(01-02-2018 01:59 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 01:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 01:14 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 08:47 AM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  TCU probably called UCF just to say hey we know what it is like to go undefeated and not get a shot at a title. Signed 13-0 2010 TCU Horned Frogs.

Call probably continued to say we know what it is like to get shafted by the CFP signed 12-1 2014 TCU Horned Frogs who completely embarrassed Ole Miss and their "landsharks" 42-3 in the Peach Bowl.

Some polls had TCU as co-champs in 2010. There are some polls that have been legit for a long time that ESPN do not used on their site have different schools as National champs. The year that Alabama faced LSU in the National Championship had several polls crowned both of those teams and Oklahoma State as co-champs. It seems some polls are going give UCF the champs over Alabama and Georgia.

According to who?

http://www.andersonsports.com/football/acf_frnk.html

If we look at this poll, it is done by computer. Before the bowls, the top 1o are this:
1.Clemson lost
2.Georgia won
3.UCF won
4.Wisconsin won
5.oklahoma lost
6.Ohio State won
7.Alabama won
8.USC lost
9.Penn. State
10.Notre Dame won

UCF shows by computer had the tougher schedule than Alabama since Alabama beat only 2 top 20 teams when UCF beat three. This was one of the same polls that had Oklahoma State and TCU as number 1. The problem with the SEC is that they schedule weak patsies from the FCS which have a lower SoS which hurts them. Auburn was exposed by how overrated Auburn was, and the whole SEC is.

http://cfrc.com/ranking/billingsley-report-72/

This site shows all the FBS schools. UCF is number 3. The biggest mover is appalachian State from 66 to 30.

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/rankings/

http://www.colleyrankings.com/currank.html

https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/fbs/ratings

https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/

Dunkel have not updated yet.

Congrove Computer Rankings had TCU as co-champs in 2010.
2011 A&H and CCR had LSU as co-champ and Colley Matrix had Oklahoma State as co-champs with Alabama.

Sorry, ANY ranking that would put UCF over the winner of UGA/Bama isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

(01-02-2018 02:21 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 10:59 AM)otown Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 09:10 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 08:43 AM)otown Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 08:40 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Let's pump the brakes a bit.

Before anointing them as the next best thing since sliced bread, how about having them prove something beyond 1 year?

Let's not forget that the team you're pounding your chests over are just 2 years from being 0-12, so let's just settle down.....

I think you should look at the years beyond the 0-12 season. They have been quite good, have many conference championships, and now have two BCS/NY6 bowl wins in the last 5 years. There are not even that many P5 schools that can hang their hat on that accomplishment.

Sorry, good teams don't pull a Cleveland Browns for a season.

Down years, sure, but scoring a zero takes work. Even bad teams like Kansas and Illinois managed to win at least one game.

Its called a coach who quit on the team and didn't want to be there. They went to a bowl the following year with pretty much the same talent once they replaced the coaching staff.

Which is exactly what they'll be doing again this year. Maybe it's a testament to Scott Frost's ability more so than being them next big thing.

Let's see how the Heupel regime does before carving them into the Mt. Rushmore of football programs.....

So, if they run the table next year........that would be 26 straight wins......... you put them in the playoffs then?

(01-02-2018 03:13 PM)otown Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 02:21 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 10:59 AM)otown Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 09:10 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 08:43 AM)otown Wrote:  I think you should look at the years beyond the 0-12 season. They have been quite good, have many conference championships, and now have two BCS/NY6 bowl wins in the last 5 years. There are not even that many P5 schools that can hang their hat on that accomplishment.

Sorry, good teams don't pull a Cleveland Browns for a season.

Down years, sure, but scoring a zero takes work. Even bad teams like Kansas and Illinois managed to win at least one game.

Its called a coach who quit on the team and didn't want to be there. They went to a bowl the following year with pretty much the same talent once they replaced the coaching staff.

Which is exactly what they'll be doing again this year. Maybe it's a testament to Scott Frost's ability more so than being them next big thing.

Let's see how the Heupel regime does before carving them into the Mt. Rushmore of football programs.....

So, if they run the table next year........that would be 26 straight wins......... you put them in the playoffs then?

"If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas"

That's a big IF. Even if they did, it would all depend on what the P5 champs do. Even if they did, they aren't getting in over a no loss or even a one loss P5 champion. There's no way the committee will keep a 1 loss SEC champ out of the playoffs to put in UCF.

That just ain't happening.

The P5 have the money, the power, and the influence. Fair or not (I happen to think it is) that's reality.

