(05-13-2018 08:54 PM)Dogluva Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 07:24 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  UCF was undefeated but was not given the chance.

Until the system changes, why would UCF be embarrassed.

Exactly. UCF could have scheduled and beaten Auburn, Ohio St, Clemson, and Alabama plus their conference schedule and they STILL wouldn't have been given the chance to compete for the mythical National Championship.

You seriously think that? Wow.

As for "undefeated", you have to remember that this has considerably diminished meaning in a sport where the team itself creates 1/3 of its own schedule. The only time there's a moral and competitive imperative to include all unbeatens in a playoff is when some central, independent body determines the team's schedule.

(05-14-2018 02:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 02:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 01:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 10:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 07:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  We, heck everyone who is honest, know this is true. In 2008, Alabama was obviously "down" for that Sugar Bowl, having just had their SEC and national title hopes dashed by Florida in the SEC title game, and then relegated to playing a non-AQ.

Likewise, Auburn surely was in the dumps last year when they played UCF, having also had their SEC title and national title hopes dashed in the SEC title game, and then relegated to playing UCF in the Peach Bowl while their two historical rivals were in the playoffs - and teams they beat during the season to boot! Enormously bitter for them.

Not always, but usually it's the case that the G5/non-AQ is sky-high about being in the major bowl and is highly motivated, while the P5/AQ school is in the dumps about it, as usually just a week or two earlier they had bigger dreams dashed, and then seeing the bowl matchups and having to play a G5 is rubbing salt in the wound. It's often a big advantage for the G5/non-AQ team in their bowl game.

But, if you mention these kinds of obvious facts, a locust swarm or G5 fans will descend on you, saying you are "making excuses" or are a "Cartel lapdog" and similar nonsense.

So best just to keep quiet about it. LOL.

Yes. Auburn cared so little they came back to lead the game in the 3rd quarter. Im afraid that narrative doesn't really fit with the facts. Auburn cared for the first 3 quarters, then got bored? A lot of mental gymnastics required to buy that one.

You're kidding, right? The Auburn guys were out on the field and playing, so of course they were giving some effort.

But to use the ebb and flow of the game to deny the obvious psychology of their situation doesn't seem very sensible.

So your sticking with the theory that Auburn cared enough to come back and take a lead in the third and then just decided not to care in the 4rth quarter. Because, for your theory to be right--that's the white elephant in the room we would need to ignore.

I really can't believe why you are sticking with this notion that because AU took the lead in the 3rd that this refutes the idea that they generally were down in the dumps about the game. That is bizarro to me. Games can ebb and flow for many reasons, but AU lack of interest in the game is an obvious likelihood and could have likely influenced all aspects of their preparation from the time it was announced.

There's no getting around the fact that few teams ever have had more dreams crushed, and in a more bitter fashion, than AU did in the SEC title game, and then to see their top rivals get the spoils, AND then get stuck playing a G5 in a bowl?

It's a miracle they put forth any effort at all. Professional pride kicked in a bit there?

If you can't get up for a ny6 game in front of 70k with 6 million watching, then you're not good. Of course good enough to beat Alabama and Georgia. They probably weren't up for the games either. I think if Alabama or Auburn ever lose it was because they weren't up for the game. I feel bad for a few Auburn players crying after getting beat. They wasted their talents instead of drama since they didn't care.

(05-10-2018 10:59 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 06:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 04:26 PM)NTXCoog12 Wrote:  

(05-08-2018 07:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  But as i explained NCAA designation and recognition is meaningless, because the 10 FBS conferences explicitly reject the NCAA as the determinant of their champion, and have set up their own, non-NCAA administered method, the CFP, to determine it. So if your argument is that a "selector recognized by the NCAA" picked UCF as champ, which then gives them a valid claim as champ, then that argument holds no water. It makes no sense, since the conferences involved reject the NCAA.

