Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Alabama RB says UCF deserved a shot at playoff
Author Message
FloridaJag Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,083
Joined: Oct 2010
Reputation: 46
I Root For: USA/FSU/UWF/KSU
Location: Swamps
Post: #1
Exclamation Alabama RB says UCF deserved a shot at playoff
Alabama RB says UCF deserved a shot at playoff

Scarbrough had other thoughts.

"I think they should have had an opportunity in the playoff because they didn't lose a game just like any of these teams that had one loss," he said. "I still think they should have had an opportunity but it is what it is. They had no control over it."

http://www.al.com/alabamafootball/index....ved_a.html
03-02-2018 03:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

ark30inf Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,643
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 588
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
Post: #2
Alabama RB says UCF deserved a shot at playoff
Not surprising from a sportsman. No other league has its post-season set up this way.

Its purpose is to maximize revenue for a select few and erect barriers to entry for others.

Sportsmen prefer that all participants have their shot based on on-field performance rather than comittees or polls.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
03-02-2018 04:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,539
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 351
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #3
RE: Alabama RB says UCF deserved a shot at playoff
(03-02-2018 04:53 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Not surprising from a sportsman. No other league has its post-season set up this way.

Its purpose is to maximize revenue for a select few and erect barriers to entry for others.

Sportsmen prefer that all participants have their shot based on on-field performance rather than comittees or polls.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

This. No question. A true sportsman/Athlete doesn't want to stack the deck to win.
03-02-2018 09:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gemofthehills Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 426
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 0
I Root For: JSU
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Alabama RB says UCF deserved a shot at playoff
UCF is part of the deck stacking, too. Try to move up to FBS football without a conference invite. The whole system is a mess.
03-05-2018 02:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,792
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 885
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #5
RE: Alabama RB says UCF deserved a shot at playoff
In a perfect world they would get their shot.

The problem is that we have to have a system that compromises.

It is a shame to a degree.
03-05-2018 02:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Knightsweat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,738
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation: 118
I Root For: OU & UCF
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Alabama RB says UCF deserved a shot at playoff
(03-05-2018 02:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  In a perfect world they would get their shot.

The problem is that we have to have a system that compromises.

It is a shame to a degree.

Complete shame. No degree to it.
03-05-2018 04:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

ark30inf Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,643
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 588
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Alabama RB says UCF deserved a shot at playoff
(03-05-2018 02:52 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  In a perfect world they would get their shot.

The problem is that we have to have a system that compromises.

It is a shame to a degree.

Yeah, we don't 'have to have' a system that is like this. No other sport does this.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
03-05-2018 04:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,267
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 613
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #8
RE: Alabama RB says UCF deserved a shot at playoff
(03-02-2018 04:53 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Sportsmen prefer that all participants have their shot based on on-field performance rather than comittees or polls.

In all sports, nobody is allowed to just hop off the couch and declare themselves a "participant" that the top dogs are obligated to compete against.

If I'm a tennis player, i can't just pick up a racket, show up at the gates of Wimbledon, and challenge Roger Federer. I have to prove I'm a valid 'participant' by winning many tennis matches against other top professionals, earning the points needed to gain entry. Only then is Federer obligated to play me. If I just try to declare that it isn't "sporting" of him to otherwise ignore me, I'll be hauled away by security.

As has been explained to you several times, FBS is not that kind of league, because the "participants" weren't selected for their worthiness, they just met the extremely low entrance requirements for FBS - 15,000 fans for two years, and about 85 schollies.

So no, just because a school or conference is FBS doesn't mean it has proven to be a viable 'participant' that has earned the right to compete for a title on the same level as an Alabama.
(This post was last modified: 03-05-2018 05:59 PM by quo vadis.)
03-05-2018 05:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Offline
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 7,105
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 461
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #9
RE: Alabama RB says UCF deserved a shot at playoff
(03-05-2018 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-02-2018 04:53 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Sportsmen prefer that all participants have their shot based on on-field performance rather than comittees or polls.

In all sports, nobody is allowed to just hop off the couch and declare themselves a "participant" that the top dogs are obligated to compete against.

