(01-04-2018 05:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2018 02:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2018 01:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2018 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2018 12:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]First, things evolve when money comes in to the equation, never before. E.g., in 2003, we had the closest thing to an actual "split championship" as we've had in the BCS era, when USC was voted #1 in the AP poll while LSU won the BCS title.
What changed as a result? The BCS formula was tinkered with, but the BCS system didn't change at all, it endured another 10 years. Ditto in 2008, when Utah went undefeated but didn't make the BCS title game.
The system itself changed when the TV networks offered up more money for it to change. That is why ALL playoff systems change - NFL, MLB, NBA, college football. It's never because of theoretical reasons, it's always because someone offers more money to do it.
Second, there isn't going to be a "split championship". The CFP playoff produces the official champion agreed to by all 10 FBS conferences, including Aresco and the AAC, and therefore by UCF as well. So it doesn't even matter what the AP does. The winner of this week's title game will be the AAC's and UCF's champion, whether Aresco, the UCF President, the UCF AD, and Scott Frost like it or not, and no matter how many banners, rings, and parades they waste money on, and how many blog posts and tweets their supporters make. That's the reality.
But FWIW, the AP isn't going to vote UCF #1 either, and for obvious reasons, they didn't prove they were the best team.
So then why are running around so concerned? UCF will declare themselves National Champions. It will have no affect on anything according to you. If thats truly the case--there is no need for you to frantically attempt to delegitimize the move in post after post.
If that's the criteria for posting around here, my post count would be zero and so would yours. I don't think anyone here thinks that what they say impacts on what happens in the real world, i certainly don't. So no, I'm not "frantically" trying to delegitimize the UCF claims, because that implies that i think I have any power to affect that or any other college football issue - and i don't.
All I'm doing is arguing with other non-entities around here who are making claims about this or that. That's all any of us do. It's the nature of this particular forum*. In this case, the reality is there will be no split champion, and also there will be no push to create an 8-team playoff, as playoff expansion *only* responds to one factor, money, not competitive fairness.
* Though not all, e.g., I'm on a music forum where one of the regulars is a guy who actually is a music business player, has produced or mixed albums for acts like Metallica, the Cars, and Bob Dylan. Likewise, I'm on a movie box office forum where two very high-level executives at Warners and Disney are known to post, albeit anonymously. They have access to real numbers long before the media does.
But this forum isn't like that. We don't have Nick Saban or Kirk Herbstreit or the CFP president posting here.
There already is a split champion. Thats simply a hitorical fact at this point.
There's no split champion, it isn't a historical fact of any kind no matter how many proclamations Aresco or UCF officials make, or how many sportswriters write columns saying UCF got screwed or deserves to call themselves a champion, as that isn't what defines a split champion. Historically, at least since the 1970s, "Split Champion" means that the two major polls disagree on who the champ is. E.g., 1997 is a split champion year because Michigan got the AP vote and Nebraska the Coaches vote. That's a split champion. A split champion isn't when one rinky-dink group nobody ever heard of says team X is the champ when the AP and Coaches both pick team Y.
If the latter is the case, I guess I can declare that USF is the national champion, make up hats and banners and rings, throw a parade, and that makes it a 3-way tie for this year's title, right? Hilarious.
The only way one can plausibly claim that this year is a split champion is if the AP votes for someone other than the CFP title game winner.
Wake me up when that happens. 
lol... still patiently waiting for the name of the team that beat UCF this year.
(01-04-2018 06:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2018 05:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]The only way one can plausibly claim that this year is a split champion is if the AP votes for someone other than the CFP title game winner.
Wake me up when that happens.
lol... still patiently waiting for the name of the team that beat UCF this year.
*sigh*. Who you played is everything, we already went over that.
But hey, if you want a split title, then maybe all those AP voters will be swayed by that argument over the next 5 days. It wouldn't be a real split title, because UCF and the AAC already signed a contract saying that the CFP winner is their national champion, but it would be something.
(01-05-2018 08:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2018 06:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2018 05:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]The only way one can plausibly claim that this year is a split champion is if the AP votes for someone other than the CFP title game winner.
Wake me up when that happens.
lol... still patiently waiting for the name of the team that beat UCF this year.
*sigh*. Who you played is everything, we already went over that.
But hey, if you want a split title, then maybe all those AP voters will be swayed by that argument over the next 5 days. It wouldn't be a real split title, because UCF and the AAC already signed a contract saying that the CFP winner is their national champion, but it would be something.
Everyone keeps talking about a contract. Has anybody read the text of it?