Please show us the explicit rejection. The conferences agreed on a playoff, but that does not preclude other champs unless you can show otherwise. Acceptance of one does not require rejection of others

Two problems here. First, if I were to assert that the Super Bowl is the agreed-on method by NFL teams to determine their champ, and they explicitly reject other methods, you might as well say "please show us the explicit rejection". I'm sure that doesn't exist either, because it's not needed: The existence of the Super Bowl implies the rejection of all other methods of determining an NFL champion.

I mean, what if after the Eagles won the Super Bowl, Sagarin had the New England Patriots at #1 in his rankings anyway? Would that mean that the Patriots would be justified in printing out "NFL Champs" t-shirts, hanging a "2017 NFL Champs" banner, and holding a parade in Boston Common to celebrate their "championship"?

Would be absurd, right? Ditto for the CFP and FBS. When the conferences involved created the CFP, they obviously were declaring that the winner of the CFP is our champion. Period, no other poll or organization declaring to the contrary is valid.

As the CFP web site says: "The College Football Playoff is the postseason format that determines the national champion for FBS college football."

Period.

Second, the issue I had with the other poster was his claim that UCF is a valid national champ because the NCAA says Colley-Matrix is a "recognized selector" of an FBS champion. There is a big problem with this - it's probably not true. The NCAA hasn't actually listed a Colley-Matrix #1 as a national champ since 2006.

But even if it is, the existence of the CFP, which excludes the NCAA, means that the NCAA has no power to confer recognition on something like Colley-Matrix or any other method as determining a champ. They have no more power than you or I to do that, as we aren't involved in the selection of an FBS champion either.

There can't be any serious doubt that the organization of the CFP outside of the auspices of the NCAA means that the FBS conferences reject the NCAA as a determinant of their champion. NCAA designation is null and void here.

Can an NFL team go 16-0 and not make the playoffs? Unless there is some weird rule I’m unaware of in the NFL standings, you aren’t making an apples to apples comparison. It will take the perfect storm of circumstances for a G5 team to even be in the conversation for the CFP. The system is, shockingly, flawed. It needs some tweaking and UCF is using their season as an example of why.

Great point. Absolute truth. In the NFL, EVERYBODY has an equal chance for a title. Just keep winning. Not so in NCAA FBS college football. It's really that simple.

Great post.

(05-10-2018 02:06 PM)nastybunch Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 11:33 AM)va-eagle Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 10:59 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 06:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 04:26 PM)NTXCoog12 Wrote:  Please show us the explicit rejection. The conferences agreed on a playoff, but that does not preclude other champs unless you can show otherwise. Acceptance of one does not require rejection of others

Two problems here. First, if I were to assert that the Super Bowl is the agreed-on method by NFL teams to determine their champ, and they explicitly reject other methods, you might as well say "please show us the explicit rejection". I'm sure that doesn't exist either, because it's not needed: The existence of the Super Bowl implies the rejection of all other methods of determining an NFL champion.

I mean, what if after the Eagles won the Super Bowl, Sagarin had the New England Patriots at #1 in his rankings anyway? Would that mean that the Patriots would be justified in printing out "NFL Champs" t-shirts, hanging a "2017 NFL Champs" banner, and holding a parade in Boston Common to celebrate their "championship"?

Would be absurd, right? Ditto for the CFP and FBS. When the conferences involved created the CFP, they obviously were declaring that the winner of the CFP is our champion. Period, no other poll or organization declaring to the contrary is valid.

As the CFP web site says: "The College Football Playoff is the postseason format that determines the national champion for FBS college football."

Period.

Second, the issue I had with the other poster was his claim that UCF is a valid national champ because the NCAA says Colley-Matrix is a "recognized selector" of an FBS champion. There is a big problem with this - it's probably not true. The NCAA hasn't actually listed a Colley-Matrix #1 as a national champ since 2006.

But even if it is, the existence of the CFP, which excludes the NCAA, means that the NCAA has no power to confer recognition on something like Colley-Matrix or any other method as determining a champ. They have no more power than you or I to do that, as we aren't involved in the selection of an FBS champion either.