(01-02-2018 08:47 AM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  TCU probably called UCF just to say hey we know what it is like to go undefeated and not get a shot at a title. Signed 13-0 2010 TCU Horned Frogs.

Call probably continued to say we know what it is like to get shafted by the CFP signed 12-1 2014 TCU Horned Frogs who completely embarrassed Ole Miss and their "landsharks" 42-3 in the Peach Bowl.

Hi five we’re in the club.

I doubt the B12 reached out, but I’d rather FSU go to the B12 and we take their place in the acc.

(01-02-2018 08:18 AM)otown Wrote:  The crazy thing is that a rumor from certain Gator boosters is that the B1G has been in contact with UCF and are trying to make a splash in Florida. Don't know how the academics would work, but there is worrying talk in SEC country. May actually force the SEC's hand by inviting them, not because they want them, but simply to block the damage that the B1G would cause the SEC having a presence in Florida.

B1G would never take UCF. School presidents decide these things and UCF academics are nowhere near acceptable.

(01-02-2018 08:32 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  UCF
USF
UFO
what’s the difference?

out west, USF = San Francisco

(01-02-2018 02:10 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 12:42 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  One of the most bleak things I read about UCF came via Reddit, and a lament about how UCF would lose any coach it had because of the current playoff set-up. That you can play for the sixth best conference, win it without blemish, and see yourself even barely within the NY6 equation because...the power structure doesn't want you in it. Who wants to stay in that structure? How do you recruit kids to play at a place that, no matter how **** good you are, you don't have a shot at the championship?

This really hit me in a bad way at a bad time...and the commentary was spot on. This is what has become of D-1 college football. And it's not worthy of my eyes anymore. Others can enjoy these 4-5 hour amateurish scraps. My tastes have refined a bit.

Either expand the playoff, or expand the power structure. As is, no. I'm done. I'm simply tired of this "system." It sucks.

This was my point when Louisville was in CUSA begging to joining The Big East, in The Big East begging to join The Big 12 and remains my point with Louisville safely in The ACC.

Create an equitable system that makes it possible for every conference champion to play for a national title or shut it down and we know that ain't happening.

"Everyone" and by everyone I mean marketing, said well at least the all the P5 had a shot every year. That hasn't even happened. The Big 12 hasn't won a play-off game and has been left out all together 2 of the 4 years the CFP has been in place. The PAC hasn't done much better. They have only made two play-offs and has only won 1 game.

My point is, if The Big 12, PAC, and this year The Big Ten, can't make the make the CFP, what real chance does The American or MWC have?

The system needs to change.
CJ

Jim, the FBS needs probably 3 tiers and the FCS needs to go away. The tiers need to be defined by Athletic Endowments, Athletic investment, requisite number of sports offered, facilities sizes and standards, enrollment. Tiers don't have to be determined strictly by each one of these standards being met (other than number of sports offered and facilities) but do need to mostly reach the acceptable minimums for each.

Championship formats need to be established for each tier. This occurs throughout high school competition and was once better defined by the NCAA. But the plethora of smaller schools wanting to get their nose in the NCAA basketball tournament trough and to get a bit of the TV pie for football starting crashing the gate in the mid 80's and continue to do so even though higher education has peaked.

It is yet another reason that the NCAA is pretty useless these days. With established minimums schools who are serious about their investment in athletics have attainable metrics that insure that their inclusion in an upper division is not an investment lightly undertaken and therefore they have a right to pursue inclusion. I have little doubt that USF and UCF would be able to meet such metrics with a little more push. Attendance minimums would probably be the biggest obstacle but if you establish a minimum of 50,000 I think they could meet it.

The problem are evident when observing the Gross Total Revenue numbers. If the upper tier required a minimum of $70,000,000 it would have around 56 schools and of all of the present G5 only UConn would get in. The lowest revenue producers in the P5 right now are Georgia Tech and Wake Forest both of which are around 66 million in total revenue. Considering that A&M hit around 191 million and Texas is nipping at their heels and something like 10 or 11 SEC schools all made over 100 million you begin to get the picture. The playing field simply isn't level, but then neither are the facilities, the travel modes (air vs bus) etc.

If the aim is fair competition then segregating the schools by investment, facilities, earnings, enrollment, etc., is essential for the protection of the athletes and for any semblance of fair play. The problem is that every mouse dreams of roaring and that goes for alumni as well.

Sure the current CFP meets ESPN's criteria, they helped to create it. They want ratings and ratings are in some measure determined by living alumni, and what they can invest in their schools. So no, it's not about fair play, it's about ratings. Let the NCAA break into fairer and discernible divisions of play and let them shape the playoffs and they will have for once done their job. And if not them a new entity tasked with solving today's problems, and not protecting the Olympic rules on amateurism set up around the turn of the 19th century.