If I'm a tennis player, i can't just pick up a racket, show up at the gates of Wimbledon, and challenge Roger Federer. I have to prove I'm a valid 'participant' by winning many tennis matches against other top professionals, earning the points needed to gain entry. Only then is Federer obligated to play me. If I just try to declare that it isn't "sporting" of him to otherwise ignore me, I'll be hauled away by security.

As has been explained to you several times, FBS is not that kind of league, because the "participants" weren't selected for their worthiness, they just met the extremely low entrance requirements for FBS - 15,000 fans for two years, and about 85 schollies.

So no, just because a school or conference is FBS doesn't mean it has proven to be a viable 'participant' that has earned the right to compete for a title on the same level as an Alabama.

But if you were a professional tennis player you would be able to earn the right to play Federer for the title. If any team any given year can't play their way to a title then the title is a sham.

edit: More legitimate than UCF's "Title" but still a sham.
(This post was last modified: 03-05-2018 06:04 PM by mturn017.)
03-05-2018 06:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Online
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 22,193
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 652
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Alabama RB says UCF deserved a shot at playoff
Under the guidelines for selection of the CFP no UCF did not deserve a shot at the playoff.

The guidelines basically require a 1984 BYU situation for a G5 to make it because a G5 is stuck playing 8 games vs opponents that will not be well regarded and is unlikely to put together a viable four non-conference game schedule that will impress.

You need chaos with no clear cut this school should absolutely be in P5 scenario like 1984.

I don't like the fact that a G5 might be so good they can name their score in regular season and still won't be selected, but the guidelines as they are? It's going to exclude that G5 team unless the P5 cannot put forward a team with fewer than 2 losses.
03-05-2018 06:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,267
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 613
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #11
RE: Alabama RB says UCF deserved a shot at playoff
(03-05-2018 06:03 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-02-2018 04:53 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Sportsmen prefer that all participants have their shot based on on-field performance rather than comittees or polls.

In all sports, nobody is allowed to just hop off the couch and declare themselves a "participant" that the top dogs are obligated to compete against.

If I'm a tennis player, i can't just pick up a racket, show up at the gates of Wimbledon, and challenge Roger Federer. I have to prove I'm a valid 'participant' by winning many tennis matches against other top professionals, earning the points needed to gain entry. Only then is Federer obligated to play me. If I just try to declare that it isn't "sporting" of him to otherwise ignore me, I'll be hauled away by security.

As has been explained to you several times, FBS is not that kind of league, because the "participants" weren't selected for their worthiness, they just met the extremely low entrance requirements for FBS - 15,000 fans for two years, and about 85 schollies.

So no, just because a school or conference is FBS doesn't mean it has proven to be a viable 'participant' that has earned the right to compete for a title on the same level as an Alabama.

But if you were a professional tennis player you would be able to earn the right to play Federer for the title. If any team any given year can't play their way to a title then the title is a sham.

IMO, that's a complete exaggeration. E.g., let's say I'm the #130 player in the world. Now, that means I'm a really good player, but it also means I have a near-zero chance of winning Wimbledon. No player ranked lower than #20 has won it in the past 40 years.

Now lets say that for some reason, I am prevented from playing my way into Wimbledon. They are holding the Wimbledon qualification matches the week before the tournament, and I'm from North Korea, and the UK puts in place last-minute sanctions against NK that mean I'm not allowed to come to England and play my way in by qualifying.

But despite that, Wimbledon goes ahead and has their tournament anyway, and Federer beats Nadal in the final, after beating 4-5 other guys all ranked ahead of me. In fact, just about all of the 128 players in the event were ranked higher than me. Can anyone reasonably say that my absence, the fact that I wasn't allowed to play my way in to the draw at W, means that Federer's title is a sham? That would be rather ridonculous, eh?

Moral: When anyone isn't allowed to play their way in to an event, the "sham" quotient isn't absolute. It varies depending on the excluded party's chances of winning the event. Exclude Nadal or Federer from Wimbledon, and the winner deserves a big Asterisk next to their name, and "sham" is probably an appropriate name for it.