There can't be any serious doubt that the organization of the CFP outside of the auspices of the NCAA means that the FBS conferences reject the NCAA as a determinant of their champion. NCAA designation is null and void here.

Can an NFL team go 16-0 and not make the playoffs? Unless there is some weird rule I’m unaware of in the NFL standings, you aren’t making an apples to apples comparison. It will take the perfect storm of circumstances for a G5 team to even be in the conversation for the CFP. The system is, shockingly, flawed. It needs some tweaking and UCF is using their season as an example of why.

G5 is considered CFL teams playing in a NFL league, but not really playing NFL schedule.

I heard that once before many years ago about the AFL playing against the NFL....

Me too. I heard the same nonsense. At least until Joe Namath & the NY Jets kicked Baltimore's much-favored arse in Super Bowl III.
And Len Dawson and the Kansas City Chiefs did the same thing a year later to the heavily favored Minnesota Vikings in Super Bowl IV.


I think we can all agree that merging the two leagues (AFL & NFL) is the best thing that ever happened to professional football. The same thing needs to happen to college football.

(05-10-2018 03:03 PM)nastybunch Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 03:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 02:17 PM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(05-08-2018 07:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 07:53 AM)ODU2017 Wrote:  Auburn beat both teams that played in the Championship game and UCF beat Auburn.

Of all the silly arguments, this IMO might be the silliest. E.g., going in to the playoffs, Clemson had beat Auburn, who beat Alabama and Georgia ... and yet when Alabama played Clemson, they crushed them.

LSU also had beaten Auburn, who beat Alabama and Georgia, and yet ... when Alabama played LSU, they beat them too.

Plus, the UCF fans also never mention that Georgia also beat Auburn too, and a lot worse than UCF did.

Bottom line is, Auburn wasn't exactly 2005 Texas or 2001 Miami. They had three losses before they played UCF, so beating Auburn wasn't exactly a big deal.

LOL

Sure- so much so "not a big deal" that the SEC homers and pundits are still talking about UCF on May 10th, 2018. 5 months after the game was played.

I live in Baton Rouge, which is swarming with SEC homers, and I haven't heard UCF mentioned by anyone in months, if ever.

I mean, if you count an SEC or Alabama fan pointing their finger at UCF and laughing when UCF hoists another self-made banner or something as "talking about", I guess you might have a point?

As for USF, we'll be back to doing what we usually do - beat UCF - soon enough.

I believe we have a little jealousy here by USF. At least when they played us they didn’t poke the players eyes while in the pile during the tackle.

Yes, agreed. The "quo vadis" poster is a USF fan, so he/she has an obvious competitive axe to grind against UCF. Furthermore, he/she lives in Baton Rouge, which is totally consumed with LSU, the SEC and horrible politics. Living in backwater Baton Rouge is the equivalent to living in a 3rd world country. The good news is, most of the rest of us live in more cosmopolitan metro areas, with running water and electricity, not to mention a lower crime rate than Baton Rouge has in a single McDonald's parking lot.

(05-14-2018 07:53 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 02:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 02:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 01:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 10:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Yes. Auburn cared so little they came back to lead the game in the 3rd quarter. Im afraid that narrative doesn't really fit with the facts. Auburn cared for the first 3 quarters, then got bored? A lot of mental gymnastics required to buy that one.

You're kidding, right? The Auburn guys were out on the field and playing, so of course they were giving some effort.

But to use the ebb and flow of the game to deny the obvious psychology of their situation doesn't seem very sensible.

So your sticking with the theory that Auburn cared enough to come back and take a lead in the third and then just decided not to care in the 4rth quarter. Because, for your theory to be right--that's the white elephant in the room we would need to ignore.

I really can't believe why you are sticking with this notion that because AU took the lead in the 3rd that this refutes the idea that they generally were down in the dumps about the game. That is bizarro to me. Games can ebb and flow for many reasons, but AU lack of interest in the game is an obvious likelihood and could have likely influenced all aspects of their preparation from the time it was announced.

