Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Does this season's success make UCF/USF more attractive to the P5?
Author Message
CardFan1 Offline
Red Thunderbird
*

Posts: 13,550
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 511
I Root For: Louisville ACC
Location:
Post: #141
RE: Does this season's success make UCF/USF more attractive to the P5?
(10-11-2017 09:27 PM)otown Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 09:13 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 03:51 PM)otown Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 03:46 PM)rednblackattack Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 01:36 PM)otown Wrote:  Yep, that team......and would it surprise anybody if the disgusting filth that the Louisville athletic depart swam in flowed through their football program as well? Teddy Bridgewater grew up in Miami and was committed to Miami. He ultimately decommitted from them and went to Louisville. Sorry, that school is toxic. Clint Hurtt flipped him and got quite a few from South Florida to go to Louisville. They even kept Hurtt on staff after the show cause penalty.

And that was not nearly as close as the final score indicated. Louisville broke Florida in that game

Yep, you were on a role and manhandled us that game. Doesn't change the fact that your program is/was dirty and it is quite possible that the win will be handed back to the NCAA just like the rest of the recent Louisville accomplishments.

You are as disillusional as some UCF folks on here. A couple of Basketball screw ups don't condem decades of Florida recruits coming to Louisville in Football. Btw UF was the first school I ever cheered for while growing up in Florida throughout the 1960 's so I know the state well and played HS at Nova HS in Ft. Lauderdale / Davie.

I'm sorry, but Clint Hurtt hand delivered the Miami recruits. Hell, that's why he was recruiter of the year........ until he got a show cause penalty. I don't know, it seems easy to connect the dots and it's quite obvious how impotent the NCAA is with investigating.

Well if there is someone responsible look west to Tampa as Our old coach is currently there. Point the finger His way because Bobby is not the problem. He hired Clint.
10-11-2017 09:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jaredf29 Offline
Smiter of Trolls
*

Posts: 5,842
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 226
I Root For: UCF
Location: Nor Cal
Post: #142
RE: Does this season's success make UCF/USF more attractive to the P5?
(10-11-2017 09:13 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 03:51 PM)otown Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 03:46 PM)rednblackattack Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 01:36 PM)otown Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 11:51 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  One that still beat your Gators in the Sugar Bowl.03-lmfao

Yep, that team......and would it surprise anybody if the disgusting filth that the Louisville athletic depart swam in flowed through their football program as well? Teddy Bridgewater grew up in Miami and was committed to Miami. He ultimately decommitted from them and went to Louisville. Sorry, that school is toxic. Clint Hurtt flipped him and got quite a few from South Florida to go to Louisville. They even kept Hurtt on staff after the show cause penalty.

And that was not nearly as close as the final score indicated. Louisville broke Florida in that game

Yep, you were on a role and manhandled us that game. Doesn't change the fact that your program is/was dirty and it is quite possible that the win will be handed back to the NCAA just like the rest of the recent Louisville accomplishments.

You are as disillusional as some UCF folks on here. A couple of Basketball screw ups don't condem decades of Florida recruits coming to Louisville in Football. Btw UF was the first school I ever cheered for while growing up in Florida throughout the 1960 's so I know the state well and played HS at Nova HS in Ft. Lauderdale / Davie.

What?
10-11-2017 09:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CardFan1 Offline
Red Thunderbird
*

Posts: 13,550
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 511
I Root For: Louisville ACC
Location:
Post: #143
RE: Does this season's success make UCF/USF more attractive to the P5?
(10-11-2017 09:36 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 09:13 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 03:51 PM)otown Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 03:46 PM)rednblackattack Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 01:36 PM)otown Wrote:  Yep, that team......and would it surprise anybody if the disgusting filth that the Louisville athletic depart swam in flowed through their football program as well? Teddy Bridgewater grew up in Miami and was committed to Miami. He ultimately decommitted from them and went to Louisville. Sorry, that school is toxic. Clint Hurtt flipped him and got quite a few from South Florida to go to Louisville. They even kept Hurtt on staff after the show cause penalty.

And that was not nearly as close as the final score indicated. Louisville broke Florida in that game

Yep, you were on a role and manhandled us that game. Doesn't change the fact that your program is/was dirty and it is quite possible that the win will be handed back to the NCAA just like the rest of the recent Louisville accomplishments.