(01-04-2018 06:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2018 05:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2018 02:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2018 01:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2018 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]So then why are running around so concerned? UCF will declare themselves National Champions. It will have no affect on anything according to you. If thats truly the case--there is no need for you to frantically attempt to delegitimize the move in post after post.
If that's the criteria for posting around here, my post count would be zero and so would yours. I don't think anyone here thinks that what they say impacts on what happens in the real world, i certainly don't. So no, I'm not "frantically" trying to delegitimize the UCF claims, because that implies that i think I have any power to affect that or any other college football issue - and i don't.
All I'm doing is arguing with other non-entities around here who are making claims about this or that. That's all any of us do. It's the nature of this particular forum*. In this case, the reality is there will be no split champion, and also there will be no push to create an 8-team playoff, as playoff expansion *only* responds to one factor, money, not competitive fairness.
* Though not all, e.g., I'm on a music forum where one of the regulars is a guy who actually is a music business player, has produced or mixed albums for acts like Metallica, the Cars, and Bob Dylan. Likewise, I'm on a movie box office forum where two very high-level executives at Warners and Disney are known to post, albeit anonymously. They have access to real numbers long before the media does.
But this forum isn't like that. We don't have Nick Saban or Kirk Herbstreit or the CFP president posting here.
There already is a split champion. Thats simply a hitorical fact at this point.
The only way one can plausibly claim that this year is a split champion is if the AP votes for someone other than the CFP title game winner.
lol... still patiently waiting for the name of the team that beat UCF this year.
The Ap has no more say then any other poll or publication. It is more recognized, but no more valid. If any computer or published Poll puts UCF #1 the same argument could be made.
Guys,
Going into the playoffs UCF had wins over (as of the bowl selection date)
1) Memphis at home (twice) - Memphis didn't lose to anyone else, but also didn't play anyone significant either. They beat a 6-7 UCLA team, a 4-8 ULM team, and a FCS (all at home). The best record of any team they beat was...7-5.
2) USF at home - USF beat teams with a combined FBS record of 25-72 going into the bowl game. They beat zero teams all year that had winning FBS records. They did win their bowl game, barely beating Texas Tech team with a FBS record of 5-7.
3) FIU at home - FIU was 7-4 vs FBS, with many of their wins coming over the complete dregs of FBS.
4) Navy on the road - Navy went 6-6 vs FBS and the game was closer than the final score
5) SMU on the road - SMU went 6-6 vs FBS and the game was close
6) Wins over five teams with losing FBS records
7) A FCS win
----
UCF also played fewer games than the other teams
----
So they didn't play anyone OOC, they best team they played on the road had a 6-6 record vs FBS (and that was a close one), they didn't play anyone who did anything in conference, and they didn't play as many games as the other teams.
--
Look, UCF chose to schedule a garbage sandwich OOC. They, like any other G5 from the AAC, Sun Belt, MWC, CUSA, or MAC could have gotten a payday game at a top P5. But they chose to schedule Maryland and Georgia Tech (two teams that are unlikely to feature prominently on anyone's CFP resume).
(01-06-2018 12:29 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]Guys,
Going into the playoffs UCF had wins over (as of the bowl selection date)
1) Memphis at home (twice) - Memphis didn't lose to anyone else, but also didn't play anyone significant either. They beat a 6-7 UCLA team, a 4-8 ULM team, and a FCS (all at home). The best record of any team they beat was...7-5.
2) USF at home - USF beat teams with a combined FBS record of 25-72 going into the bowl game. They beat zero teams all year that had winning FBS records. They did win their bowl game, barely beating Texas Tech team with a FBS record of 5-7.
3) FIU at home - FIU was 7-4 vs FBS, with many of their wins coming over the complete dregs of FBS.
4) Navy on the road - Navy went 6-6 vs FBS and the game was closer than the final score
5) SMU on the road - SMU went 6-6 vs FBS and the game was close
6) Wins over five teams with losing FBS records
7) A FCS win
----
UCF also played fewer games than the other teams
----
So they didn't play anyone OOC, they best team they played on the road had a 6-6 record vs FBS (and that was a close one), they didn't play anyone who did anything in conference, and they didn't play as many games as the other teams.
--
Look, UCF chose to schedule a garbage sandwich OOC. They, like any other G5 from the AAC, Sun Belt, MWC, CUSA, or MAC could have gotten a payday game at a top P5. But they chose to schedule Maryland and Georgia Tech (two teams that are unlikely to feature prominently on anyone's CFP resume).