There's no getting around the fact that few teams ever have had more dreams crushed, and in a more bitter fashion, than AU did in the SEC title game, and then to see their top rivals get the spoils, AND then get stuck playing a G5 in a bowl?

It's a miracle they put forth any effort at all. Professional pride kicked in a bit there?

If you can't get up for a ny6 game in front of 70k with 6 million watching, then you're not good. Of course good enough to beat Alabama and Georgia. They probably weren't up for the games either. I think if Alabama or Auburn ever lose it was because they weren't up for the game. I feel bad for a few Auburn players crying after getting beat. They wasted their talents instead of drama since they didn't care.

Remember, for Auburn, the Peach Bowl wasn't a 'big game'. The SEC title game and Alabama game were big games. The Peach was a sad consolation prize for a team that had SEC and national title dreams dashed. This is just plain common sense.

Why wouldn't they be up for Alabama and Georgia? All 3 were huge games, games against their traditional rivals, and with SEC and national title implications on the line.

It's sad that UCF fans aren't able to recognize this reality, or if they do still feel compelled to deny it on this forum.

(05-14-2018 12:57 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 03:03 PM)nastybunch Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 03:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 02:17 PM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(05-08-2018 07:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Of all the silly arguments, this IMO might be the silliest. E.g., going in to the playoffs, Clemson had beat Auburn, who beat Alabama and Georgia ... and yet when Alabama played Clemson, they crushed them.

LSU also had beaten Auburn, who beat Alabama and Georgia, and yet ... when Alabama played LSU, they beat them too.

Plus, the UCF fans also never mention that Georgia also beat Auburn too, and a lot worse than UCF did.

Bottom line is, Auburn wasn't exactly 2005 Texas or 2001 Miami. They had three losses before they played UCF, so beating Auburn wasn't exactly a big deal.

LOL

Sure- so much so "not a big deal" that the SEC homers and pundits are still talking about UCF on May 10th, 2018. 5 months after the game was played.

I live in Baton Rouge, which is swarming with SEC homers, and I haven't heard UCF mentioned by anyone in months, if ever.

I mean, if you count an SEC or Alabama fan pointing their finger at UCF and laughing when UCF hoists another self-made banner or something as "talking about", I guess you might have a point?

As for USF, we'll be back to doing what we usually do - beat UCF - soon enough.

I believe we have a little jealousy here by USF. At least when they played us they didn’t poke the players eyes while in the pile during the tackle.

Yes, agreed. The "quo vadis" poster is a USF fan, so he/she has an obvious competitive axe to grind against UCF. Furthermore, he/she lives in Baton Rouge, which is totally consumed with LSU, the SEC and horrible politics. Living in backwater Baton Rouge is the equivalent to living in a 3rd world country. The good news is, most of the rest of us live in more cosmopolitan metro areas, with running water and electricity, not to mention a lower crime rate than Baton Rouge has in a single McDonald's parking lot.

Someone who matriculated in Ruston is calling Baton Rouge a 'backwater'?

Funny though, you're the second poster to mention my 'axe to grind' while ignoring the wood chipper interest that UCF fans obviously have in promoting their ridiculous 'title' claims.

(05-15-2018 02:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 07:53 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 02:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 02:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 01:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  You're kidding, right? The Auburn guys were out on the field and playing, so of course they were giving some effort.

But to use the ebb and flow of the game to deny the obvious psychology of their situation doesn't seem very sensible.

So your sticking with the theory that Auburn cared enough to come back and take a lead in the third and then just decided not to care in the 4rth quarter. Because, for your theory to be right--that's the white elephant in the room we would need to ignore.

I really can't believe why you are sticking with this notion that because AU took the lead in the 3rd that this refutes the idea that they generally were down in the dumps about the game. That is bizarro to me. Games can ebb and flow for many reasons, but AU lack of interest in the game is an obvious likelihood and could have likely influenced all aspects of their preparation from the time it was announced.

