(03-03-2018 08:58 AM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 08:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 09:02 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 06:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  Most SEC schools do the same thing.

To my knowledge, nobody in the SEC or any place else has claimed a national title based on anything but the BCS/CFP, or AP or coaches poll the past 45 years. All those cases where SEC and others make bizarro claims are from before 1975, when the polls voted before the bowls, and when other institutions were recognized as also being title designaters.

But UCF claims based on Colley-Matrix computer?

Who else does that? E.g. Alabama was #1 in Colley-Matrix in 2016 (when they lost to Clemson in the CFP title game), but they don't claim that as a title.

You know when even Alabama declines to claim a title, it's truly bogus, LOL.

Notre Dame, like UCF, was #1 in Colley-Matrix in 2012, they have never claimed that as a title.

This notion that Colley-Matrix alone means there is a "split title" is absurd.

Heck, the fact that CM had Alabama and Notre Dame #1 those years even after they lost the BCS/CFP title games tells us what we know about its credibility.

All it tells me is Alabama and Notre Dame got a chance to prove it on the field. Undefeated UCF didn't get that opportunity.

It should tell you a few other things:

1) On its own terms, Colley-Matrix seems to be a bizarro system, as it actually picked ND #1 and Alabama #1 despite losing title games.

2) The fact that these power teams, famous for claiming whatever titles they can, haven't claimed their alleged Colley titles tells you that Colley has zero credibility as a stand-alone title selector.

Truth is, even if you think the CFP is still mythical and doesn't produce a legit champ like the NCAA hoops tourney, the accepted standard in college football for the past 45 years is that you can claim a 'share' of a title if you win either the coaches or AP poll. That's the standard, and UCF doesn't meet it.

3) Actually, 126 other teams didn't get a chance to "prove it on the field" either, because only 4 teams made the playoffs. Undefeated means nothing, as no other sports league requires that you be undefeated to make the playoffs.

Usually, the designation is division/conference. If you win your division or conference, you make the playoffs regardless of your record. E.g., the Giants can go 9-7, but if they win the NFC East, they make the playoffs.

The equivalent in college football is the conference, but UCF wasn't the only conference champ not to make the playoffs. Only 3 of the 10 FBS conference champs made the playoffs. 7 were left out, including two P5 champs, but only one is claiming "national title", LOL.

4) Even if we agree that UCF should have been in the playoffs and was screwed out of being in them, it is still absurd for them to claim the title, because it assumes they would have won something they didn't win, the playoffs. It's like me thinking "you know, my Redskins should have made the playoffs but the NFL screwed us, therefore since we didn't get to PLAY in them but should have, we can act like we not only played in them but WON them, and declare ourselves champs over the Super Bowl winner!" That's just absurd, acting like you won something you didn't.

Those are the things you should have learned from my post.

What other sport do you go undefeated an not make the playoffs?

Again you're NFL comparison is beyond dumb. Did the Redskins win all their games and get kept out of the playoff?

Did you really just mention UCF going undefeated yet again? As I've explained, that's completely irrelevant, because in the NFL or NBA, teams all have very similar schedules, and that's because they have ZERO control over their own schedules. Whereas in college football, SOS can be very different, and teams get to schedule 4 games of their own choosing, meaning they can cherry pick who they play.

It is ridiculous for any team to be able to schedule 1/3 of their games, and then shout "We went unbeaten! Therefore we belong in the playoffs!"

The "if you are unbeaten you automatically make the playoffs" concept only works if an impartial body is doing the scheduling for the teams involved. It can't be an imperative if the teams control the scheduling of any of their own games.

Really, really dumb.

And the NFL comparison is spot-on, because in the example it doesn't matter why the Redskins were screwed out of the playoffs. It could be because of record, or rules, whatever. They, like UCF allegedly, were "screwed" when they should have made the playoffs.

But even if UCF was totally screwed out of being in the playoffs, it does not follow at all that this means they can act AS IF they won those playoffs. They didn't win them, so they didn't win the title.

Good Lord.

(03-03-2018 01:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 08:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 07:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 06:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  No, they are just saying that its still an MNC. So they have a right to claim it. Nobody else went unbeaten. I think its silly, but your argument against it is wrong. The rules are not inclusive. They are stacked in favor of the P5. The committee is stacked in favor of the Big 10, SEC and Pac 12 (not that it has helped the P12 much).

They have no more right to claim a title than does Arkansas State or USF or Penn State. UCF agreed to the CFP system, and they didn't win the CFP playoff. Ohio State didn't either.

And unbeaten means zero, because of SOS, and because schools can actually pick several teams to be on their schedule, which isn't true in pro leagues.

It's really bizarro that anyone thinks that because they felt they should have been in the playoff but was excluded, that this means they can act as if they did beat two playoff teams to win the playoffs. Amazing, really.

Think about it: What if the 49ers would have made the playoffs if they won their last game, but they missed out because they lost their last game. But, they lost because the NFL agrees that a bad call was made and they should have won.

Does that mean that because the 49ers were screwed out of making the playoffs that they can claim they are champions, as if they actually won two playoff games and the Super Bowl even though they didn't actually do so?

Beyond dumb, eh?

That may very well be the most asinine argument you've ever made. UCF didnt LOSE thier last game. UCF didnt lose ANY games. Becasue the NFL utilizes actual on the field results (as opposed to ice skating judges), no team that finishes the season undefeated will ever be anything other than the champion of the NFL for that year. THe NFL is a terrible analogy. Try ice skating---its closer to what the CFP really is.

My argument isn't 'asinine', it's spot-on. What's asinine is this harping about UCF being undefeated. Undefeated in the regular season isn't a requirement to make the playoffs in ANY sport. So the fact that in my scenario, the 49ers weren't undefeated is meaningless. What is meaningful is that they would have made the playoffs had they won their last game, and should have won it, but were screwed by a bad call.

Just as some UCF fans think UCF was screwed out of the playoffs by a 'bad call', in this case the CFP committee's decision to not give them a playoff spot.

See the analogy? In both cases, a team that should have made the playoffs was left out because of a bad decision someone else made.