Navy blew away Virginia in the Military Bowl. Navy's win helped boast the case for UCF. Virginia beat Boise State who is in the top 25 CFP Committee's poll. Boise State's OT lost to Washington State and USC lost to Washington State could also factor in as well.
As it is the top 8 to 10 teams in both AAC and MWC could beat a P5 team like they have done so in the past. Both conferences are heavily balance in competitive that it is hard to go undefeated in a season.
(01-05-2018 08:59 AM)otown Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2018 08:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2018 06:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2018 05:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]The only way one can plausibly claim that this year is a split champion is if the AP votes for someone other than the CFP title game winner.
Wake me up when that happens.
lol... still patiently waiting for the name of the team that beat UCF this year.
*sigh*. Who you played is everything, we already went over that.
But hey, if you want a split title, then maybe all those AP voters will be swayed by that argument over the next 5 days. It wouldn't be a real split title, because UCF and the AAC already signed a contract saying that the CFP winner is their national champion, but it would be something.
Everyone keeps talking about a contract. Has anybody read the text of it?
Aresco signed it so he probably has, and he said the other day that while there's nothing wrong with UCF having fun hanging their banner, the actual national champ will be decided by Monday's game.
(01-04-2018 12:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2018 12:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2018 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2018 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2018 10:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]Actually no, as there are many examples of teams winning championships with more losses than other teams. A focus on losses alone is idiotic, as it ignores who you played.
There are also many many examples of teams declaring themselves national cahmpions---many of them are not even undefeated teams.
IIRC, all of those examples occurred when teams either played no bowl games or one. It's entirely another matter to claim a title when we do have a playoff system that requires a team to win two games against top-4 calibre teams. Had UCF had this season 40 years ago, then they could make a fanciful title claim even though no wire service votes them #1. Nobody would pay attention to it, the AP and UPI were the only widely-regarded title granters, but still they claim it. The playoffs eliminate all grounds for these kinds of frivolous claims.
Undefeated means little unless we know who a team played. Transitivity means even less - Auburn lost three games before losing to UCF, nobody, not even Auburn fans said they were playoff worthy, so how on earth does beating a non-playoff-worthy team mean you are national champs over teams that won actual playoff games?
It's astonishing that we have to keep going over this.
Actually--we have a "playoff system" that by one of the commissioners own admission--eliminates the G5 from participation. Thats the exactly the type of environment that creates split championships. Ignore it or dont. Its going to to happen. If the the little CFP Invitational doesnt like it--then they should improve their product. This how things evolve.
First, things evolve when money comes in to the equation, never before. E.g., in 2003, we had the closest thing to an actual "split championship" as we've had in the BCS era, when USC was voted #1 in the AP poll while LSU won the BCS title.
What changed as a result? The BCS formula was tinkered with, but the BCS system didn't change at all, it endured another 10 years. Ditto in 2008, when Utah went undefeated but didn't make the BCS title game.
The system itself changed when the TV networks offered up more money for it to change. That is why ALL playoff systems change - NFL, MLB, NBA, college football. It's never because of theoretical reasons, it's always because someone offers more money to do it.
Second, there isn't going to be a "split championship". The CFP playoff produces the official champion agreed to by all 10 FBS conferences, including Aresco and the AAC, and therefore by UCF as well. So it doesn't even matter what the AP does. The winner of this week's title game will be the AAC's and UCF's champion, whether Aresco, the UCF President, the UCF AD, and Scott Frost like it or not, and no matter how many banners, rings, and parades they waste money on, and how many blog posts and tweets their supporters make. That's the reality.
But FWIW, the AP isn't going to vote UCF #1 either, and for obvious reasons, they didn't prove they were the best team.
There's no proof they aren't either. They won all of their games and even beat a team that was the only to beat what will be no worse than the runner up in college football.
It's all based on assumptions and even when assumptions are proven wrong, the same assumptions manifest themselves over again. I wouldn't even be surprised if Auburn somehow finishes ahead of UCF.
(01-06-2018 04:31 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2018 12:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2018 12:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2018 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2018 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ]There are also many many examples of teams declaring themselves national cahmpions---many of them are not even undefeated teams.
IIRC, all of those examples occurred when teams either played no bowl games or one. It's entirely another matter to claim a title when we do have a playoff system that requires a team to win two games against top-4 calibre teams. Had UCF had this season 40 years ago, then they could make a fanciful title claim even though no wire service votes them #1. Nobody would pay attention to it, the AP and UPI were the only widely-regarded title granters, but still they claim it. The playoffs eliminate all grounds for these kinds of frivolous claims.