The system might suck but it sucks less than what it replaced. Under the original BCS UCF wouldn’t have played in a BCS game. The initial cutoff was 8th.
Prior to the BCS, UCF could have made it to 8th and not make a major bowl.
Under the BCS the non-AQ made much less, pre-BCS they got nothing from the major bowls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-02-2018 03:13 PM)otown Wrote:  So, if they run the table next year........that would be 26 straight wins......... you put them in the playoffs then?

They would be a very strong argument. I do not care who you are, it is impressive.....

(01-03-2018 01:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The system might suck but it sucks less than what it replaced. Under the original BCS UCF wouldn’t have played in a BCS game. The initial cutoff was 8th.
Prior to the BCS, UCF could have made it to 8th and not make a major bowl.
Under the BCS the non-AQ made much less, pre-BCS they got nothing from the major bowls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Uh, actually "under the original BCS system," UCF WOULD have played in a "BCS Bowl" because the AAC was the successor to the Big East and was part of the contract. (See UCF playing in the Fiesta Bowl against Baylor the last year of the BCS).

That's not to say UCF would have had a shot at the BCS Championship Game. But you are incorrect with your premise.

(01-02-2018 11:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 02:10 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 12:42 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  One of the most bleak things I read about UCF came via Reddit, and a lament about how UCF would lose any coach it had because of the current playoff set-up. That you can play for the sixth best conference, win it without blemish, and see yourself even barely within the NY6 equation because...the power structure doesn't want you in it. Who wants to stay in that structure? How do you recruit kids to play at a place that, no matter how **** good you are, you don't have a shot at the championship?

This really hit me in a bad way at a bad time...and the commentary was spot on. This is what has become of D-1 college football. And it's not worthy of my eyes anymore. Others can enjoy these 4-5 hour amateurish scraps. My tastes have refined a bit.

Either expand the playoff, or expand the power structure. As is, no. I'm done. I'm simply tired of this "system." It sucks.

This was my point when Louisville was in CUSA begging to joining The Big East, in The Big East begging to join The Big 12 and remains my point with Louisville safely in The ACC.

Create an equitable system that makes it possible for every conference champion to play for a national title or shut it down and we know that ain't happening.

"Everyone" and by everyone I mean marketing, said well at least the all the P5 had a shot every year. That hasn't even happened. The Big 12 hasn't won a play-off game and has been left out all together 2 of the 4 years the CFP has been in place. The PAC hasn't done much better. They have only made two play-offs and has only won 1 game.

My point is, if The Big 12, PAC, and this year The Big Ten, can't make the make the CFP, what real chance does The American or MWC have?

The system needs to change.
CJ

Jim, the FBS needs probably 3 tiers and the FCS needs to go away. The tiers need to be defined by Athletic Endowments, Athletic investment, requisite number of sports offered, facilities sizes and standards, enrollment. Tiers don't have to be determined strictly by each one of these standards being met (other than number of sports offered and facilities) but do need to mostly reach the acceptable minimums for each.

Championship formats need to be established for each tier. This occurs throughout high school competition and was once better defined by the NCAA. But the plethora of smaller schools wanting to get their nose in the NCAA basketball tournament trough and to get a bit of the TV pie for football starting crashing the gate in the mid 80's and continue to do so even though higher education has peaked.

It is yet another reason that the NCAA is pretty useless these days. With established minimums schools who are serious about their investment in athletics have attainable metrics that insure that their inclusion in an upper division is not an investment lightly undertaken and therefore they have a right to pursue inclusion. I have little doubt that USF and UCF would be able to meet such metrics with a little more push. Attendance minimums would probably be the biggest obstacle but if you establish a minimum of 50,000 I think they could meet it.

The problem are evident when observing the Gross Total Revenue numbers. If the upper tier required a minimum of $70,000,000 it would have around 56 schools and of all of the present G5 only UConn would get in. The lowest revenue producers in the P5 right now are Georgia Tech and Wake Forest both of which are around 66 million in total revenue. Considering that A&M hit around 191 million and Texas is nipping at their heels and something like 10 or 11 SEC schools all made over 100 million you begin to get the picture. The playing field simply isn't level, but then neither are the facilities, the travel modes (air vs bus) etc.

If the aim is fair competition then segregating the schools by investment, facilities, earnings, enrollment, etc., is essential for the protection of the athletes and for any semblance of fair play. The problem is that every mouse dreams of roaring and that goes for alumni as well.