But again, even if you SHOULD have been in the playoffs but were 'screwed' out of it by a bad decision, system, whatever you want to call it, is "asinine" to then claim you are the champion AS IF you actually won the playoffs.

Even if you are totally correct that you should have been in the playoffs, that doesn't give you any right to claim the status of whoever did win them, because then you are acting as if you not only made the playoffs, but won them, which you did not do.

Being undefeated in not a requirement for making the playoff in any sport. However, being undefeated UNIVERSALLY gets you into the playoff in most any sport (certainly the NFL). So yes, your NFL analogy is the very definition of assinine.

Amazingly lame thinking. My NFL example above assumed that yes, in fact, UCF was absolutely screwed out of a playoff spot. Get it? So let's assume that you are correct that because most every other sport ensures that an undefeated team makes the playoffs, that by being undefeated and not making the playoffs, UCF was therefore screwed out of being in the playoffs. Got it?

Then, as i said above, it does not follow at all that UCF has the right to claim the status of whoever did win the playoffs (and thus the title), because then you are acting as if you not only *made* the playoffs (which you have the right to gripe about because you should have), but *won* them as well.

But since making the playoffs and winning them are not the same thing, you have no right to claim what comes with *winning* the playoffs, because you didn't win them, and merely making them doesn't mean you win them.

That said, you're wrong about the basis for your claim anyway: Yes, the NFL does ensure that every undefeated team makes the playoffs, and it should. So do MLB, the NBA, etc.

But, conceptually, that is only a rational imperative in situations where the league controls the scheduling of games. If a team gets to schedule any of its own games, then it is no kind of imperative at all, because then a team can craft a schedule to its own liking. In the NFL, NBA, etc., the teams have zero control over scheduling, their entire schedules are determined by an impartial league-office process no team has control over. But in college football, teams get to pick all their OOC games, which amounts to about 1/3 of their schedule.

So there is absolutely no rational imperative at all that any undefeated team makes a college playoff.

At best, you can claim that it is rational that conference champions make the playoffs, because no team controls its conference schedule. But even then, UCF has no claim to the title for the same reason given above, plus the fact that there were six other conference champs who didn't make the playoffs either and thus have the same gripe UCF does.

But they aren't griping.

(03-03-2018 03:10 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 08:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Now true, in 2004 Auburn did make noise about claiming a title. They held a parade and also handed out rings. But, Auburn doesn't officially claim 2004 as a national championship. Their website only claims 1957 and 2010:

http://www.auburntigers.com/trads/02_aub...ships.html

My understanding is that UCF is different, that they are actually trying to claim 2017 as a national championship.

If they aren't, if they are just doing what Auburn did in 2004, and not actually claiming a title, then I still laugh, but withdraw my objection.

Auburn beat Virginia Tech in their BCS game, but Virginia Tech lost to USC and did not play Oklahoma in the regular season. UCF beat Auburn in their NY6 game and Auburn beat both Alabama and Georgia in the regular season.

If a BCS-esque system was in place, I think UCF would have gone to the National Championship game after their Peach Bowl performance.

But ... Troy beat LSU, who beat Auburn too. Does that mean Troy should have played for the national title? And remember that Georgia also clobbered Auburn, so surely that cancels out Auburn beating them. Transitivity doesn't mean much. The bottom line is UCF beat a 3-loss Auburn team in the Peach.

Regarding the BCS, I'm not sure why you would think that when all the evidence points the other way. In the polls, they finished #6 and #7. We don't even need to look at the computers: no team in the BCS era that was ever outside of the top 3 in either poll, much less both, ever made the BCS title game.

(03-03-2018 04:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 08:58 AM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 08:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 09:02 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 06:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  To my knowledge, nobody in the SEC or any place else has claimed a national title based on anything but the BCS/CFP, or AP or coaches poll the past 45 years. All those cases where SEC and others make bizarro claims are from before 1975, when the polls voted before the bowls, and when other institutions were recognized as also being title designaters.

But UCF claims based on Colley-Matrix computer?

Who else does that? E.g. Alabama was #1 in Colley-Matrix in 2016 (when they lost to Clemson in the CFP title game), but they don't claim that as a title.

You know when even Alabama declines to claim a title, it's truly bogus, LOL.

Notre Dame, like UCF, was #1 in Colley-Matrix in 2012, they have never claimed that as a title.

This notion that Colley-Matrix alone means there is a "split title" is absurd.

Heck, the fact that CM had Alabama and Notre Dame #1 those years even after they lost the BCS/CFP title games tells us what we know about its credibility.

All it tells me is Alabama and Notre Dame got a chance to prove it on the field. Undefeated UCF didn't get that opportunity.

It should tell you a few other things:

1) On its own terms, Colley-Matrix seems to be a bizarro system, as it actually picked ND #1 and Alabama #1 despite losing title games.

2) The fact that these power teams, famous for claiming whatever titles they can, haven't claimed their alleged Colley titles tells you that Colley has zero credibility as a stand-alone title selector.

Truth is, even if you think the CFP is still mythical and doesn't produce a legit champ like the NCAA hoops tourney, the accepted standard in college football for the past 45 years is that you can claim a 'share' of a title if you win either the coaches or AP poll. That's the standard, and UCF doesn't meet it.

3) Actually, 126 other teams didn't get a chance to "prove it on the field" either, because only 4 teams made the playoffs. Undefeated means nothing, as no other sports league requires that you be undefeated to make the playoffs.

Usually, the designation is division/conference. If you win your division or conference, you make the playoffs regardless of your record. E.g., the Giants can go 9-7, but if they win the NFC East, they make the playoffs.

The equivalent in college football is the conference, but UCF wasn't the only conference champ not to make the playoffs. Only 3 of the 10 FBS conference champs made the playoffs. 7 were left out, including two P5 champs, but only one is claiming "national title", LOL.