There's no getting around the fact that few teams ever have had more dreams crushed, and in a more bitter fashion, than AU did in the SEC title game, and then to see their top rivals get the spoils, AND then get stuck playing a G5 in a bowl?

It's a miracle they put forth any effort at all. Professional pride kicked in a bit there?

If you can't get up for a ny6 game in front of 70k with 6 million watching, then you're not good. Of course good enough to beat Alabama and Georgia. They probably weren't up for the games either. I think if Alabama or Auburn ever lose it was because they weren't up for the game. I feel bad for a few Auburn players crying after getting beat. They wasted their talents instead of drama since they didn't care.

Remember, for Auburn, the Peach Bowl wasn't a 'big game'. The SEC title game and Alabama game were big games. The Peach was a sad consolation prize for a team that had SEC and national title dreams dashed. This is just plain common sense.

Why wouldn't they be up for Alabama and Georgia? All 3 were huge games, games against their traditional rivals, and with SEC and national title implications on the line.

It's sad that UCF fans aren't able to recognize this reality, or if they do still feel compelled to deny it on this forum.

What's sad is that the combined number USF conference championships, conference division titles, and BCS/New Year's Bowl game appearances or victories is the following:

0

(05-15-2018 08:55 AM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(05-15-2018 02:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 07:53 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 02:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 02:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  So your sticking with the theory that Auburn cared enough to come back and take a lead in the third and then just decided not to care in the 4rth quarter. Because, for your theory to be right--that's the white elephant in the room we would need to ignore.

I really can't believe why you are sticking with this notion that because AU took the lead in the 3rd that this refutes the idea that they generally were down in the dumps about the game. That is bizarro to me. Games can ebb and flow for many reasons, but AU lack of interest in the game is an obvious likelihood and could have likely influenced all aspects of their preparation from the time it was announced.

There's no getting around the fact that few teams ever have had more dreams crushed, and in a more bitter fashion, than AU did in the SEC title game, and then to see their top rivals get the spoils, AND then get stuck playing a G5 in a bowl?

It's a miracle they put forth any effort at all. Professional pride kicked in a bit there?

If you can't get up for a ny6 game in front of 70k with 6 million watching, then you're not good. Of course good enough to beat Alabama and Georgia. They probably weren't up for the games either. I think if Alabama or Auburn ever lose it was because they weren't up for the game. I feel bad for a few Auburn players crying after getting beat. They wasted their talents instead of drama since they didn't care.

Remember, for Auburn, the Peach Bowl wasn't a 'big game'. The SEC title game and Alabama game were big games. The Peach was a sad consolation prize for a team that had SEC and national title dreams dashed. This is just plain common sense.

Why wouldn't they be up for Alabama and Georgia? All 3 were huge games, games against their traditional rivals, and with SEC and national title implications on the line.

It's sad that UCF fans aren't able to recognize this reality, or if they do still feel compelled to deny it on this forum.

What's sad is ...

Typical UCF fan dodge of the issue at hand.

ESPN, the CFP, and the SEC are running, at least IMO, the very definition of an unlawful monopoly.

They are using private enterprise to corner a market and exude obtuse control of public institutions. How can that NOT be a monopoly ?

We have RICO laws for this.

For all of the talk of draining the swamp, there is a nasty mucky swamp up in Bristol and Birmingham.

(05-14-2018 02:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  As for "undefeated", you have to remember that this has considerably diminished meaning in a sport where the team itself creates 1/3 of its own schedule. The only time there's a moral and competitive imperative to include all unbeatens in a playoff is when some central, independent body determines the team's schedule.

The one team doesn't create 1/3 of the schedule itself. It requires 2 teams to schedule those games. UCF cant say "We are scheduling Bama, OSU, and Clemson next year at home." So unless those teams are willing to play home and homes vs G5 schools, they cant complain about unbalanced SOS. They are major contributors to the unbalance.

