(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.

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. I think the issue is--you really dont like the idea that many actually agree with the action. It is supported because many see the obvious bias and exclusion in the current system. Like it or not--change usually begins when someone draws attention to the problem. Like it or not--the CFP Invitational has a problem.

I saw this elsewhere--but it sums it up pretty well. UCF's claim of a national championship isn't about claiming an actual national championship - it's about claiming the right to legitimately play for one.