Exclude me, #130, and the odds of me winning were so low it's not even worth mentioning my exclusion, much less calling the entire event a 'sham'.
(This post was last modified: 03-05-2018 06:20 PM by quo vadis.)
03-05-2018 06:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

mturn017 Offline
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 7,105
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 461
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #12
RE: Alabama RB says UCF deserved a shot at playoff
(03-05-2018 06:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 06:03 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-02-2018 04:53 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Sportsmen prefer that all participants have their shot based on on-field performance rather than comittees or polls.

In all sports, nobody is allowed to just hop off the couch and declare themselves a "participant" that the top dogs are obligated to compete against.

If I'm a tennis player, i can't just pick up a racket, show up at the gates of Wimbledon, and challenge Roger Federer. I have to prove I'm a valid 'participant' by winning many tennis matches against other top professionals, earning the points needed to gain entry. Only then is Federer obligated to play me. If I just try to declare that it isn't "sporting" of him to otherwise ignore me, I'll be hauled away by security.

As has been explained to you several times, FBS is not that kind of league, because the "participants" weren't selected for their worthiness, they just met the extremely low entrance requirements for FBS - 15,000 fans for two years, and about 85 schollies.

So no, just because a school or conference is FBS doesn't mean it has proven to be a viable 'participant' that has earned the right to compete for a title on the same level as an Alabama.

But if you were a professional tennis player you would be able to earn the right to play Federer for the title. If any team any given year can't play their way to a title then the title is a sham.

IMO, that's a complete exaggeration. E.g., let's say I'm the #130 player in the world. Now, that means I'm a really good player, but it also means I have a near-zero chance of winning Wimbledon. No player ranked lower than #20 has won it in the past 40 years.

Now lets say that for some reason, I am prevented from playing my way into Wimbledon. They are holding the Wimbledon qualification matches the week before the tournament, and I'm from North Korea, and the UK puts in place last-minute sanctions against NK that mean I'm not allowed to come to England and play my way in by qualifying.

But despite that, Wimbledon goes ahead and has their tournament anyway, and Federer beats Nadal in the final, after beating 4-5 other guys all ranked ahead of me. In fact, just about all of the 128 players in the event were ranked higher than me. Can anyone reasonably say that my absence, the fact that I wasn't allowed to play my way in to the draw at W, means that Federer's title is a sham? That would be rather ridonculous, eh?

Moral: When anyone isn't allowed to play their way in to an event, the "sham" quotient isn't absolute. It varies depending on the excluded party's chances of winning the event. Exclude Nadal or Federer from Wimbledon, and the winner deserves a big Asterisk next to their name, and "sham" is probably an appropriate name for it.

Exclude me, #130, and the odds of me winning were so low it's not even worth mentioning my exclusion, much less calling the entire event a 'sham'.

You're getting too wrapped up in your tennis analogy. But if you want to play it out then we're cutting out qualifying all together. ODU would not have won the national title last year. But we didn't have to play Bama to find that out. We rode FAU's Lane Train like most everybody else in CUSA. Could FAU have won a National Title? Probably not but we're getting closer. Now fast forward a little. Could UCF have won a National Title? Yes, clearly they could compete at that level. I agree with arkstfan that they shouldn't have been included in the four teams selected on the criteria set out. I think a lot of teams would have been undefeated with their schedule (More than a couple at least). Hard to say they didn't deserve a shot though.
03-05-2018 06:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jaredf29 Offline
Smiter of Trolls
*

Posts: 6,157
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 243
I Root For: UCF
Location: Nor Cal
Post: #13
RE: Alabama RB says UCF deserved a shot at playoff
(03-05-2018 06:47 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 06:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 06:03 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-02-2018 04:53 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Sportsmen prefer that all participants have their shot based on on-field performance rather than comittees or polls.

In all sports, nobody is allowed to just hop off the couch and declare themselves a "participant" that the top dogs are obligated to compete against.

If I'm a tennis player, i can't just pick up a racket, show up at the gates of Wimbledon, and challenge Roger Federer. I have to prove I'm a valid 'participant' by winning many tennis matches against other top professionals, earning the points needed to gain entry. Only then is Federer obligated to play me. If I just try to declare that it isn't "sporting" of him to otherwise ignore me, I'll be hauled away by security.