4) Even if we agree that UCF should have been in the playoffs and was screwed out of being in them, it is still absurd for them to claim the title, because it assumes they would have won something they didn't win, the playoffs. It's like me thinking "you know, my Redskins should have made the playoffs but the NFL screwed us, therefore since we didn't get to PLAY in them but should have, we can act like we not only played in them but WON them, and declare ourselves champs over the Super Bowl winner!" That's just absurd, acting like you won something you didn't.

Those are the things you should have learned from my post.

What other sport do you go undefeated an not make the playoffs?

Again you're NFL comparison is beyond dumb. Did the Redskins win all their games and get kept out of the playoff?

Did you really just mention UCF going undefeated yet again? As I've explained, that's completely irrelevant, because in the NFL or NBA, teams all have very similar schedules, and that's because they have ZERO control over their own schedules. Whereas in college football, SOS can be very different, and teams get to schedule 4 games of their own choosing, meaning they can cherry pick who they play.

It is ridiculous for any team to be able to schedule 1/3 of their games, and then shout "We went unbeaten! Therefore we belong in the playoffs!"

The "if you are unbeaten you automatically make the playoffs" concept only works if an impartial body is doing the scheduling for the teams involved. It can't be an imperative if the teams control the scheduling of any of their own games.

Really, really dumb.

And the NFL comparison is spot-on, because in the example it doesn't matter why the Redskins were screwed out of the playoffs. It could be because of record, or rules, whatever. They, like UCF allegedly, were "screwed" when they should have made the playoffs.

But even if UCF was totally screwed out of being in the playoffs, it does not follow at all that this means they can act AS IF they won those playoffs. They didn't win them, so they didn't win the title.

Good Lord.

Don't be ridiculous. Any school outside the P5 is very limited with their schedule. Even BYU as an independent can't get that strong a schedule. This system is stacked against them.

They aren't acting as if they won the playoffs. They aren't claiming the playoff title. They are claiming they are the best since everybody else lost and they beat the team who beat the two teams in the title game.

I don't think they are nearly as good as Alabama or Georgia (or even Auburn), but its not an absurd argument as you claim.

(03-03-2018 04:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 03:10 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 08:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Now true, in 2004 Auburn did make noise about claiming a title. They held a parade and also handed out rings. But, Auburn doesn't officially claim 2004 as a national championship. Their website only claims 1957 and 2010:

http://www.auburntigers.com/trads/02_aub...ships.html

My understanding is that UCF is different, that they are actually trying to claim 2017 as a national championship.

If they aren't, if they are just doing what Auburn did in 2004, and not actually claiming a title, then I still laugh, but withdraw my objection.

Auburn beat Virginia Tech in their BCS game, but Virginia Tech lost to USC and did not play Oklahoma in the regular season. UCF beat Auburn in their NY6 game and Auburn beat both Alabama and Georgia in the regular season.

If a BCS-esque system was in place, I think UCF would have gone to the National Championship game after their Peach Bowl performance.

But ... Troy beat LSU, who beat Auburn too. Does that mean Troy should have played for the national title? And remember that Georgia also clobbered Auburn, so surely that cancels out Auburn beating them. Transitivity doesn't mean much. The bottom line is UCF beat a 3-loss Auburn team in the Peach.

Regarding the BCS, I'm not sure why you would think that when all the evidence points the other way. In the polls, they finished #6 and #7. We don't even need to look at the computers: no team in the BCS era that was ever outside of the top 3 in either poll, much less both, ever made the BCS title game.

Troy wasn't unbeaten. You again are making arguments that make UCF's look rock solid.

Just because the SEC schools' claims were before the 1970s doesn't mean they aren't absurd. There were two polls then.
Some of them they make are ridiculous. Tennessee and A&M are some of the worst. Alabama claims a number of sketchy ones (which is pretty silly considering how many legitimate ones they have).

That argument is another silly one. What UCF has done is not as extreme as what some other schools have done. Your USF animus towards UCF is really showing.

(03-03-2018 04:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 01:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 08:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 07:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 06:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  They have no more right to claim a title than does Arkansas State or USF or Penn State. UCF agreed to the CFP system, and they didn't win the CFP playoff. Ohio State didn't either.

And unbeaten means zero, because of SOS, and because schools can actually pick several teams to be on their schedule, which isn't true in pro leagues.

It's really bizarro that anyone thinks that because they felt they should have been in the playoff but was excluded, that this means they can act as if they did beat two playoff teams to win the playoffs. Amazing, really.

Think about it: What if the 49ers would have made the playoffs if they won their last game, but they missed out because they lost their last game. But, they lost because the NFL agrees that a bad call was made and they should have won.

Does that mean that because the 49ers were screwed out of making the playoffs that they can claim they are champions, as if they actually won two playoff games and the Super Bowl even though they didn't actually do so?

Beyond dumb, eh?

That may very well be the most asinine argument you've ever made. UCF didnt LOSE thier last game. UCF didnt lose ANY games. Becasue the NFL utilizes actual on the field results (as opposed to ice skating judges), no team that finishes the season undefeated will ever be anything other than the champion of the NFL for that year. THe NFL is a terrible analogy. Try ice skating---its closer to what the CFP really is.

My argument isn't 'asinine', it's spot-on. What's asinine is this harping about UCF being undefeated. Undefeated in the regular season isn't a requirement to make the playoffs in ANY sport. So the fact that in my scenario, the 49ers weren't undefeated is meaningless. What is meaningful is that they would have made the playoffs had they won their last game, and should have won it, but were screwed by a bad call.

Just as some UCF fans think UCF was screwed out of the playoffs by a 'bad call', in this case the CFP committee's decision to not give them a playoff spot.

See the analogy? In both cases, a team that should have made the playoffs was left out because of a bad decision someone else made.

But again, even if you SHOULD have been in the playoffs but were 'screwed' out of it by a bad decision, system, whatever you want to call it, is "asinine" to then claim you are the champion AS IF you actually won the playoffs.

Even if you are totally correct that you should have been in the playoffs, that doesn't give you any right to claim the status of whoever did win them, because then you are acting as if you not only made the playoffs, but won them, which you did not do.

Being undefeated in not a requirement for making the playoff in any sport. However, being undefeated UNIVERSALLY gets you into the playoff in most any sport (certainly the NFL). So yes, your NFL analogy is the very definition of assinine.