Sure the current CFP meets ESPN's criteria, they helped to create it. They want ratings and ratings are in some measure determined by living alumni, and what they can invest in their schools. So no, it's not about fair play, it's about ratings. Let the NCAA break into fairer and discernible divisions of play and let them shape the playoffs and they will have for once done their job. And if not them a new entity tasked with solving today's problems, and not protecting the Olympic rules on amateurism set up around the turn of the 19th century.

I agree for the most part. However, you have to understand that it is almost impossible for a G5 to meet those metrics without the P5 crutch of having home games vs Florida, Michigan, OSU, etc etc. That fills the stadiums, draws the interest, and expands the brand along with donations. We are not even talking about the windfall of media money that can be used to enhance facilities.

Some programs, like UCF, have done so much with so little. In fact, they have their own crutch which is simply the size of their student body that they can use as a subsidy. 60,000 plus. Due to this, the student fees can be less then other schools, but generate a lot more money...... but invest they did. It's starting to show with the whole athletic village. It's not a secret the UF is jealous of UCFs facilities. Yes, UF has a much nicer stadium........ but UF keeps on getting promised an upgraded football operations facility. They have the plans, but keep delaying it. Shows UCF is serious about investing in their facilities.

So in short, there is no way to reach that $70,000,000 revenue point without a subsidy. However, one must ask if a top G5 would sell out their stadium consistently playing a B1G slate or SEC slate? I think it's fair to say the top G5s would have no problem. Hell, UCF raised close to 7.5 million in donations to the football excellence fund in 3 months simply off the back of one coach.

Replace, UCF with Houston, USF, Cindy, Memphis and you get a similar outcome.

(01-03-2018 04:30 AM)otown Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 11:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 02:10 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 12:42 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  One of the most bleak things I read about UCF came via Reddit, and a lament about how UCF would lose any coach it had because of the current playoff set-up. That you can play for the sixth best conference, win it without blemish, and see yourself even barely within the NY6 equation because...the power structure doesn't want you in it. Who wants to stay in that structure? How do you recruit kids to play at a place that, no matter how **** good you are, you don't have a shot at the championship?

This really hit me in a bad way at a bad time...and the commentary was spot on. This is what has become of D-1 college football. And it's not worthy of my eyes anymore. Others can enjoy these 4-5 hour amateurish scraps. My tastes have refined a bit.

Either expand the playoff, or expand the power structure. As is, no. I'm done. I'm simply tired of this "system." It sucks.

This was my point when Louisville was in CUSA begging to joining The Big East, in The Big East begging to join The Big 12 and remains my point with Louisville safely in The ACC.

Create an equitable system that makes it possible for every conference champion to play for a national title or shut it down and we know that ain't happening.

"Everyone" and by everyone I mean marketing, said well at least the all the P5 had a shot every year. That hasn't even happened. The Big 12 hasn't won a play-off game and has been left out all together 2 of the 4 years the CFP has been in place. The PAC hasn't done much better. They have only made two play-offs and has only won 1 game.

My point is, if The Big 12, PAC, and this year The Big Ten, can't make the make the CFP, what real chance does The American or MWC have?

The system needs to change.
CJ

Jim, the FBS needs probably 3 tiers and the FCS needs to go away. The tiers need to be defined by Athletic Endowments, Athletic investment, requisite number of sports offered, facilities sizes and standards, enrollment. Tiers don't have to be determined strictly by each one of these standards being met (other than number of sports offered and facilities) but do need to mostly reach the acceptable minimums for each.

Championship formats need to be established for each tier. This occurs throughout high school competition and was once better defined by the NCAA. But the plethora of smaller schools wanting to get their nose in the NCAA basketball tournament trough and to get a bit of the TV pie for football starting crashing the gate in the mid 80's and continue to do so even though higher education has peaked.

It is yet another reason that the NCAA is pretty useless these days. With established minimums schools who are serious about their investment in athletics have attainable metrics that insure that their inclusion in an upper division is not an investment lightly undertaken and therefore they have a right to pursue inclusion. I have little doubt that USF and UCF would be able to meet such metrics with a little more push. Attendance minimums would probably be the biggest obstacle but if you establish a minimum of 50,000 I think they could meet it.

The problem are evident when observing the Gross Total Revenue numbers. If the upper tier required a minimum of $70,000,000 it would have around 56 schools and of all of the present G5 only UConn would get in. The lowest revenue producers in the P5 right now are Georgia Tech and Wake Forest both of which are around 66 million in total revenue. Considering that A&M hit around 191 million and Texas is nipping at their heels and something like 10 or 11 SEC schools all made over 100 million you begin to get the picture. The playing field simply isn't level, but then neither are the facilities, the travel modes (air vs bus) etc.

