Quote:By and large, UCF D was damn good today. Sure there were some personal fouls early, but the D showed up. The O did not.

I wouldn't say the UCF D was damn good. 555 yards (yes, the O helped with that), 66% pass completion, 50% 3rd down conversion completions, but holding them to 3.1 yards a rush + the pick-6 kept having a fighters chance to make it a close one.

It was UCF's O to blame. The UCF D didn't help, letting LSU swallow all the time on the clock and keeping UCF's O out of rhythm. Sure, you play Memphis with your backup QB, where Memphis' D is bad, you'll have the time & ability to get the O going with the new QB. But, not against a ranked team where their D is what gets them there.

You put UCF in a tougher conference than the AAC and they would be about 9-3...an excellent team but not a playoff contender.

(01-01-2019 05:31 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:By and large, UCF D was damn good today. Sure there were some personal fouls early, but the D showed up. The O did not.

I wouldn't say the UCF D was damn good. 555 yards (yes, the O helped with that), 66% pass completion, 50% 3rd down conversion completions, but holding them to 3.1 yards a rush + the pick-6 kept having a fighters chance to make it a close one.

It was UCF's O to blame. The UCF D didn't help, letting LSU swallow all the time on the clock and keeping UCF's O out of rhythm. Sure, you play Memphis with your backup QB, where Memphis' D is bad, you'll have the time & ability to get the O going with the new QB. But, not against a ranked team where their D is what gets them there.

Given how sh*tty Heupel's offensive gameplan was, the D played damn good. The O hung them out to dry all game long.

(01-01-2019 05:41 PM)kurtrundell Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 05:31 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:By and large, UCF D was damn good today. Sure there were some personal fouls early, but the D showed up. The O did not.

I wouldn't say the UCF D was damn good. 555 yards (yes, the O helped with that), 66% pass completion, 50% 3rd down conversion completions, but holding them to 3.1 yards a rush + the pick-6 kept having a fighters chance to make it a close one.

It was UCF's O to blame. The UCF D didn't help, letting LSU swallow all the time on the clock and keeping UCF's O out of rhythm. Sure, you play Memphis with your backup QB, where Memphis' D is bad, you'll have the time & ability to get the O going with the new QB. But, not against a ranked team where their D is what gets them there.

Given how sh*tty Heupel's offensive gameplan was, the D played damn good. The O hung them out to dry all game long.

The O-line was getting killed. The receivers weren’t running good routes. And, they were out their actual QB. I’m not sure it’s fair to say the play calling was the problem. You also can’t discount the fact that the LSU defense, as depleted as it was, clearly outplayed UCF.

(01-01-2019 05:34 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  You put UCF in a tougher conference than the AAC and they would be about 9-3...an excellent team but not a playoff contender.

yeah, maybe a division champion in the ACC.

Quote:Given how sh*tty Heupel's offensive gameplan was, the D played damn good. The O hung them out to dry all game long.

I wouldn't go that far, but I will say the D played well in a certain way -- they still held LSU to FGs when it mattered, for a distant chance at the game. You'd expect them to get tired late in the game where it'd be a TD every time they got at or near the red zone.

But the reason why I won't say "damn good" for their D -- 50% 3rd down conversions, and they only punted 3 times; just once in the 2nd half. That helps keep your O out of rhythm when they need to get in rhythm like they needed to against Memphis. I can't say "damn good" when LSU's TOP was 44.5 minutes to UCF's 15.5.

(01-01-2019 05:29 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 05:21 PM)kurtrundell Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 05:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 04:58 PM)kurtrundell Wrote:  The UCF D played pretty well -- the UCF offense and Heupel's atrocious playcalling is what killed them. The thing is, UCF still had plenty of chances to win that game. There wasn't much talent difference between the 2-deep depth charts, but LSU just kept rolling out 4-star 5th-string DBs.

LSU had 15 more first downs, 300 more yards, and had the ball 45 minutes to 15 minutes.