Amazingly lame thinking. My NFL example above assumed that yes, in fact, UCF was absolutely screwed out of a playoff spot. Get it? So let's assume that you are correct that because most every other sport ensures that an undefeated team makes the playoffs, that by being undefeated and not making the playoffs, UCF was therefore screwed out of being in the playoffs. Got it?

Then, as i said above, it does not follow at all that UCF has the right to claim the status of whoever did win the playoffs (and thus the title), because then you are acting as if you not only *made* the playoffs (which you have the right to gripe about because you should have), but *won* them as well.

But since making the playoffs and winning them are not the same thing, you have no right to claim what comes with *winning* the playoffs, because you didn't win them, and merely making them doesn't mean you win them.

That said, you're wrong about the basis for your claim anyway: Yes, the NFL does ensure that every undefeated team makes the playoffs, and it should. So do MLB, the NBA, etc.

But, conceptually, that is only a rational imperative in situations where the league controls the scheduling of games. If a team gets to schedule any of its own games, then it is no kind of imperative at all, because then a team can craft a schedule to its own liking. In the NFL, NBA, etc., the teams have zero control over scheduling, their entire schedules are determined by an impartial league-office process no team has control over. But in college football, teams get to pick all their OOC games, which amounts to about 1/3 of their schedule.

So there is absolutely no rational imperative at all that any undefeated team makes a college playoff.

At best, you can claim that it is rational that conference champions make the playoffs, because no team controls its conference schedule. But even then, UCF has no claim to the title for the same reason given above, plus the fact that there were six other conference champs who didn't make the playoffs either and thus have the same gripe UCF does.

But they aren't griping.

Sounds like argument for required access by the G5 (as the reality is they dont even "control" thier OOC schedule since another party must say "yes" to their offer to play). Basically, what your saying is the schedules are so different they cant really be properly compared. The real issue is going undefeated against weak schedule doesnt mean you can beat every P5 school---it also is not evidence that you can't.

The answer is placing the best G5 champ in the playoff. Otherwise, the CFP Committee is simply "guessing" that an undefeated G5 is not the best team in FBS. Frankly, that guess is no more supported than the UCF National Championship claim. I may be wrong, but I really do think they will get this right when the time to jump to an 8-team playoff rolls around.

(03-03-2018 04:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 08:58 AM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 08:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 09:02 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 06:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  To my knowledge, nobody in the SEC or any place else has claimed a national title based on anything but the BCS/CFP, or AP or coaches poll the past 45 years. All those cases where SEC and others make bizarro claims are from before 1975, when the polls voted before the bowls, and when other institutions were recognized as also being title designaters.

But UCF claims based on Colley-Matrix computer?

Who else does that? E.g. Alabama was #1 in Colley-Matrix in 2016 (when they lost to Clemson in the CFP title game), but they don't claim that as a title.

You know when even Alabama declines to claim a title, it's truly bogus, LOL.

Notre Dame, like UCF, was #1 in Colley-Matrix in 2012, they have never claimed that as a title.

This notion that Colley-Matrix alone means there is a "split title" is absurd.

Heck, the fact that CM had Alabama and Notre Dame #1 those years even after they lost the BCS/CFP title games tells us what we know about its credibility.

All it tells me is Alabama and Notre Dame got a chance to prove it on the field. Undefeated UCF didn't get that opportunity.

It should tell you a few other things:

1) On its own terms, Colley-Matrix seems to be a bizarro system, as it actually picked ND #1 and Alabama #1 despite losing title games.

2) The fact that these power teams, famous for claiming whatever titles they can, haven't claimed their alleged Colley titles tells you that Colley has zero credibility as a stand-alone title selector.

Truth is, even if you think the CFP is still mythical and doesn't produce a legit champ like the NCAA hoops tourney, the accepted standard in college football for the past 45 years is that you can claim a 'share' of a title if you win either the coaches or AP poll. That's the standard, and UCF doesn't meet it.

3) Actually, 126 other teams didn't get a chance to "prove it on the field" either, because only 4 teams made the playoffs. Undefeated means nothing, as no other sports league requires that you be undefeated to make the playoffs.

Usually, the designation is division/conference. If you win your division or conference, you make the playoffs regardless of your record. E.g., the Giants can go 9-7, but if they win the NFC East, they make the playoffs.

The equivalent in college football is the conference, but UCF wasn't the only conference champ not to make the playoffs. Only 3 of the 10 FBS conference champs made the playoffs. 7 were left out, including two P5 champs, but only one is claiming "national title", LOL.

4) Even if we agree that UCF should have been in the playoffs and was screwed out of being in them, it is still absurd for them to claim the title, because it assumes they would have won something they didn't win, the playoffs. It's like me thinking "you know, my Redskins should have made the playoffs but the NFL screwed us, therefore since we didn't get to PLAY in them but should have, we can act like we not only played in them but WON them, and declare ourselves champs over the Super Bowl winner!" That's just absurd, acting like you won something you didn't.

Those are the things you should have learned from my post.

What other sport do you go undefeated an not make the playoffs?

Again you're NFL comparison is beyond dumb. Did the Redskins win all their games and get kept out of the playoff?

Did you really just mention UCF going undefeated yet again? As I've explained, that's completely irrelevant, because in the NFL or NBA, teams all have very similar schedules, and that's because they have ZERO control over their own schedules. Whereas in college football, SOS can be very different, and teams get to schedule 4 games of their own choosing, meaning they can cherry pick who they play.

It is ridiculous for any team to be able to schedule 1/3 of their games, and then shout "We went unbeaten! Therefore we belong in the playoffs!"

The "if you are unbeaten you automatically make the playoffs" concept only works if an impartial body is doing the scheduling for the teams involved. It can't be an imperative if the teams control the scheduling of any of their own games.

Really, really dumb.

And the NFL comparison is spot-on, because in the example it doesn't matter why the Redskins were screwed out of the playoffs. It could be because of record, or rules, whatever. They, like UCF allegedly, were "screwed" when they should have made the playoffs.