As has been explained to you several times, FBS is not that kind of league, because the "participants" weren't selected for their worthiness, they just met the extremely low entrance requirements for FBS - 15,000 fans for two years, and about 85 schollies.

So no, just because a school or conference is FBS doesn't mean it has proven to be a viable 'participant' that has earned the right to compete for a title on the same level as an Alabama.

But if you were a professional tennis player you would be able to earn the right to play Federer for the title. If any team any given year can't play their way to a title then the title is a sham.

IMO, that's a complete exaggeration. E.g., let's say I'm the #130 player in the world. Now, that means I'm a really good player, but it also means I have a near-zero chance of winning Wimbledon. No player ranked lower than #20 has won it in the past 40 years.

Now lets say that for some reason, I am prevented from playing my way into Wimbledon. They are holding the Wimbledon qualification matches the week before the tournament, and I'm from North Korea, and the UK puts in place last-minute sanctions against NK that mean I'm not allowed to come to England and play my way in by qualifying.

But despite that, Wimbledon goes ahead and has their tournament anyway, and Federer beats Nadal in the final, after beating 4-5 other guys all ranked ahead of me. In fact, just about all of the 128 players in the event were ranked higher than me. Can anyone reasonably say that my absence, the fact that I wasn't allowed to play my way in to the draw at W, means that Federer's title is a sham? That would be rather ridonculous, eh?

Moral: When anyone isn't allowed to play their way in to an event, the "sham" quotient isn't absolute. It varies depending on the excluded party's chances of winning the event. Exclude Nadal or Federer from Wimbledon, and the winner deserves a big Asterisk next to their name, and "sham" is probably an appropriate name for it.

Exclude me, #130, and the odds of me winning were so low it's not even worth mentioning my exclusion, much less calling the entire event a 'sham'.

You're getting too wrapped up in your tennis analogy. But if you want to play it out then we're cutting out qualifying all together. ODU would not have won the national title last year. But we didn't have to play Bama to find that out. We rode FAU's Lane Train like most everybody else in CUSA. Could FAU have won a National Title? Probably not but we're getting closer. Now fast forward a little. Could UCF have won a National Title? Yes, clearly they could compete at that level. I agree with arkstfan that they shouldn't have been included in the four teams selected on the criteria set out. I think a lot of teams would have been undefeated with their schedule (More than a couple at least). Hard to say they didn't deserve a shot though.

I wouldn’t bother this is thread at least #3 that he is wholeheartedly offended by UCF’s claim. There’s nothing anyone can say that’d calm him down or even keep him from stating a case that’s contrary to UCF’s claim.
03-05-2018 06:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,267
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 613
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #14
RE: Alabama RB says UCF deserved a shot at playoff
(03-05-2018 06:47 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 06:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 06:03 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-02-2018 04:53 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Sportsmen prefer that all participants have their shot based on on-field performance rather than comittees or polls.

In all sports, nobody is allowed to just hop off the couch and declare themselves a "participant" that the top dogs are obligated to compete against.

If I'm a tennis player, i can't just pick up a racket, show up at the gates of Wimbledon, and challenge Roger Federer. I have to prove I'm a valid 'participant' by winning many tennis matches against other top professionals, earning the points needed to gain entry. Only then is Federer obligated to play me. If I just try to declare that it isn't "sporting" of him to otherwise ignore me, I'll be hauled away by security.

As has been explained to you several times, FBS is not that kind of league, because the "participants" weren't selected for their worthiness, they just met the extremely low entrance requirements for FBS - 15,000 fans for two years, and about 85 schollies.

So no, just because a school or conference is FBS doesn't mean it has proven to be a viable 'participant' that has earned the right to compete for a title on the same level as an Alabama.

But if you were a professional tennis player you would be able to earn the right to play Federer for the title. If any team any given year can't play their way to a title then the title is a sham.

IMO, that's a complete exaggeration. E.g., let's say I'm the #130 player in the world. Now, that means I'm a really good player, but it also means I have a near-zero chance of winning Wimbledon. No player ranked lower than #20 has won it in the past 40 years.