Score should have been about 40 - 10, but UCF got three amazingly lucky TDs, including a 95 yard pick-6. Even that last TD drive was gifted to them by back to back 15 yard penalties.

Should have been a rout on the scoreboard, despite the enormous amount of talent LSU was missing the last 3 quarters of the game.

LSU had three big plays for TDs, UCF dropped a TD and Heupel's idiotic playcalling resulting in constant 43-second 3-and-outs kept the UCF D on the field time and time again.

By and large, UCF D was damn good today. Sure there were some personal fouls early, but the D showed up. The O did not.

And you keep saying LSU was depleted ... they're 5-deep everywhere! They proved it. UCF lost its starting S on a questionable targeting call and was without its starting QB yet still had chance after chance to win the game.

You USF fans remind me of Missouri fans ... you bask in your rival's losses because you're so insecure that your team sucks.

Quo is not really a USF fan. Don't blame real USF fans for his AAC hatred.

No real USF fan ever wants UCF to win a game.

You wouldn'r understand because Memphjs doesn't have a rival.

(01-01-2019 05:18 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 04:53 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 04:45 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 04:30 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 11:51 AM)TampaTom Wrote:  This is supposed to be an amateur sport, right?

So UCF should be in the playoff, but alas, here we are. All the same, a great matchup, should be an excellent game. Here's hoping we dominate. CHARGE ON!

Besides an undefeated record against a so-so schedule, what else made UCF deserving of a Top 4 spot this season?

You don't feel the least bit asinine considering that your team isn't but a miraculous last minute reprieve from a then desperate big12 away from being in the AAC probably in the exact same situation as UCF do you.

You mean a spot TCU earned by putting resources into their program instead of sitting on the sidelines and letting the P5 go by us.

And this coming from a fan of a team who looked to TCU to resurrect their downtrodden program, and he is the reason Memphis is in the discussion for promotion if it ever comes to that?

Never mind your unnecessary arrogance answered my question.

So, I guess you don’t like people earning things, and want things handed to you like most of the AAC was hoping for last year when the Big 12 was deciding whether or not to expand?

(01-01-2019 05:48 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:Given how sh*tty Heupel's offensive gameplan was, the D played damn good. The O hung them out to dry all game long.

I wouldn't go that far, but I will say the D played well in a certain way -- they still held LSU to FGs when it mattered, for a distant chance at the game. You'd expect them to get tired late in the game where it'd be a TD every time they got at or near the red zone.

But the reason why I won't say "damn good" for their D -- 50% 3rd down conversions, and they only punted 3 times; just once in the 2nd half. That helps keep your O out of rhythm when they need to get in rhythm like they needed to against Memphis. I can't say "damn good" when LSU's TOP was 44.5 minutes to UCF's 15.5.

The UCF defense gave up 40 points, 32 first downs, 550 yards, and LSU had the ball for 45 minutes.

That is a mauling.

(01-01-2019 05:47 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 05:34 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  You put UCF in a tougher conference than the AAC and they would be about 9-3...an excellent team but not a playoff contender.

yeah, maybe a division champion in the ACC.

The Coastal...agreed they could maybe win it

The Atlantic...no way

(01-01-2019 05:50 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 05:18 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 04:53 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 04:45 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 04:30 PM)leofrog Wrote:  Besides an undefeated record against a so-so schedule, what else made UCF deserving of a Top 4 spot this season?

You don't feel the least bit asinine considering that your team isn't but a miraculous last minute reprieve from a then desperate big12 away from being in the AAC probably in the exact same situation as UCF do you.

You mean a spot TCU earned by putting resources into their program instead of sitting on the sidelines and letting the P5 go by us.

And this coming from a fan of a team who looked to TCU to resurrect their downtrodden program, and he is the reason Memphis is in the discussion for promotion if it ever comes to that?

Never mind your unnecessary arrogance answered my question.