But even if UCF was totally screwed out of being in the playoffs, it does not follow at all that this means they can act AS IF they won those playoffs. They didn't win them, so they didn't win the title.

Good Lord.

Look your NFL comparison is terrible, every NFL team starts the season in control of their own destiny. No NFL team gets screwed out of the playoffs.

As far as scheduling a team in the AAC has to schedule their big game or 2 big games against an elite team 3 or 4 years in advance and hope that's not the year FSU, USC, Michigan or whoever they schedule goes 8-5.

If the flawed system doesn't allow an undefeated team the opportunity to compete for a National Championship, I have no problem with the only undefeated team in college football claiming they are co-national champion.

(03-03-2018 04:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  [quote='Huskies12' pid='15125172' dateline='1520085536']
[quote='quo vadis' pid='15125092' dateline='1520082462']
[quote='Huskies12' pid='15124707' dateline='1520042575']
[quote='quo vadis' pid='15124244' dateline='1520033827']

To my knowledge, nobody in the SEC or any place else has claimed a national title based on anything but the BCS/CFP, or AP or coaches poll the past 45 years. All those cases where SEC and others make bizarro claims are from before 1975, when the polls voted before the bowls, and when other institutions were recognized as also being title designaters.

May be old, but they still hang the banners. They still claim the National Championships based on eleventy-seven different NCAA recognized national championship selectors. [/quote]

Quote:But UCF claims based on Colley-Matrix computer?

It doesn't matter if the Colley-MAtrix computer formula turns out to be monkeys throwing darts at a wall. It's on the NCAA's list.

Quote:Truth is, even if you think the CFP is still mythical and doesn't produce a legit champ like the NCAA hoops tourney, the accepted standard in college football for the past 45 years is that you can claim a 'share' of a title if you win either the coaches or AP poll. That's the standard, and UCF doesn't meet it.

The accepted standard in college athletics is you can do whatever you can get away with.

Quote:3) Actually, 126 other teams didn't get a chance to "prove it on the field" either, because only 4 teams made the playoffs. Undefeated means nothing, as no other sports league requires that you be undefeated to make the playoffs.

That's not true. In college football, as well as in boxing, "undefeated" has a mystique to it. Right or wrong, that's how it is in college football.

Quote:[quote]4) Even if we agree that UCF should have been in the playoffs and was screwed out of being in them, it is still absurd for them to claim the title, because it assumes they would have won something they didn't win, the playoffs. It's like me thinking "you know, my Redskins should have made the playoffs but the NFL screwed us, therefore since we didn't get to PLAY in them but should have, we can act like we not only played in them but WON them, and declare ourselves champs over the Super Bowl winner!" That's just absurd, acting like you won something you didn't.

Those are the things you should have learned from my post.

The relevant comparison for the NFL wouldn't be a team getting screwed out of a playoff spot on a bad call in the last game. It would be something like the NFL declaring that the Cowboys were playoff ineligible because Jerry Jones something something. And the Cowboys go 16-0, but don't go to the playoff.

The Super Bowl champion would have an asterisk that year.

Quote:Did you really just mention UCF going undefeated yet again? As I've explained, that's completely irrelevant,

In the opinion of the college football world, undefeated is important, not irrelevant.

Quote:It is ridiculous for any team to be able to schedule 1/3 of their games, and then shout "We went unbeaten! Therefore we belong in the playoffs!"

College teams make their schedules. Live with it, Quo.

(03-03-2018 04:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  [quote='Attackcoog' pid='15125770' dateline='1520102743']
[quote='quo vadis' pid='15125139' dateline='1520084469']
[quote='Attackcoog' pid='15124327' dateline='1520035813']
[quote='quo vadis' pid='15124281' dateline='1520034613']

And unbeaten means zero,

Bzzzt. Wrong. Look up the polls, year after year, and spot the team that keeps eking out wins in overtime and by field goals and on hail mary passes, and then the point where their luck runs out--and they drop like a rock in the polls.

In college football, undefeated matters. Deal with it, Quo.

I must thank quo for basically creating a grassroots pr campaign for UCF, while simultaneously making a fool of himself with his false equivocations. What a great day!

(03-03-2018 06:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 04:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 08:58 AM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 08:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 09:02 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  All it tells me is Alabama and Notre Dame got a chance to prove it on the field. Undefeated UCF didn't get that opportunity.

It should tell you a few other things:

1) On its own terms, Colley-Matrix seems to be a bizarro system, as it actually picked ND #1 and Alabama #1 despite losing title games.

2) The fact that these power teams, famous for claiming whatever titles they can, haven't claimed their alleged Colley titles tells you that Colley has zero credibility as a stand-alone title selector.

Truth is, even if you think the CFP is still mythical and doesn't produce a legit champ like the NCAA hoops tourney, the accepted standard in college football for the past 45 years is that you can claim a 'share' of a title if you win either the coaches or AP poll. That's the standard, and UCF doesn't meet it.

3) Actually, 126 other teams didn't get a chance to "prove it on the field" either, because only 4 teams made the playoffs. Undefeated means nothing, as no other sports league requires that you be undefeated to make the playoffs.

Usually, the designation is division/conference. If you win your division or conference, you make the playoffs regardless of your record. E.g., the Giants can go 9-7, but if they win the NFC East, they make the playoffs.

The equivalent in college football is the conference, but UCF wasn't the only conference champ not to make the playoffs. Only 3 of the 10 FBS conference champs made the playoffs. 7 were left out, including two P5 champs, but only one is claiming "national title", LOL.

4) Even if we agree that UCF should have been in the playoffs and was screwed out of being in them, it is still absurd for them to claim the title, because it assumes they would have won something they didn't win, the playoffs. It's like me thinking "you know, my Redskins should have made the playoffs but the NFL screwed us, therefore since we didn't get to PLAY in them but should have, we can act like we not only played in them but WON them, and declare ourselves champs over the Super Bowl winner!" That's just absurd, acting like you won something you didn't.

Those are the things you should have learned from my post.

What other sport do you go undefeated an not make the playoffs?