Now lets say that for some reason, I am prevented from playing my way into Wimbledon. They are holding the Wimbledon qualification matches the week before the tournament, and I'm from North Korea, and the UK puts in place last-minute sanctions against NK that mean I'm not allowed to come to England and play my way in by qualifying.

But despite that, Wimbledon goes ahead and has their tournament anyway, and Federer beats Nadal in the final, after beating 4-5 other guys all ranked ahead of me. In fact, just about all of the 128 players in the event were ranked higher than me. Can anyone reasonably say that my absence, the fact that I wasn't allowed to play my way in to the draw at W, means that Federer's title is a sham? That would be rather ridonculous, eh?

Moral: When anyone isn't allowed to play their way in to an event, the "sham" quotient isn't absolute. It varies depending on the excluded party's chances of winning the event. Exclude Nadal or Federer from Wimbledon, and the winner deserves a big Asterisk next to their name, and "sham" is probably an appropriate name for it.

Exclude me, #130, and the odds of me winning were so low it's not even worth mentioning my exclusion, much less calling the entire event a 'sham'.

You're getting too wrapped up in your tennis analogy. But if you want to play it out then we're cutting out qualifying all together. ODU would not have won the national title last year. But we didn't have to play Bama to find that out. We rode FAU's Lane Train like most everybody else in CUSA. Could FAU have won a National Title? Probably not but we're getting closer. Now fast forward a little. Could UCF have won a National Title? Yes, clearly they could compete at that level. I agree with arkstfan that they shouldn't have been included in the four teams selected on the criteria set out. I think a lot of teams would have been undefeated with their schedule (More than a couple at least). Hard to say they didn't deserve a shot though.

My tennis example was just to prove that because someone, somewhere isn't allowed to 'play their way in' doesn't make an entire competition a sham, and I think that point was made.

Yes, UCF could conceivably have won the title if they'd been in the playoffs. But it would be very unlikely, say about 2%.

But there were other teams with a better chance that were left out - Ohio State for sure, probably Wisconsin, Penn State, USC, TCU, Notre Dame as well.

So UCF wasn't even the worst-case leave out, and those others aren't complaining.

Overall, it's hard to call the CFP title a "sham" when the overwhelming likelihood is that the best team won the playoffs.
(This post was last modified: 03-05-2018 07:27 PM by quo vadis.)
03-05-2018 07:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Online
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 22,193
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 652
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Alabama RB says UCF deserved a shot at playoff
(03-05-2018 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-02-2018 04:53 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Sportsmen prefer that all participants have their shot based on on-field performance rather than comittees or polls.

In all sports, nobody is allowed to just hop off the couch and declare themselves a "participant" that the top dogs are obligated to compete against.

If I'm a tennis player, i can't just pick up a racket, show up at the gates of Wimbledon, and challenge Roger Federer. I have to prove I'm a valid 'participant' by winning many tennis matches against other top professionals, earning the points needed to gain entry. Only then is Federer obligated to play me. If I just try to declare that it isn't "sporting" of him to otherwise ignore me, I'll be hauled away by security.

As has been explained to you several times, FBS is not that kind of league, because the "participants" weren't selected for their worthiness, they just met the extremely low entrance requirements for FBS - 15,000 fans for two years, and about 85 schollies.

So no, just because a school or conference is FBS doesn't mean it has proven to be a viable 'participant' that has earned the right to compete for a title on the same level as an Alabama.

You've never heard of the US Open golf tournament? If you have $200 and 1.4 or better handicap index you can pay your entry fee at a local tournament and earn your way to play against the very best. The tournament has twice been won by people coming out of local and sectional qualifying. In 2012 a local and sectional qualifier placed fourth. In 2012 two collegiate golfers made it through local and sectional to tie for 16th.

The way the CFP is designed, a G5 cannot earn the right to play in the field of four absent a freak year of P5 chaos.
03-05-2018 10:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Offline
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 7,105
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 461
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #16
RE: Alabama RB says UCF deserved a shot at playoff
(03-05-2018 07:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 06:47 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 06:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 06:03 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  In all sports, nobody is allowed to just hop off the couch and declare themselves a "participant" that the top dogs are obligated to compete against.

