(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?