(05-15-2018 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2018 08:55 AM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(05-15-2018 02:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 07:53 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 02:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I really can't believe why you are sticking with this notion that because AU took the lead in the 3rd that this refutes the idea that they generally were down in the dumps about the game. That is bizarro to me. Games can ebb and flow for many reasons, but AU lack of interest in the game is an obvious likelihood and could have likely influenced all aspects of their preparation from the time it was announced.

There's no getting around the fact that few teams ever have had more dreams crushed, and in a more bitter fashion, than AU did in the SEC title game, and then to see their top rivals get the spoils, AND then get stuck playing a G5 in a bowl?

It's a miracle they put forth any effort at all. Professional pride kicked in a bit there?

If you can't get up for a ny6 game in front of 70k with 6 million watching, then you're not good. Of course good enough to beat Alabama and Georgia. They probably weren't up for the games either. I think if Alabama or Auburn ever lose it was because they weren't up for the game. I feel bad for a few Auburn players crying after getting beat. They wasted their talents instead of drama since they didn't care.

Remember, for Auburn, the Peach Bowl wasn't a 'big game'. The SEC title game and Alabama game were big games. The Peach was a sad consolation prize for a team that had SEC and national title dreams dashed. This is just plain common sense.

Why wouldn't they be up for Alabama and Georgia? All 3 were huge games, games against their traditional rivals, and with SEC and national title implications on the line.

It's sad that UCF fans aren't able to recognize this reality, or if they do still feel compelled to deny it on this forum.

What's sad is ...

Typical UCF fan dodge of the issue at hand.

We get it... you're butt hurt about ucf.

(05-14-2018 02:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 08:54 PM)Dogluva Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 07:24 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  UCF was undefeated but was not given the chance.

Until the system changes, why would UCF be embarrassed.

Exactly. UCF could have scheduled and beaten Auburn, Ohio St, Clemson, and Alabama plus their conference schedule and they STILL wouldn't have of been given the chance to compete for the mythical National Championship.

You seriously think that? Wow.

As for "undefeated", you have to remember that this has considerably diminished meaning in a sport where the team itself creates 1/3 of its own schedule. The only time there's a moral and competitive imperative to include all unbeatens in a playoff is when some central, independent body determines the team's schedule.

So it is never an actual 'playoff' because the scheduling is not regulated. When do you think that will happen?

Again, I agree. But again means an imperfect system, which CFB wants, to create controversy, to attract interest.

(04-22-2018 07:14 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  And making a big deal about it might give G5 playoff access a chance someday.

Not even if God came down from heaven and told the CFP and the Power 5 schools "Give the G5 schools better access to the playoffs or I'll completely, totally and thoroughly wipe humanity off the face of the Earth."

(05-16-2018 04:25 PM)NTXCoog12 Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 02:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  As for "undefeated", you have to remember that this has considerably diminished meaning in a sport where the team itself creates 1/3 of its own schedule. The only time there's a moral and competitive imperative to include all unbeatens in a playoff is when some central, independent body determines the team's schedule.

The one team doesn't create 1/3 of the schedule itself. It requires 2 teams to schedule those games. UCF cant say "We are scheduling Bama, OSU, and Clemson next year at home." So unless those teams are willing to play home and homes vs G5 schools, they cant complain about unbalanced SOS. They are major contributors to the unbalance.

That doesn't diminish my point at all. Bottom line is that in college football, teams still determine about 1/3 of their own schedule. They decide who they will play. Sure, you don't necessarily get your first choice, USF might want to play Alabama and if they say No we might have to schedule Troy instead, but the key point is that we scheduled that game, it wasn't determined by an independent scheduling body.

There's an obvious self-selection problem there, which is why schools are frequently criticized for their scheduling. In contrast, nobody every criticizes an NFL team for its schedule because no team schedules its own games.

