Everyone knows who the good and very good P5 teams are "on average" (Alabama, Ohio State, etc) each season. And we know the scrub P5 teams "on average" (Illinois). Yeah, they might have the occasional anomaly season, but it's fair to say they always return to form (good or bad).

Boise always seemed to get these games (and win). And they still continue to get these games, so the argument that good P5 "won't" schedule is not true. Now, if you just have to have a 1 for 1 series, then the G5 is just limiting their opportunities themselves.

Houston and at times in the past Boise, got help from the networks in scheduling last year. That Oklahoma game last year was a one off at a neutral site made by TV, with an assist from the NFL. ESPN knew that game would be a ratings hit in Houston (and across TX)

Houston would not have made it. They played 10 G5 schools. Any school with 10 G5's on their schedule can never approach the SOS of a P5 school. Its just simple math. The selection committee SOS criteria eliminates every G5 on day one because of how its calculated and the limitation every G5 has by being required to play an 8-game conference schedule. I dont even think Houston's SOS was even below 70 in 2016 (and that was after playing 2 top 5 P5's). SOS has NOTHING to do with how good a team is. It is simply a factor that can be considered in judging teams--but a team that plays a weaker schedule CAN be better than a team that plays a tougher schedule. The committee does not even consider that possibility. Instead, SOS has become a tool to automatically eliminate half the field. I absolutely guarantee that is not part of the written CFP process contained in the signed CFP agreement (if it were, the anti-trust door would be wide open).

(01-01-2018 07:18 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 07:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 06:08 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 05:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 05:27 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  We'll never know.

Actually, we do because they aren’t in the playoff.

(01-01-2018 05:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 05:07 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I have no problem saying I don’t think they deserved a shot.

Playing in the AAC just isn’t impressive or difficult enough.

That said, congrats to UCF for a fantastic season.

Which is why there should be a lawsuit. The criteria espoused by the selection committee essentially eliminates the G5 before a single game is played. This is a fundamental departure from their fiduciary duty to treat all teams and conferences equally and to determine the BEST 4 teams in an unbiased manner. Their job is not to determine the best 4 schedules. Their duty is to determine the best 4 teams without bias. Instead, not only has the committee brought P5 bias to the selection room by leaving the G5 with virtually no representation, the committee has essentially codified their own bias by making SOS the be all end all of the selection committee process (then they were stupid enough to say so publically time and time again).

Its actually a pretty easy case to win. All you need to do is show that a G5 cannot possibly ever have a top 50 schedule (which you cannot if you play an 8 game G5 conference schedule) and play the tapes of the committee explaining their own process.

I dont think you can lose. The G5 wont do it because they would endanger what little access they by creatiing the environment that might cause a split--but the G5 would win that case with ease.

Doubt it. The issue is that the G5 conferences agreed to the setup, the committee makeup, and the criteria for selection. So, you can’t say “yes, we helped setup the rules, but now we don’t like them!”

Also, how can you not use metrics as SOS in choosing the best 4 teams? Because there are only 12-13 data points to use for 120+ teams, you can’t go by record alone. It’s basically the same selection process they use for the NCAA basketball tournament. There has to be some subjectivity when it comes to this.

I think it would have been interesting if Houston had ran the table last year. They certainly would have finished with a better resume than UCF this year.

Any system fails if its run corruptly. For instance, we all agree that a popular election is a reasonable way to elect a leader. We would also agree that an election in N Korea isnt the same as one in the US.

The CFP system is ok. Its being corruptly run. Look, make the selection committee 10 members with each conference appointing one member. That single simple reasonable move would make the CFP system fair and equitable. If you have an election governed entirely by only one party, dont be surprised if you end up with a North Korean election.

We’d be a lot better off without the committee. The BCS computers were better.

I agree. I'd like to see us rely more on conference winners and use the committee to simply select the wilds card participants. That way, every school would have a path to the playoff that is completely within their own control. Win you conference and your in. Judges are for gymnastics and ice skating.

(01-01-2018 07:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 06:57 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 06:54 PM)wleakr Wrote:  The same debate has risen once again based on a G5 winning a big bowl.

BTW, I am glad to see UCF come out with a victory and look fairly good while doing it.

And, no, they are not deserving of a title shot.

For those that say the G5 can't schedule stronger, that is obviously not true because Houston just did and, unfortunately, the wheels fell off. Schedule 3 good to very good teams OOC and beat them. Then if you're left out, you have a real gripe.

Don't schedule Illinois and Rutgers and wonder why no one considers you having a competitive schedule.

It's also not a guessing game. Everyone knows who the good and very good P5 teams are "on average" (Alabama, Ohio State, etc) each season. And we know the scrub P5 teams "on average" (Illinois). Yeah, they might have the occasional anomaly season, but it's fair to say they always return to form (good or bad).

Boise always seemed to get these games (and win). And they still continue to get these games, so the argument that good P5 "won't" schedule is not true. Now, if you just have to have a 1 for 1 series, then the G5 is just limiting their opportunities themselves.

Houston and at times in the past Boise, got help from the networks in scheduling last year. That Oklahoma game last year was a one off at a neutral site made by TV, with an assist from the NFL. ESPN knew that game would be a ratings hit in Houston (and across TX)

Houston would not have made it. They played 10 G5 schools. Any school with 10 G5's on their schedule can never approach the SOS of a P5 school. Its just simple math. The selection committee SOS criteria eliminates every G5 on day one because of how its calculated and the limitation every G5 has by being required to play an 8-game conference schedule. I dont even think Houston's SOS was even below 70 in 2016 (and that was after playing 2 top 5 P5's). SOS has NOTHING to do with how good a team is. It is simply a factor that can be considered in judging teams--but a team that plays a weaker schedule CAN be better than a team that plays a tougher schedule. The committee does not even consider that possibility. Instead, SOS has become a tool to automatically eliminate half the field. I absolutely guarantee that is not part of the written CFP process contained in the signed CFP agreement (if it were, the anti-trust door would be wide open).

I think Boise State played three P5 schools in a season and won them all. Plus, they had to faced tough teams in the WAC like Fresno State, Hawaii and UNR. And now some more tough teams in the MWC.

So that’s the juggling act for the G5 teams. Schedule as manyP5 teams you can and you may sacrifice your Conference games.

(01-01-2018 07:49 PM)Dasville Wrote:  So that’s the juggling act for the G5 teams. Schedule as manyP5 teams you can and you may sacrifice your Conference games.

The conference games have to be overcome.

(01-01-2018 07:49 PM)Dasville Wrote:  So that’s the juggling act for the G5 teams. Schedule as manyP5 teams you can and you may sacrifice your Conference games.

Apparently, it can’t be any P5 school. Has to be three Top 25 P5 schools.

Good luck to anyone trying to schedule that

Scott Frost blasted the committee.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...ts-playoff

Funny about the ESPN spin at the bottom of the article. They actually beat Memphis twice, both times Memphis was ranked in the Top 25. So they tried to twist the stats. Lets not forget the conscious effort to keep USF out of the rankings at all costs to avoid UCF getting another Top 25 win. Lastly, tell me again how many Top 25 wins Alabama had?

(01-01-2018 08:04 PM)otown Wrote:  Scott Frost blasted the committee.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...ts-playoff

Funny about the ESPN spin at the bottom of the article. They actually beat Memphis twice, both times Memphis was ranked in the Top 25. So they tried to twist the stats. Lets not forget the conscious effort to keep USF out of the rankings at all costs to avoid UCF getting another Top 25 win. Lastly, tell me again how many Top 25 wins Alabama had?

Your point assumes the conference games are equal; they aren’t.

I hope the G4 split.