If I'm a tennis player, i can't just pick up a racket, show up at the gates of Wimbledon, and challenge Roger Federer. I have to prove I'm a valid 'participant' by winning many tennis matches against other top professionals, earning the points needed to gain entry. Only then is Federer obligated to play me. If I just try to declare that it isn't "sporting" of him to otherwise ignore me, I'll be hauled away by security.

As has been explained to you several times, FBS is not that kind of league, because the "participants" weren't selected for their worthiness, they just met the extremely low entrance requirements for FBS - 15,000 fans for two years, and about 85 schollies.

So no, just because a school or conference is FBS doesn't mean it has proven to be a viable 'participant' that has earned the right to compete for a title on the same level as an Alabama.

But if you were a professional tennis player you would be able to earn the right to play Federer for the title. If any team any given year can't play their way to a title then the title is a sham.

IMO, that's a complete exaggeration. E.g., let's say I'm the #130 player in the world. Now, that means I'm a really good player, but it also means I have a near-zero chance of winning Wimbledon. No player ranked lower than #20 has won it in the past 40 years.

Now lets say that for some reason, I am prevented from playing my way into Wimbledon. They are holding the Wimbledon qualification matches the week before the tournament, and I'm from North Korea, and the UK puts in place last-minute sanctions against NK that mean I'm not allowed to come to England and play my way in by qualifying.

But despite that, Wimbledon goes ahead and has their tournament anyway, and Federer beats Nadal in the final, after beating 4-5 other guys all ranked ahead of me. In fact, just about all of the 128 players in the event were ranked higher than me. Can anyone reasonably say that my absence, the fact that I wasn't allowed to play my way in to the draw at W, means that Federer's title is a sham? That would be rather ridonculous, eh?

Moral: When anyone isn't allowed to play their way in to an event, the "sham" quotient isn't absolute. It varies depending on the excluded party's chances of winning the event. Exclude Nadal or Federer from Wimbledon, and the winner deserves a big Asterisk next to their name, and "sham" is probably an appropriate name for it.

Exclude me, #130, and the odds of me winning were so low it's not even worth mentioning my exclusion, much less calling the entire event a 'sham'.

You're getting too wrapped up in your tennis analogy. But if you want to play it out then we're cutting out qualifying all together. ODU would not have won the national title last year. But we didn't have to play Bama to find that out. We rode FAU's Lane Train like most everybody else in CUSA. Could FAU have won a National Title? Probably not but we're getting closer. Now fast forward a little. Could UCF have won a National Title? Yes, clearly they could compete at that level. I agree with arkstfan that they shouldn't have been included in the four teams selected on the criteria set out. I think a lot of teams would have been undefeated with their schedule (More than a couple at least). Hard to say they didn't deserve a shot though.

My tennis example was just to prove that because someone, somewhere isn't allowed to 'play their way in' doesn't make an entire competition a sham, and I think that point was made.

Yes, UCF could conceivably have won the title if they'd been in the playoffs. But it would be very unlikely, say about 2%.

But there were other teams with a better chance that were left out - Ohio State for sure, probably Wisconsin, Penn State, USC, TCU, Notre Dame as well.

So UCF wasn't even the worst-case leave out, and those others aren't complaining.

Overall, it's hard to call the CFP title a "sham" when the overwhelming likelihood is that the best team won the playoffs.

In 2001 Goran Ivanisevic was ranked 125th in the world when he won Wembleton
03-05-2018 11:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,267
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 613
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #17
RE: Alabama RB says UCF deserved a shot at playoff
(03-05-2018 10:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-02-2018 04:53 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Sportsmen prefer that all participants have their shot based on on-field performance rather than comittees or polls.

In all sports, nobody is allowed to just hop off the couch and declare themselves a "participant" that the top dogs are obligated to compete against.