Again you're NFL comparison is beyond dumb. Did the Redskins win all their games and get kept out of the playoff?

Did you really just mention UCF going undefeated yet again? As I've explained, that's completely irrelevant, because in the NFL or NBA, teams all have very similar schedules, and that's because they have ZERO control over their own schedules. Whereas in college football, SOS can be very different, and teams get to schedule 4 games of their own choosing, meaning they can cherry pick who they play.

It is ridiculous for any team to be able to schedule 1/3 of their games, and then shout "We went unbeaten! Therefore we belong in the playoffs!"

The "if you are unbeaten you automatically make the playoffs" concept only works if an impartial body is doing the scheduling for the teams involved. It can't be an imperative if the teams control the scheduling of any of their own games.

Really, really dumb.

And the NFL comparison is spot-on, because in the example it doesn't matter why the Redskins were screwed out of the playoffs. It could be because of record, or rules, whatever. They, like UCF allegedly, were "screwed" when they should have made the playoffs.

But even if UCF was totally screwed out of being in the playoffs, it does not follow at all that this means they can act AS IF they won those playoffs. They didn't win them, so they didn't win the title.

Good Lord.

Don't be ridiculous. Any school outside the P5 is very limited with their schedule. Even BYU as an independent can't get that strong a schedule. This system is stacked against them.

They aren't acting as if they won the playoffs. They aren't claiming the playoff title. They are claiming they are the best since everybody else lost and they beat the team who beat the two teams in the title game.

I don't think they are nearly as good as Alabama or Georgia (or even Auburn), but its not an absurd argument as you claim.

Nothing here refutes my point that shouts of "we were unbeaten!" mean nothing if a team got to craft its own schedule. That's setting up your own pins to knock them down.

The reason the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. guarantee that an unbeaten team must make the playoffs is because their schedules are 100% impartially created.

And transitivity is ridonculous. We can see that by the fact that Clemson and LSU also both beat Auburn - who beat Georgia and Alabama. So using UCF logic, that means they can claim they were better than Alabama too, because they beat the team that beat Alabama.

But guess what? When LSU and Clemson both played Alabama - they both lost! I guess that means that if you beat a team that beat Alabama, it doesn't quite necessarily mean you are better than Alabama, LOL.

UCF has no claim to be "best" at all. They went unbeaten vs the #75 schedule and they didn't win the playoffs. That's the formal truth.

The informal truth, for those who like tradition, is the polls. And both polls picked someone other than UCF. Those pollsters all knew that UCF was the only unbeaten, and had beaten Auburn, who beat Alabama and Georgia. It wasn't like that information was kept hidden from them until after they voted, LOL.

And guess what? They didn't vote UCF anywhere near #1. Not even in the top 5. And historically, at least since the 1970s, no claim of a "split" title has had any credibility if you didn't win one of the polls. Zero. That's what "split" has meant since at least 1975.

UCF has nothing. Zero.

(03-03-2018 06:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 04:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 03:10 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 08:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Now true, in 2004 Auburn did make noise about claiming a title. They held a parade and also handed out rings. But, Auburn doesn't officially claim 2004 as a national championship. Their website only claims 1957 and 2010:

http://www.auburntigers.com/trads/02_aub...ships.html

My understanding is that UCF is different, that they are actually trying to claim 2017 as a national championship.

If they aren't, if they are just doing what Auburn did in 2004, and not actually claiming a title, then I still laugh, but withdraw my objection.

Auburn beat Virginia Tech in their BCS game, but Virginia Tech lost to USC and did not play Oklahoma in the regular season. UCF beat Auburn in their NY6 game and Auburn beat both Alabama and Georgia in the regular season.

If a BCS-esque system was in place, I think UCF would have gone to the National Championship game after their Peach Bowl performance.

But ... Troy beat LSU, who beat Auburn too. Does that mean Troy should have played for the national title? And remember that Georgia also clobbered Auburn, so surely that cancels out Auburn beating them. Transitivity doesn't mean much. The bottom line is UCF beat a 3-loss Auburn team in the Peach.

Regarding the BCS, I'm not sure why you would think that when all the evidence points the other way. In the polls, they finished #6 and #7. We don't even need to look at the computers: no team in the BCS era that was ever outside of the top 3 in either poll, much less both, ever made the BCS title game.

Troy wasn't unbeaten. You again are making arguments that make UCF's look rock solid.

Why don't we skip to the chase: How many times do I have to explain that unbeaten doesn't mean anything absent an examination of who you played (SOS) and whether you played a 100% third-party determined schedule?

You tell me - 3 more times? 5 more times? And we can just go right there, OK?

(03-03-2018 06:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  Just because the SEC schools' claims were before the 1970s doesn't mean they aren't absurd. There were two polls then.
Some of them they make are ridiculous. Tennessee and A&M are some of the worst. Alabama claims a number of sketchy ones (which is pretty silly considering how many legitimate ones they have).

That argument is another silly one. What UCF has done is not as extreme as what some other schools have done. Your USF animus towards UCF is really showing.

I agree, there are very sketchy claims made before the 1970s, absolutely. But (a) it is telling that we don't find those absurd claims after the mid-1970s, because that means that norms as to what constitute a legit claim on a title coalesced around the polls then, and (b) just because team X has a totally bogus claim from 1960 or something doesn't justify or mean a UCF claim now is anything but bogus. They are both just bogus.

(03-03-2018 06:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 04:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 01:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 08:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 07:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That may very well be the most asinine argument you've ever made. UCF didnt LOSE thier last game. UCF didnt lose ANY games. Becasue the NFL utilizes actual on the field results (as opposed to ice skating judges), no team that finishes the season undefeated will ever be anything other than the champion of the NFL for that year. THe NFL is a terrible analogy. Try ice skating---its closer to what the CFP really is.

My argument isn't 'asinine', it's spot-on. What's asinine is this harping about UCF being undefeated. Undefeated in the regular season isn't a requirement to make the playoffs in ANY sport. So the fact that in my scenario, the 49ers weren't undefeated is meaningless. What is meaningful is that they would have made the playoffs had they won their last game, and should have won it, but were screwed by a bad call.