If the aim is fair competition then segregating the schools by investment, facilities, earnings, enrollment, etc., is essential for the protection of the athletes and for any semblance of fair play. The problem is that every mouse dreams of roaring and that goes for alumni as well.

Sure the current CFP meets ESPN's criteria, they helped to create it. They want ratings and ratings are in some measure determined by living alumni, and what they can invest in their schools. So no, it's not about fair play, it's about ratings. Let the NCAA break into fairer and discernible divisions of play and let them shape the playoffs and they will have for once done their job. And if not them a new entity tasked with solving today's problems, and not protecting the Olympic rules on amateurism set up around the turn of the 19th century.

I agree for the most part. However, you have to understand that it is almost impossible for a G5 to meet those metrics without the P5 crutch of having home games vs Florida, Michigan, OSU, etc etc. That fills the stadiums, draws the interest, and expands the brand along with donations. We are not even talking about the windfall of media money that can be used to enhance facilities.

Some programs, like UCF, have done so much with so little. In fact, they have their own crutch which is simply the size of their student body that they can use as a subsidy. 60,000 plus. Due to this, the student fees can be less then other schools, but generate a lot more money...... but invest they did. It's starting to show with the whole athletic village. It's not a secret the UF is jealous of UCFs facilities. Yes, UF has a much nicer stadium........ but UF keeps on getting promised an upgraded football operations facility. They have the plans, but keep delaying it. Shows UCF is serious about investing in their facilities.

So in short, there is no way to reach that $70,000,000 revenue point without a subsidy. However, one must ask if a top G5 would sell out their stadium consistently playing a B1G slate or SEC slate? I think it's fair to say the top G5s would have no problem. Hell, UCF raised close to 7.5 million in donations to the football excellence fund in 3 months simply off the back of one coach.

Replace, UCF with Houston, USF, Cindy, Memphis and you get a similar outcome.

The biggest story of the year would have been UCF beating Clemson while Alabama be left out. That would not have been the biggest story. The Biggest story with the kid without a hand, be named the MVP in the championship game with the UCF win over Georgia. That is what the NCAA and college football need is a shot in the arm with a feel good story. People do love a story like that about that kid.

(01-03-2018 04:37 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 04:30 AM)otown Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 11:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 02:10 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 12:42 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  One of the most bleak things I read about UCF came via Reddit, and a lament about how UCF would lose any coach it had because of the current playoff set-up. That you can play for the sixth best conference, win it without blemish, and see yourself even barely within the NY6 equation because...the power structure doesn't want you in it. Who wants to stay in that structure? How do you recruit kids to play at a place that, no matter how **** good you are, you don't have a shot at the championship?

This really hit me in a bad way at a bad time...and the commentary was spot on. This is what has become of D-1 college football. And it's not worthy of my eyes anymore. Others can enjoy these 4-5 hour amateurish scraps. My tastes have refined a bit.

Either expand the playoff, or expand the power structure. As is, no. I'm done. I'm simply tired of this "system." It sucks.

This was my point when Louisville was in CUSA begging to joining The Big East, in The Big East begging to join The Big 12 and remains my point with Louisville safely in The ACC.

Create an equitable system that makes it possible for every conference champion to play for a national title or shut it down and we know that ain't happening.

"Everyone" and by everyone I mean marketing, said well at least the all the P5 had a shot every year. That hasn't even happened. The Big 12 hasn't won a play-off game and has been left out all together 2 of the 4 years the CFP has been in place. The PAC hasn't done much better. They have only made two play-offs and has only won 1 game.

My point is, if The Big 12, PAC, and this year The Big Ten, can't make the make the CFP, what real chance does The American or MWC have?

The system needs to change.
CJ

Jim, the FBS needs probably 3 tiers and the FCS needs to go away. The tiers need to be defined by Athletic Endowments, Athletic investment, requisite number of sports offered, facilities sizes and standards, enrollment. Tiers don't have to be determined strictly by each one of these standards being met (other than number of sports offered and facilities) but do need to mostly reach the acceptable minimums for each.

Championship formats need to be established for each tier. This occurs throughout high school competition and was once better defined by the NCAA. But the plethora of smaller schools wanting to get their nose in the NCAA basketball tournament trough and to get a bit of the TV pie for football starting crashing the gate in the mid 80's and continue to do so even though higher education has peaked.