(05-16-2018 05:59 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(05-15-2018 11:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2018 08:55 AM)The Knight Time Wrote:  

(05-15-2018 02:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 07:53 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  If you can't get up for a ny6 game in front of 70k with 6 million watching, then you're not good. Of course good enough to beat Alabama and Georgia. They probably weren't up for the games either. I think if Alabama or Auburn ever lose it was because they weren't up for the game. I feel bad for a few Auburn players crying after getting beat. They wasted their talents instead of drama since they didn't care.

Remember, for Auburn, the Peach Bowl wasn't a 'big game'. The SEC title game and Alabama game were big games. The Peach was a sad consolation prize for a team that had SEC and national title dreams dashed. This is just plain common sense.

Why wouldn't they be up for Alabama and Georgia? All 3 were huge games, games against their traditional rivals, and with SEC and national title implications on the line.

It's sad that UCF fans aren't able to recognize this reality, or if they do still feel compelled to deny it on this forum.

What's sad is ...

Typical UCF fan dodge of the issue at hand.

We get it... you're butt hurt about ucf.

Still dodging ..

(05-16-2018 06:34 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 02:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 08:54 PM)Dogluva Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 07:24 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  UCF was undefeated but was not given the chance.

Until the system changes, why would UCF be embarrassed.

Exactly. UCF could have scheduled and beaten Auburn, Ohio St, Clemson, and Alabama plus their conference schedule and they STILL wouldn't have of been given the chance to compete for the mythical National Championship.

You seriously think that? Wow.

As for "undefeated", you have to remember that this has considerably diminished meaning in a sport where the team itself creates 1/3 of its own schedule. The only time there's a moral and competitive imperative to include all unbeatens in a playoff is when some central, independent body determines the team's schedule.

So it is never an actual 'playoff' because the scheduling is not regulated. When do you think that will happen?

Again, I agree. But again means an imperfect system, which CFB wants, to create controversy, to attract interest.

First, all systems are imperfect, and football systems tend to be the most imperfect because limits on the number of games played makes it harder to reduce fluke factors. E.g., even at the conference level, to really determine who belongs in the CCG would require every team within each division playing every other team home and away, but that's not practical.

Second, I'm not sure CFB needs *that* kind of controversy. Other sports leagues don't have it and attract plenty of interest anyway.

(05-17-2018 02:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-16-2018 06:34 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 02:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 08:54 PM)Dogluva Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 07:24 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  UCF was undefeated but was not given the chance.

Until the system changes, why would UCF be embarrassed.

Exactly. UCF could have scheduled and beaten Auburn, Ohio St, Clemson, and Alabama plus their conference schedule and they STILL wouldn't have of been given the chance to compete for the mythical National Championship.

You seriously think that? Wow.

As for "undefeated", you have to remember that this has considerably diminished meaning in a sport where the team itself creates 1/3 of its own schedule. The only time there's a moral and competitive imperative to include all unbeatens in a playoff is when some central, independent body determines the team's schedule.

So it is never an actual 'playoff' because the scheduling is not regulated. When do you think that will happen?

Again, I agree. But again means an imperfect system, which CFB wants, to create controversy, to attract interest.

First, all systems are imperfect, and football systems tend to be the most imperfect because limits on the number of games played makes it harder to reduce fluke factors. E.g., even at the conference level, to really determine who belongs in the CCG would require every team within each division playing every other team home and away, but that's not practical.

Second, I'm not sure CFB needs *that* kind of controversy. Other sports leagues don't have it and attract plenty of interest anyway.

I get it. A rival will never go along with what ucf is doing, but we are still being discussed by almost everyone still and we are nearing June. 2nd point, the div 1-aa can figure out a larger playoff. It is simply done to limit access with Div 1. Plan and simple! If you don't have a jersey brand you're screwed with the cfp. The "eye test" will always cost you.

We literally have almost the entire stadium sold out in season tickets in May. This has been successful on so many levels.

Did you guys get kicked off the AAC board? Let it go.

(05-17-2018 12:04 PM)va-eagle Wrote:  Did you guys get kicked off the AAC board? Let it go.

Only quo vadis was banned.