Just as some UCF fans think UCF was screwed out of the playoffs by a 'bad call', in this case the CFP committee's decision to not give them a playoff spot.

See the analogy? In both cases, a team that should have made the playoffs was left out because of a bad decision someone else made.

But again, even if you SHOULD have been in the playoffs but were 'screwed' out of it by a bad decision, system, whatever you want to call it, is "asinine" to then claim you are the champion AS IF you actually won the playoffs.

Even if you are totally correct that you should have been in the playoffs, that doesn't give you any right to claim the status of whoever did win them, because then you are acting as if you not only made the playoffs, but won them, which you did not do.

Being undefeated in not a requirement for making the playoff in any sport. However, being undefeated UNIVERSALLY gets you into the playoff in most any sport (certainly the NFL). So yes, your NFL analogy is the very definition of assinine.

Amazingly lame thinking. My NFL example above assumed that yes, in fact, UCF was absolutely screwed out of a playoff spot. Get it? So let's assume that you are correct that because most every other sport ensures that an undefeated team makes the playoffs, that by being undefeated and not making the playoffs, UCF was therefore screwed out of being in the playoffs. Got it?

Then, as i said above, it does not follow at all that UCF has the right to claim the status of whoever did win the playoffs (and thus the title), because then you are acting as if you not only *made* the playoffs (which you have the right to gripe about because you should have), but *won* them as well.

But since making the playoffs and winning them are not the same thing, you have no right to claim what comes with *winning* the playoffs, because you didn't win them, and merely making them doesn't mean you win them.

That said, you're wrong about the basis for your claim anyway: Yes, the NFL does ensure that every undefeated team makes the playoffs, and it should. So do MLB, the NBA, etc.

But, conceptually, that is only a rational imperative in situations where the league controls the scheduling of games. If a team gets to schedule any of its own games, then it is no kind of imperative at all, because then a team can craft a schedule to its own liking. In the NFL, NBA, etc., the teams have zero control over scheduling, their entire schedules are determined by an impartial league-office process no team has control over. But in college football, teams get to pick all their OOC games, which amounts to about 1/3 of their schedule.

So there is absolutely no rational imperative at all that any undefeated team makes a college playoff.

At best, you can claim that it is rational that conference champions make the playoffs, because no team controls its conference schedule. But even then, UCF has no claim to the title for the same reason given above, plus the fact that there were six other conference champs who didn't make the playoffs either and thus have the same gripe UCF does.

But they aren't griping.

Sounds like argument for required access by the G5 (as the reality is they dont even "control" thier OOC schedule since another party must say "yes" to their offer to play). Basically, what your saying is the schedules are so different they cant really be properly compared. The real issue is going undefeated against weak schedule doesnt mean you can beat every P5 school---it also is not evidence that you can't.

The answer is placing the best G5 champ in the playoff. Otherwise, the CFP Committee is simply "guessing" that an undefeated G5 is not the best team in FBS. Frankly, that guess is no more supported than the UCF National Championship claim. I may be wrong, but I really do think they will get this right when the time to jump to an 8-team playoff rolls around.

First, it's not just a guess about an unbeaten G5, as unbeaten doesn't mean anything. The committee also guessed that PAC champ USC wasn't best in FBS, that B1G champ Ohio State wasn't, heck that Penn State wasn't. Lots of teams. There were four slots to fill out of 130 official FBS teams. We've seen lots of teams win the NCAA tourney from far back. Heck, seven years ago, UConn finished tied for 9th in the Big East and won the title.

All committees go on the available evidence.

Second, in your system, we can have multiple undefeated G5s as well. It can happen.

Finally, as for actually claiming a title, UCF has no basis. They obviously didn't win the official title, and unofficially, since 1975 at least, the polls have been the unofficial, informal barometer: even Auburn in 2004, despite holding a parade and handing out rings, doesn't officially claim a national title, because they didn't win a poll.

Fun fact: Many don't know that since the demise of the BCS in 2012, the coaches pollsters now "vote their conscience" again, they are no longer contractually/morally obligated to vote for the CFP winner like they were for the BCS title game winner. Totally free just like the AP voters.

There were six AAC coaches who were in this year's coach's poll (ECU, Navy, Houston, Cincy, Tulane, Tulsa). All of them voted Alabama #1, over UCF.

(03-03-2018 08:29 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  [quote='quo vadis' pid='15126306' dateline='1520111911']
[quote='Huskies12' pid='15125172' dateline='1520085536']
[quote='quo vadis' pid='15125092' dateline='1520082462']
[quote='Huskies12' pid='15124707' dateline='1520042575']
[quote='quo vadis' pid='15124244' dateline='1520033827']

To my knowledge, nobody in the SEC or any place else has claimed a national title based on anything but the BCS/CFP, or AP or coaches poll the past 45 years. All those cases where SEC and others make bizarro claims are from before 1975, when the polls voted before the bowls, and when other institutions were recognized as also being title designaters.

May be old, but they still hang the banners. They still claim the National Championships based on eleventy-seven different NCAA recognized national championship selectors. [/quote]

Yes, but before the mid-70s, the standards were in fact much murkier. E.g., a claim that team X makes as to having a share of the 1944 title because something called the Nessy Report voted them #1 seems absurd from our POV in 2018, but in 1944 the Nessy Report might have been widely viewed as a credible selector. But once the two polls moved their polls to after the bowls, the poll standard was settled on. That's obvious, because we don't see those same kinds of claims since then.

Quote:But UCF claims based on Colley-Matrix computer?

It doesn't matter if the Colley-MAtrix computer formula turns out to be monkeys throwing darts at a wall. It's on the NCAA's list.

Look up the NCAA book: In the list of champions by year, CM is only listed when it was part of the BCS, since the BCS went away, no more CM champ being listed. CM was only valid while it was part of the BCS. That's why you don't see Notre Dame 2012 or Alabama 2016 listed.

Quote:3) Actually, 126 other teams didn't get a chance to "prove it on the field" either, because only 4 teams made the playoffs. Undefeated means nothing, as no other sports league requires that you be undefeated to make the playoffs.