It is yet another reason that the NCAA is pretty useless these days. With established minimums schools who are serious about their investment in athletics have attainable metrics that insure that their inclusion in an upper division is not an investment lightly undertaken and therefore they have a right to pursue inclusion. I have little doubt that USF and UCF would be able to meet such metrics with a little more push. Attendance minimums would probably be the biggest obstacle but if you establish a minimum of 50,000 I think they could meet it.

The problem are evident when observing the Gross Total Revenue numbers. If the upper tier required a minimum of $70,000,000 it would have around 56 schools and of all of the present G5 only UConn would get in. The lowest revenue producers in the P5 right now are Georgia Tech and Wake Forest both of which are around 66 million in total revenue. Considering that A&M hit around 191 million and Texas is nipping at their heels and something like 10 or 11 SEC schools all made over 100 million you begin to get the picture. The playing field simply isn't level, but then neither are the facilities, the travel modes (air vs bus) etc.

If the aim is fair competition then segregating the schools by investment, facilities, earnings, enrollment, etc., is essential for the protection of the athletes and for any semblance of fair play. The problem is that every mouse dreams of roaring and that goes for alumni as well.

Sure the current CFP meets ESPN's criteria, they helped to create it. They want ratings and ratings are in some measure determined by living alumni, and what they can invest in their schools. So no, it's not about fair play, it's about ratings. Let the NCAA break into fairer and discernible divisions of play and let them shape the playoffs and they will have for once done their job. And if not them a new entity tasked with solving today's problems, and not protecting the Olympic rules on amateurism set up around the turn of the 19th century.

I agree for the most part. However, you have to understand that it is almost impossible for a G5 to meet those metrics without the P5 crutch of having home games vs Florida, Michigan, OSU, etc etc. That fills the stadiums, draws the interest, and expands the brand along with donations. We are not even talking about the windfall of media money that can be used to enhance facilities.

Some programs, like UCF, have done so much with so little. In fact, they have their own crutch which is simply the size of their student body that they can use as a subsidy. 60,000 plus. Due to this, the student fees can be less then other schools, but generate a lot more money...... but invest they did. It's starting to show with the whole athletic village. It's not a secret the UF is jealous of UCFs facilities. Yes, UF has a much nicer stadium........ but UF keeps on getting promised an upgraded football operations facility. They have the plans, but keep delaying it. Shows UCF is serious about investing in their facilities.

So in short, there is no way to reach that $70,000,000 revenue point without a subsidy. However, one must ask if a top G5 would sell out their stadium consistently playing a B1G slate or SEC slate? I think it's fair to say the top G5s would have no problem. Hell, UCF raised close to 7.5 million in donations to the football excellence fund in 3 months simply off the back of one coach.

Replace, UCF with Houston, USF, Cindy, Memphis and you get a similar outcome.

The biggest story of the year would have been UCF beating Clemson while Alabama be left out. That would not have been the biggest story. The Biggest story with the kid without a hand, be named the MVP in the championship game with the UCF win over Georgia. That is what the NCAA and college football need is a shot in the arm with a feel good story. People do love a story like that about that kid.

The NCAA sold their soul to the CFP. The CFP simply does not care about anything other than maximizing their money. They have their invitational at their desposal and they simply use it to make the most money. No other sports entity outside uses an invitational to determine a figure head champion.

Simply look at the NBA. The western conference has been perceived as being more powerful than the east for how many decades, yet 8 East teams get to prove it on court every year.

Same goes for the NFL with weak division winners. Not everybody gets to play the same schedule....... but you certainly don't exclude those division winners from the playoffs. Hell, they even get a nice seed.

(01-03-2018 04:51 AM)otown Wrote:  The NCAA sold their soul to the CFP.

Not really. The CFP isn't actually an NCAA event and the winner isn't an NCAA champion. FBS football (in reality, the P5) split from the NCAA and the NCAA couldn't stop it. The only Division 1 NCAA football champion is the winner of the FCS bracket.

(01-03-2018 03:12 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 01:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The system might suck but it sucks less than what it replaced. Under the original BCS UCF wouldn’t have played in a BCS game. The initial cutoff was 8th.
Prior to the BCS, UCF could have made it to 8th and not make a major bowl.
Under the BCS the non-AQ made much less, pre-BCS they got nothing from the major bowls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Uh, actually "under the original BCS system," UCF WOULD have played in a "BCS Bowl" because the AAC was the successor to the Big East and was part of the contract. (See UCF playing in the Fiesta Bowl against Baylor the last year of the BCS).

That's not to say UCF would have had a shot at the BCS Championship Game. But you are incorrect with your premise.

Under the original BCS no UCF would not have made it because the schools that caused television to FORCE the other leagues and the bowls to accept the Big East as a part are not part of the league. AAC is much more CUSA than it is Big East.