If I'm a tennis player, i can't just pick up a racket, show up at the gates of Wimbledon, and challenge Roger Federer. I have to prove I'm a valid 'participant' by winning many tennis matches against other top professionals, earning the points needed to gain entry. Only then is Federer obligated to play me. If I just try to declare that it isn't "sporting" of him to otherwise ignore me, I'll be hauled away by security.

As has been explained to you several times, FBS is not that kind of league, because the "participants" weren't selected for their worthiness, they just met the extremely low entrance requirements for FBS - 15,000 fans for two years, and about 85 schollies.

So no, just because a school or conference is FBS doesn't mean it has proven to be a viable 'participant' that has earned the right to compete for a title on the same level as an Alabama.

You've never heard of the US Open golf tournament? If you have $200 and 1.4 or better handicap index you can pay your entry fee at a local tournament and earn your way to play against the very best. The tournament has twice been won by people coming out of local and sectional qualifying. In 2012 a local and sectional qualifier placed fourth. In 2012 two collegiate golfers made it through local and sectional to tie for 16th.

The way the CFP is designed, a G5 cannot earn the right to play in the field of four absent a freak year of P5 chaos.

The US Open isn't any more prestigious than The Masters, and the Masters doesn't have an "Open" style admissions process.

Point is, a championship event doesn't have to offer a straight path for everyone in order to be a valid championship.

And of course, the P5 conferences aren't guaranteed admission to the playoffs either, just ask the B1G and PAC champs this past season. Yet you don't hear them whining about it.
03-05-2018 11:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,267
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 613
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #18
RE: Alabama RB says UCF deserved a shot at playoff
(03-05-2018 10:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-02-2018 04:53 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Sportsmen prefer that all participants have their shot based on on-field performance rather than comittees or polls.

In all sports, nobody is allowed to just hop off the couch and declare themselves a "participant" that the top dogs are obligated to compete against.

If I'm a tennis player, i can't just pick up a racket, show up at the gates of Wimbledon, and challenge Roger Federer. I have to prove I'm a valid 'participant' by winning many tennis matches against other top professionals, earning the points needed to gain entry. Only then is Federer obligated to play me. If I just try to declare that it isn't "sporting" of him to otherwise ignore me, I'll be hauled away by security.

As has been explained to you several times, FBS is not that kind of league, because the "participants" weren't selected for their worthiness, they just met the extremely low entrance requirements for FBS - 15,000 fans for two years, and about 85 schollies.

So no, just because a school or conference is FBS doesn't mean it has proven to be a viable 'participant' that has earned the right to compete for a title on the same level as an Alabama.

You've never heard of the US Open golf tournament? If you have $200 and 1.4 or better handicap index you can pay your entry fee at a local tournament and earn your way to play against the very best. The tournament has twice been won by people coming out of local and sectional qualifying. In 2012 a local and sectional qualifier placed fourth. In 2012 two collegiate golfers made it through local and sectional to tie for 16th.

The way the CFP is designed, a G5 cannot earn the right to play in the field of four absent a freak year of P5 chaos.

The US Open isn't any more prestigious than The Masters, and the Masters doesn't have an "Open" style admissions process.

Point is, a championship event doesn't have to offer a straight path for everyone in order to be a valid championship.

And of course, the P5 conferences aren't guaranteed admission to the playoffs either, just ask the B1G and PAC champs this past season. Yet you don't hear them whining about it.
03-05-2018 11:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,267
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 613
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #19
RE: Alabama RB says UCF deserved a shot at playoff
(03-05-2018 11:10 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  In 2001 Goran Ivanisevic was ranked 125th in the world when he won Wembleton

Fair point, but Goran was a 3-time Wimbledon runner-up before winning that title. He obviously had the skills to do damage at Wimbledon.
03-05-2018 11:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Offline
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 7,105
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 461
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #20
RE: Alabama RB says UCF deserved a shot at playoff
(03-05-2018 11:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-05-2018 11:10 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  In 2001 Goran Ivanisevic was ranked 125th in the world when he won Wembleton

Fair point, but Goran was a 3-time Wimbledon runner-up before winning that title. He obviously had the skills to do damage at Wimbledon.

So like a former Fiesta Bowl winner might be seen as legitimate?
03-05-2018 11:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.