That's not true. In college football, as well as in boxing, "undefeated" has a mystique to it. Right or wrong, that's how it is in college football.

If it has such a mystique, how come there are so many unbeaten teams that didn't win a national title? There have been many over the years. Pollsters have had zero problem denying unbeaten teams a share of a title. They had no qualms this year either, UCF didn't make the final top 5 in either poll.

So much for the mystique.

Quote:[quote]4) Even if we agree that UCF should have been in the playoffs and was screwed out of being in them, it is still absurd for them to claim the title, because it assumes they would have won something they didn't win, the playoffs. It's like me thinking "you know, my Redskins should have made the playoffs but the NFL screwed us, therefore since we didn't get to PLAY in them but should have, we can act like we not only played in them but WON them, and declare ourselves champs over the Super Bowl winner!" That's just absurd, acting like you won something you didn't.

Those are the things you should have learned from my post.

The relevant comparison for the NFL wouldn't be a team getting screwed out of a playoff spot on a bad call in the last game. It would be something like the NFL declaring that the Cowboys were playoff ineligible because Jerry Jones something something. And the Cowboys go 16-0, but don't go to the playoff.

UCF didn't make the playoffs because the committee didn't think they were one of the best four teams. That might have been a mistake, but it's close to a mistake a ref makes that costs them a game. I don't even know how to judge your Jerry Jones gobblydy, because you didn't spell it out.

Even worse is the Cowboys going 16-0. If they went 16-0, every "poll" and media outlet in the country and every power ranking computer would say they were the #1 team, and with good reason: Unlike UCF, they would have played a schedule that was essentially equal to that of all other NFL teams. Because no teams choose their schedules, the range between the best and worst NFL schedule is very tight, whereas in college sports it can be vast, as it was this year with UCF and their #72 schedule.

In contrast, nobody - not the pollsters, the committee, or the computers - ever had UCF in the top 5.

Because their undefeated record didn't mean much.

Quote:Did you really just mention UCF going undefeated yet again? As I've explained, that's completely irrelevant,

In the opinion of the college football world, undefeated is important, not irrelevant.

The best indicator of that are the coaches and AP voters. They both had UCF far and away from #1. Heck, UCF wouldn't have made a 4-team playoff that was held *after* they beat Auburn.

So much for being important, at least in the sense of picking a champ.

Quote:It is ridiculous for any team to be able to schedule 1/3 of their games, and then shout "We went unbeaten! Therefore we belong in the playoffs!"

College teams make their schedules. Live with it, Quo.

We all live with it, but it's one reason that "undefeated" doesn't mean nearly as much in terms of being chosen for playoffs as it does in the NFL or any other league. If a team can make its schedule, going unbeaten has considerably less credibility than if their schedule was generated by an impartial third party. It's just the way it is.

(03-03-2018 04:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  [quote='Attackcoog' pid='15125770' dateline='1520102743']
[quote='quo vadis' pid='15125139' dateline='1520084469']
[quote='Attackcoog' pid='15124327' dateline='1520035813']
[quote='quo vadis' pid='15124281' dateline='1520034613']

And unbeaten means zero,

Bzzzt. Wrong. Look up the polls, year after year, and spot the team that keeps eking out wins in overtime and by field goals and on hail mary passes, and then the point where their luck runs out--and they drop like a rock in the polls.

In college football, undefeated matters. Deal with it, Quo.


Look at the polls? I did, and they show UCF finishing at #6 and #7, far away from #1.

Heck, there were 6 coaches from the AAC in the coach's poll. They all voted Alabama #1 ahead of UCF.

I guess all of these writers and coaches must have just missed the memo about the important mystique of being unbeaten?

(03-04-2018 03:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 06:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 04:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 01:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 08:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

Being undefeated in not a requirement for making the playoff in any sport. However, being undefeated UNIVERSALLY gets you into the playoff in most any sport (certainly the NFL). So yes, your NFL analogy is the very definition of assinine.

There were six AAC coaches who were in this year's coach's poll (ECU, Navy, Houston, Cincy, Tulane, Tulsa). All of them voted Alabama #1, over UCF.

Coaches poll requires that., bottom line is UCF got tons of free Pub after the season. and 2 fan bases are upset, AL who finished 3rd in SEC and never should been in running for a spot. and USF.

Looking at it another way:

This thread has significantly increased the number of CSNBBS posters who believe that Quo is a real USF fan. So you've got that going for ya.

(03-04-2018 10:14 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Looking at it another way:

This thread has significantly increased the number of CSNBBS posters who believe that Quo is a real USF fan. So you've got that going for ya.

That's about the only thing Quo has going for her. The rest is a collection of incoherent ramblings of an inbred Bulls fan..

(03-04-2018 08:30 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 03:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  There were six AAC coaches who were in this year's coach's poll (ECU, Navy, Houston, Cincy, Tulane, Tulsa). All of them voted Alabama #1, over UCF.

Coaches poll requires that.,

Nope, that was only true for the BCS era. The coaches poll has no contractual tie with the CPF. It is no longer required to pick the CFP winner as their final poll #1 nor are any coaches obligated to vote that way.

(03-04-2018 10:53 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 10:14 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Looking at it another way:

This thread has significantly increased the number of CSNBBS posters who believe that Quo is a real USF fan. So you've got that going for ya.

That's about the only thing Quo has going for her. The rest is a collection of incoherent ramblings of an inbred Bulls fan..

The UCF claim to a national title is ridonculous. The reason I think many around here haven't bowed to my obvious demolition of it is that they think UCF isn't "serious", that UCF isn't actually claiming a national title, it's just marketing designed to gain publicity or something so it's not to be taken seriously, and thus there's no reason to argue it.

But they don't get it: The nutjobs at UCF who have raised there banner *are* serious. They really are claiming a title and really do think they deserve to say they are champs. They aren't like Auburn 2004 who had a parade and gave out rings, but in the end don't claim a title. UCF is 'serious'.

So it makes sense to spend a little bandwidth reminding everyone how dumb their claim is.