CSNbbs

I can live with them not making the playoffs, though that's silly when a 2-loss team easily could have.

But how is UCF not in the top 10 already? It's by no means a lock that they get there either. Blah, blah, for the millionth time we know college football isn't fair. It may be beating a dead horse but still ridiculous. Did we not see a similar UCF team go to a major bowl and win four or five years ago? Why are they weighted down so much despite being so good?

Well they probably lost their HC and half their assistants today

And that has what to do with the disrespect of their record?

Yeah, I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it but it's still a sham and a shame.

(12-02-2017 10:46 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]I can live with them not making the playoffs, though that's silly when a 2-loss team easily could have.

But how is UCF not in the top 10 already? It's by no means a lock that they get there either. Blah, blah, for the millionth time we know college football isn't fair. It may be beating a dead horse but still ridiculous. Did we not see a similar UCF team go to a major bowl and win four or five years ago? Why are they weighted down so much despite being so good?

Conference winners should go to playoff.
Best 8 winners or do 10 with wild card type of set up.

Sure.. "but the best team might not get in".. or other nonsense. Other sports / leagues do it and it works for them. If anything it would cause a major shake up with realignments as the P5's split up to dominate against G5 teams so they can increase their odds of a play off spot.

(12-02-2017 11:04 PM)msm96wolf Wrote: [ -> ]

UCF finishes 12th despite an undefeated record.

College football is a joke.

[This is a recording.]

(12-02-2017 10:46 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]I can live with them not making the playoffs, though that's silly when a 2-loss team easily could have.

But how is UCF not in the top 10 already? It's by no means a lock that they get there either. Blah, blah, for the millionth time we know college football isn't fair. It may be beating a dead horse but still ridiculous. Did we not see a similar UCF team go to a major bowl and win four or five years ago? Why are they weighted down so much despite being so good?

I agree. FBS football is dysfunctional.

Wait till next season's disrespect.
The year UCF beat Baylor in the Fiesta bowl they finished the season ranked #10. They began the next season unranked. Same will happen to them this time.

(12-02-2017 10:46 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]I can live with them not making the playoffs, though that's silly when a 2-loss team easily could have.

But how is UCF not in the top 10 already?

Their schedule was too soft for us to know if they are top 10 worthy.

Remember, they did get a LOT of credit for going unbeaten through their soft schedule. They are ranked 12th out 120 teams, that's a very high ranking.

So what, it's not easy for anyone to win all their games. And how do we know whose really soft and whose really good? It's all relative and assumed.

(12-06-2017 01:12 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]So what, it's not easy for anyone to win all their games. And how do we know whose really soft and whose really good? It's all relative and assumed.

You could make exactly the same comment about a team that goes undefeated in FCS.

(12-06-2017 01:49 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-06-2017 01:12 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]So what, it's not easy for anyone to win all their games. And how do we know whose really soft and whose really good? It's all relative and assumed.

You could make exactly the same comment about a team that goes undefeated in FCS.

And they should be able to move up to FBS if they want. In which case they'd be in the same situation as UCF. Until then, they are able to play in a playoff at the FCS level.

(12-06-2017 01:12 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]So what, it's not easy for anyone to win all their games. And how do we know whose really soft and whose really good? It's all relative and assumed.

So you think the Sun Belt is as good as the AAC?

I don't think so. You just talk about "relative and assumed" when it fits your argument.

Believe me, if there was an undefeated Sun Belt team right now and they were saying "hey, why is UCF the G5 rep in the NY6, we're undefeated too!", you'd be one of the first to talk about how much better the AAC is than the SB. No 'relative and assumed' nonsense about it.

And let's face it: the last two games are good evidence that UCF really wasn't that good. They dominated bad teams, but when the played two teams that, while good, clearly aren't playoff-level, USF and Memphis, they squeaked by in both by the skin of their teeth, both were basically 50-50 games.

So really, UCF is probably overrated at #12.

(12-06-2017 01:49 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-06-2017 01:12 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]So what, it's not easy for anyone to win all their games. And how do we know whose really soft and whose really good? It's all relative and assumed.

You could make exactly the same comment about a team that goes undefeated in FCS.

No we couldn't, that's an extreme example. And just one decade ago, didn't we see a great but not dominant FCS team go in and smack around a Big Ten power and ultimate top 15 team?

It further delegitimizes the way UCF is being treated.

(12-06-2017 05:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-06-2017 01:12 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]So what, it's not easy for anyone to win all their games. And how do we know whose really soft and whose really good? It's all relative and assumed.

So you think the Sun Belt is as good as the AAC?

I don't think so. You just talk about "relative and assumed" when it fits your argument.

Believe me, if there was an undefeated Sun Belt team right now and they were saying "hey, why is UCF the G5 rep in the NY6, we're undefeated too!", you'd be one of the first to talk about how much better the AAC is than the SB. No 'relative and assumed' nonsense about it.

And let's face it: the last two games are good evidence that UCF really wasn't that good. They dominated bad teams, but when the played two teams that, while good, clearly aren't playoff-level, USF and Memphis, they squeaked by in both by the skin of their teeth, both were basically 50-50 games.

So really, UCF is probably overrated at #12.

Put the Haterade down. You're making the rest of us real USF fans look bad.

(12-06-2017 12:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-02-2017 10:46 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]I can live with them not making the playoffs, though that's silly when a 2-loss team easily could have.

But how is UCF not in the top 10 already?

Their schedule was too soft for us to know if they are top 10 worthy.

Remember, they did get a LOT of credit for going unbeaten through their soft schedule. They are ranked 12th out 120 teams, that's a very high ranking.

How many other teams in the country have 3 wins against teams that are currently ranked?

Clemson went 3-0 vs currently ranked teams (and lost to an unranked team)
Oklahoma went 4-0 (and lost to an unranked team)
Georgia went 3-1
Alabama went 2-1
Ohio State went 3-1 (and lost to an unranked team)
Wisconsin went 0-1
Auburn went 3-3
USC went 2-2
Penn State went 0-2
Miami went 2-1 (and lost to an unranked team)
Washington went 1-1 (and lost to an unranked team)
UCF went 3-0 - the best record except Clemson and Oklahoma.

ND went 3-3 as well.

Wins:

Southern Cal
Michigan State
NC State

Losses:

Georgia
Miami
Stanford

(12-06-2017 05:16 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-06-2017 01:49 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-06-2017 01:12 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]So what, it's not easy for anyone to win all their games. And how do we know whose really soft and whose really good? It's all relative and assumed.

You could make exactly the same comment about a team that goes undefeated in FCS.

No we couldn't, that's an extreme example.

It's not an extreme example, it's a good example. In both cases, the problem is that there is no reliable, agreed-upon basis for comparison. No matter which side we're on, we're all just assuming how well UCF or NDSU or whomever would fare if they played the same schedule as any of the CFP playoff teams.

Answer this question about NDSU, for example, even if you don't think they can run with the CFP playoff teams: Are they as good as the 10th best, 20th best, or 60th best FBS team? How do we know for sure? Are we just going to argue about different computer rankings or statistical metrics, given that anyone can find some data somewhere to support whichever argument they want to make?

Which is the dilemma that the best G5 team will always have with the CFP committee, unless their schedule includes 2 or 3 well-respected P5 teams. It might as well be fans sitting around arguing about whether they're top 4 material or top 40 material. Without playing multiple top P5 teams, that agreed-upon basis for comparison will never exist.