So, I guess you don’t like people earning things, and want things handed to you like most of the AAC was hoping for last year when the Big 12 was deciding whether or not to expand?

I never said a dang like that but if that's how you somehow interpreted what I wrote then so be it. If I were you i'd work on that attitude thing before 2025 when the big12 gor is up. Karma is a,,,,well you know. By the way out of curiosity why do you have such animosity towards a conference that is " beneath " you? If you've earned so much then why are you wasting your time?

(01-01-2019 04:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Great season for an LSU team that was expected to finish 4th in the SEC West.

They only finished 3rd

(01-01-2019 05:41 PM)kurtrundell Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 05:31 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:By and large, UCF D was damn good today. Sure there were some personal fouls early, but the D showed up. The O did not.

I wouldn't say the UCF D was damn good. 555 yards (yes, the O helped with that), 66% pass completion, 50% 3rd down conversion completions, but holding them to 3.1 yards a rush + the pick-6 kept having a fighters chance to make it a close one.

It was UCF's O to blame. The UCF D didn't help, letting LSU swallow all the time on the clock and keeping UCF's O out of rhythm. Sure, you play Memphis with your backup QB, where Memphis' D is bad, you'll have the time & ability to get the O going with the new QB. But, not against a ranked team where their D is what gets them there.

Given how sh*tty Heupel's offensive gameplan was, the D played damn good. The O hung them out to dry all game long.

Awful

(01-01-2019 05:34 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  You put UCF in a tougher conference than the AAC and they would be about 9-3...an excellent team but not a playoff contender.

Disagree here Mark. The only ACC team that would have beaten UCF is Clemson.

(01-01-2019 06:52 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 05:34 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  You put UCF in a tougher conference than the AAC and they would be about 9-3...an excellent team but not a playoff contender.

Disagree here Mark. The only ACC team that would have beaten UCF is Clemson.

We will agree to disagree. I think playing week in week out...you would sustain more injuries and see higher level players and teams with more depth. You would encounter stadiums with better home field advantages. Also, they might have to play Notre Dame and you could draw two real tough cross division opponents.

(01-01-2019 07:11 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 06:52 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 05:34 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  You put UCF in a tougher conference than the AAC and they would be about 9-3...an excellent team but not a playoff contender.

Disagree here Mark. The only ACC team that would have beaten UCF is Clemson.

We will agree to disagree. I think playing week in week out...you would sustain more injuries and see higher level players and teams with more depth. You would encounter stadiums with better home field advantages. Also, they might have to play Notre Dame and you could draw two real tough cross division opponents.

The level of play is not higher. ND? look at the Pitt games against ND and UCF. You lost your QB against Clemson yes?

Welcome back to Earth, Citronauts. It was a good run.

(01-01-2019 07:28 PM)esayem Wrote:  Welcome back to Earth, Citronauts. It was a good run.

I had to look up "Citronauts", I had no idea...

(01-01-2019 07:16 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 07:11 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 06:52 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 05:34 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  You put UCF in a tougher conference than the AAC and they would be about 9-3...an excellent team but not a playoff contender.

Disagree here Mark. The only ACC team that would have beaten UCF is Clemson.

We will agree to disagree. I think playing week in week out...you would sustain more injuries and see higher level players and teams with more depth. You would encounter stadiums with better home field advantages. Also, they might have to play Notre Dame and you could draw two real tough cross division opponents.

The level of play is not higher. ND? look at the Pitt games against ND and UCF. You lost your QB against Clemson yes?

The AAC was not the equal of the ACC. Half of your league are easy layups. You can't deny that. The ACC had one layup.

We lost Dungey various times over the first three seasons (Clemson, FSU, Louisville, CMU). This was the first year we had a backup QB who could actually win ACC game but Dungey stayed fairly healthy. Babers turned over the roster and finally has some depth this year. We have been built for long term success it appears.

LSU definitely got a break in this game... If UCF had their regular starting QB in this game the outcome would've been far more different.

Heck of a game by both football programs, I must say.