If you think lineage is what matters you don't get how it works. Big East was in because of Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, BC, and Rutgers are why the Big East was in, not the patch on the uniform. Sure Temple is still around but Temple wasn't why the Big East was part of the BCS.

(01-02-2018 08:32 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  UCF
USF
UFO
what’s the difference?

(01-03-2018 04:30 AM)otown Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 11:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 02:10 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 12:42 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  One of the most bleak things I read about UCF came via Reddit, and a lament about how UCF would lose any coach it had because of the current playoff set-up. That you can play for the sixth best conference, win it without blemish, and see yourself even barely within the NY6 equation because...the power structure doesn't want you in it. Who wants to stay in that structure? How do you recruit kids to play at a place that, no matter how **** good you are, you don't have a shot at the championship?

This really hit me in a bad way at a bad time...and the commentary was spot on. This is what has become of D-1 college football. And it's not worthy of my eyes anymore. Others can enjoy these 4-5 hour amateurish scraps. My tastes have refined a bit.

Either expand the playoff, or expand the power structure. As is, no. I'm done. I'm simply tired of this "system." It sucks.

This was my point when Louisville was in CUSA begging to joining The Big East, in The Big East begging to join The Big 12 and remains my point with Louisville safely in The ACC.

Create an equitable system that makes it possible for every conference champion to play for a national title or shut it down and we know that ain't happening.

"Everyone" and by everyone I mean marketing, said well at least the all the P5 had a shot every year. That hasn't even happened. The Big 12 hasn't won a play-off game and has been left out all together 2 of the 4 years the CFP has been in place. The PAC hasn't done much better. They have only made two play-offs and has only won 1 game.

My point is, if The Big 12, PAC, and this year The Big Ten, can't make the make the CFP, what real chance does The American or MWC have?

The system needs to change.
CJ

Jim, the FBS needs probably 3 tiers and the FCS needs to go away. The tiers need to be defined by Athletic Endowments, Athletic investment, requisite number of sports offered, facilities sizes and standards, enrollment. Tiers don't have to be determined strictly by each one of these standards being met (other than number of sports offered and facilities) but do need to mostly reach the acceptable minimums for each.

Championship formats need to be established for each tier. This occurs throughout high school competition and was once better defined by the NCAA. But the plethora of smaller schools wanting to get their nose in the NCAA basketball tournament trough and to get a bit of the TV pie for football starting crashing the gate in the mid 80's and continue to do so even though higher education has peaked.

It is yet another reason that the NCAA is pretty useless these days. With established minimums schools who are serious about their investment in athletics have attainable metrics that insure that their inclusion in an upper division is not an investment lightly undertaken and therefore they have a right to pursue inclusion. I have little doubt that USF and UCF would be able to meet such metrics with a little more push. Attendance minimums would probably be the biggest obstacle but if you establish a minimum of 50,000 I think they could meet it.

The problem are evident when observing the Gross Total Revenue numbers. If the upper tier required a minimum of $70,000,000 it would have around 56 schools and of all of the present G5 only UConn would get in. The lowest revenue producers in the P5 right now are Georgia Tech and Wake Forest both of which are around 66 million in total revenue. Considering that A&M hit around 191 million and Texas is nipping at their heels and something like 10 or 11 SEC schools all made over 100 million you begin to get the picture. The playing field simply isn't level, but then neither are the facilities, the travel modes (air vs bus) etc.

If the aim is fair competition then segregating the schools by investment, facilities, earnings, enrollment, etc., is essential for the protection of the athletes and for any semblance of fair play. The problem is that every mouse dreams of roaring and that goes for alumni as well.

Sure the current CFP meets ESPN's criteria, they helped to create it. They want ratings and ratings are in some measure determined by living alumni, and what they can invest in their schools. So no, it's not about fair play, it's about ratings. Let the NCAA break into fairer and discernible divisions of play and let them shape the playoffs and they will have for once done their job. And if not them a new entity tasked with solving today's problems, and not protecting the Olympic rules on amateurism set up around the turn of the 19th century.

I agree for the most part. However, you have to understand that it is almost impossible for a G5 to meet those metrics without the P5 crutch of having home games vs Florida, Michigan, OSU, etc etc. That fills the stadiums, draws the interest, and expands the brand along with donations. We are not even talking about the windfall of media money that can be used to enhance facilities.