Undefeated means little unless we know who a team played. Transitivity means even less - Auburn lost three games before losing to UCF, nobody, not even Auburn fans said they were playoff worthy, so how on earth does beating a non-playoff-worthy team mean you are national champs over teams that won actual playoff games?
It's astonishing that we have to keep going over this.
Actually--we have a "playoff system" that by one of the commissioners own admission--eliminates the G5 from participation. Thats the exactly the type of environment that creates split championships. Ignore it or dont. Its going to to happen. If the the little CFP Invitational doesnt like it--then they should improve their product. This how things evolve.
First, things evolve when money comes in to the equation, never before. E.g., in 2003, we had the closest thing to an actual "split championship" as we've had in the BCS era, when USC was voted #1 in the AP poll while LSU won the BCS title.
What changed as a result? The BCS formula was tinkered with, but the BCS system didn't change at all, it endured another 10 years. Ditto in 2008, when Utah went undefeated but didn't make the BCS title game.
The system itself changed when the TV networks offered up more money for it to change. That is why ALL playoff systems change - NFL, MLB, NBA, college football. It's never because of theoretical reasons, it's always because someone offers more money to do it.
Second, there isn't going to be a "split championship". The CFP playoff produces the official champion agreed to by all 10 FBS conferences, including Aresco and the AAC, and therefore by UCF as well. So it doesn't even matter what the AP does. The winner of this week's title game will be the AAC's and UCF's champion, whether Aresco, the UCF President, the UCF AD, and Scott Frost like it or not, and no matter how many banners, rings, and parades they waste money on, and how many blog posts and tweets their supporters make. That's the reality.
But FWIW, the AP isn't going to vote UCF #1 either, and for obvious reasons, they didn't prove they were the best team.
There's no proof they aren't either. They won all of their games and even beat a team that was the only to beat what will be no worse than the runner up in college football.
It's all based on assumptions and even when assumptions are proven wrong, the same assumptions manifest themselves over again. I wouldn't even be surprised if Auburn somehow finishes ahead of UCF.
Auburn won't finish ahead of UCF. The interesting thing will be who among Wisconsin, Penn State, Ohio State, Clemson, Oklahoma, and the loser of the title game UCF finishes ahead of. I'm betting they finish ahead of two of those though not sure which two.
(01-06-2018 04:12 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]Who beat Mt. Union?
Nice strawman. Does Mount Union play FBS football? Did UCF get to play for a national title despite being undefeated?
(01-06-2018 04:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2018 08:59 AM)otown Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2018 08:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2018 06:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2018 05:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]The only way one can plausibly claim that this year is a split champion is if the AP votes for someone other than the CFP title game winner.
Wake me up when that happens.
lol... still patiently waiting for the name of the team that beat UCF this year.
*sigh*. Who you played is everything, we already went over that.
But hey, if you want a split title, then maybe all those AP voters will be swayed by that argument over the next 5 days. It wouldn't be a real split title, because UCF and the AAC already signed a contract saying that the CFP winner is their national champion, but it would be something.
Everyone keeps talking about a contract. Has anybody read the text of it?
Aresco signed it so he probably has, and he said the other day that while there's nothing wrong with UCF having fun hanging their banner, the actual national champ will be decided by Monday's game.
I just find it funny that nobody actually knows what is in the contract here. You even quoted what the contract says.... but who even knows?
Yeah, even when you prove it on the field, you don't prove it.
(01-06-2018 04:35 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2018 04:12 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]Who beat Mt. Union?
Nice strawman. Does Mount Union play FBS football? Did UCF get to play for a national title despite being undefeated?
And mount union was part of an actual playoff.
Everyone knows UCF didn't belong in the CFP. Nice mid-major team, but the bucks aren't there.
We need to stop replying to long posts. My fingers are getting sore.
(01-06-2018 05:26 PM)westwolf Wrote: [ -> ]Everyone knows UCF didn't belong in the CFP. Nice mid-major team, but the bucks aren't there.
What we know is there is no system in place that assures that every team controls its own destiny if they win all their games.
Yeah, UCF probably wasn't the best team or even a top 4 team but we have nothing but assumptions to prove that's the case.
(01-06-2018 06:17 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2018 05:26 PM)westwolf Wrote: [ -> ]Everyone knows UCF didn't belong in the CFP. Nice mid-major team, but the bucks aren't there.
What we know is there is no system in place that assures that every team controls its own destiny if they win all their games.
True, and we have never had that. Probably because the costs of doing so exceed the benefits. The current system has an extremely high chance of crowning the 'best' team as champ so why change it?
Honestly, Nick Sabans response to the question is the most accurate.