Some programs, like UCF, have done so much with so little. In fact, they have their own crutch which is simply the size of their student body that they can use as a subsidy. 60,000 plus. Due to this, the student fees can be less then other schools, but generate a lot more money...... but invest they did. It's starting to show with the whole athletic village. It's not a secret the UF is jealous of UCFs facilities. Yes, UF has a much nicer stadium........ but UF keeps on getting promised an upgraded football operations facility. They have the plans, but keep delaying it. Shows UCF is serious about investing in their facilities.

So in short, there is no way to reach that $70,000,000 revenue point without a subsidy. However, one must ask if a top G5 would sell out their stadium consistently playing a B1G slate or SEC slate? I think it's fair to say the top G5s would have no problem. Hell, UCF raised close to 7.5 million in donations to the football excellence fund in 3 months simply off the back of one coach.

Replace, UCF with Houston, USF, Cindy, Memphis and you get a similar outcome.

Oh, but there is one. In 20 years time Boomers will pretty much be gone. When that happens UCF will have as many living alumni, or more, than any school in the state of Florida. That will get political structure of the state behind a push for inclusion, and the networks will listen and therefore the conferences will too.

The biggest obstacle that the largest G5's have faced is the decades of alums generated by the older larger schools. That demographic levels out in 20 years. Why do you think so many P5 schools are lowering entrance requirements and subsidizing scholarships for enrollment? They already know this.

USF and UCF are the best bets for inclusion in the P5 within the next 10 years as conferences ponder their 10 year plans and look at the population growth areas. Houston is another one likely to be included at some point. The only thing UCF and USF need to continue to do is work on their academic standing. Orlando and Tampa are both poised geographically to be extremely relevant moving forward.

The only thing that could stand in your way is a rise in sea levels, seriously. But that's probably not going to be a huge factor for about 100 years.

(01-03-2018 11:56 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 03:12 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 01:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The system might suck but it sucks less than what it replaced. Under the original BCS UCF wouldn’t have played in a BCS game. The initial cutoff was 8th.
Prior to the BCS, UCF could have made it to 8th and not make a major bowl.
Under the BCS the non-AQ made much less, pre-BCS they got nothing from the major bowls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Uh, actually "under the original BCS system," UCF WOULD have played in a "BCS Bowl" because the AAC was the successor to the Big East and was part of the contract. (See UCF playing in the Fiesta Bowl against Baylor the last year of the BCS).

That's not to say UCF would have had a shot at the BCS Championship Game. But you are incorrect with your premise.

Under the original BCS no UCF would not have made it because the schools that caused television to FORCE the other leagues and the bowls to accept the Big East as a part are not part of the league. AAC is much more CUSA than it is Big East.

If you think lineage is what matters you don't get how it works. Big East was in because of Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, BC, and Rutgers are why the Big East was in, not the patch on the uniform. Sure Temple is still around but Temple wasn't why the Big East was part of the BCS.

The AAC IS the legal successor to the old Big East. Your opinions on "lineage" are not relevant. The (new) Big East purchased the name from the Conference.

IF the old BCS were still in place, UCF would have had the bid. That's all that matters.

(01-03-2018 02:29 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 11:56 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 03:12 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 01:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The system might suck but it sucks less than what it replaced. Under the original BCS UCF wouldn’t have played in a BCS game. The initial cutoff was 8th.
Prior to the BCS, UCF could have made it to 8th and not make a major bowl.
Under the BCS the non-AQ made much less, pre-BCS they got nothing from the major bowls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Uh, actually "under the original BCS system," UCF WOULD have played in a "BCS Bowl" because the AAC was the successor to the Big East and was part of the contract. (See UCF playing in the Fiesta Bowl against Baylor the last year of the BCS).

That's not to say UCF would have had a shot at the BCS Championship Game. But you are incorrect with your premise.

Under the original BCS no UCF would not have made it because the schools that caused television to FORCE the other leagues and the bowls to accept the Big East as a part are not part of the league. AAC is much more CUSA than it is Big East.

If you think lineage is what matters you don't get how it works. Big East was in because of Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, BC, and Rutgers are why the Big East was in, not the patch on the uniform. Sure Temple is still around but Temple wasn't why the Big East was part of the BCS.

The AAC IS the legal successor to the old Big East. Your opinions on "lineage" are not relevant. The (new) Big East purchased the name from the Conference.

IF the old BCS were still in place, UCF would have had the bid. That's all that matters.

I think you are making a big assumption that I just don't believe is a valid one. Had the BCS continued after the breakup of the Big East, if it had not been replaced by the CFP I really doubt the other 5 conferences with autobids would have agreed to offer an autobid to the AAC in the new contract. The fact that they continued to allow it during the brief transition period between the BCS and the CFP has more to do with not wanting an ugly confrontation than with a desire to include what had essentially become C-USA v 2.0.