You are as disillusional as some UCF folks on here. A couple of Basketball screw ups don't condem decades of Florida recruits coming to Louisville in Football. Btw UF was the first school I ever cheered for while growing up in Florida throughout the 1960 's so I know the state well and played HS at Nova HS in Ft. Lauderdale / Davie.

What?

Lol, My bad........delusional 03-lmfao
10-11-2017 09:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
otown Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,570
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 44
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #144
RE: Does this season's success make UCF/USF more attractive to the P5?
(10-11-2017 09:32 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 09:27 PM)otown Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 09:13 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 03:51 PM)otown Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 03:46 PM)rednblackattack Wrote:  And that was not nearly as close as the final score indicated. Louisville broke Florida in that game

Yep, you were on a role and manhandled us that game. Doesn't change the fact that your program is/was dirty and it is quite possible that the win will be handed back to the NCAA just like the rest of the recent Louisville accomplishments.

You are as disillusional as some UCF folks on here. A couple of Basketball screw ups don't condem decades of Florida recruits coming to Louisville in Football. Btw UF was the first school I ever cheered for while growing up in Florida throughout the 1960 's so I know the state well and played HS at Nova HS in Ft. Lauderdale / Davie.

I'm sorry, but Clint Hurtt hand delivered the Miami recruits. Hell, that's why he was recruiter of the year........ until he got a show cause penalty. I don't know, it seems easy to connect the dots and it's quite obvious how impotent the NCAA is with investigating.

Well if there is someone responsible look west to Tampa as Our old coach is currently there. Point the finger His way because Bobby is not the problem. He hired Clint.

That does not make it right or any better.
10-12-2017 05:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goodknightfl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,334
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 219
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #145
RE: Does this season's success make UCF/USF more attractive to the P5?
UL your school is on the verge of joining the ash heap. You are stinking dirty in BB and FB and will pay for that. Enjoy the whirlpool ride down the throne of shame.
10-12-2017 08:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BullsFanInTX Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,960
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 178
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #146
RE: Does this season's success make UCF/USF more attractive to the P5?
(10-11-2017 01:39 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 01:22 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  If anything, that data leads more evidence towards a separation, not an inclusion:

The AAC is 4-9 against P5 schools this year, and 27-66 since organizing in 2013 against the P5. The AAC has only placed two teams (2013 UCF - Fiesta, and 2015 Houston - Peach) in NY6 Bowl games, and carries a dreadful 8-17 record in bowl games in that time span.

Let's not forget in 2013, it was the last year of the BCS and the AAC champ regardless of record, was contracted to play the Big East's automatic bid. In the CFP era, Boise State, Houston and Western Michigan have played in NY6 bowls.

The AAC would have selected for the NY6/BCS bowl, even if it did NOT have an automatic tie-in in 2013. The fact they had one is irrelevant. This has been stated over and over again. UCF would have been selected under previous criteria, or under current criteria, even if AAC did not have an auto bid. Why is this so hard for some to understand?
10-12-2017 12:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,004
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 518
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #147
RE: Does this season's success make UCF/USF more attractive to the P5?
(10-12-2017 12:20 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 01:39 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 01:22 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  If anything, that data leads more evidence towards a separation, not an inclusion:

The AAC is 4-9 against P5 schools this year, and 27-66 since organizing in 2013 against the P5. The AAC has only placed two teams (2013 UCF - Fiesta, and 2015 Houston - Peach) in NY6 Bowl games, and carries a dreadful 8-17 record in bowl games in that time span.

Let's not forget in 2013, it was the last year of the BCS and the AAC champ regardless of record, was contracted to play the Big East's automatic bid. In the CFP era, Boise State, Houston and Western Michigan have played in NY6 bowls.

The AAC would have selected for the NY6/BCS bowl, even if it did NOT have an automatic tie-in in 2013. The fact they had one is irrelevant. This has been stated over and over again. UCF would have been selected under previous criteria, or under current criteria, even if AAC did not have an auto bid. Why is this so hard for some to understand?

This is incorrect. The only way UCF could have gotten in to a BCS bowl that year under that year's criteria was the way they did, by the AAC having an auto-bid. We can work it through:

National Title game: #1 FSU vs #2 Auburn

Rose Bowl: #4 MSU (B1G champ) vs #5 Stanford (PAC champ)

Sugar Bowl: #3 Alabama (SEC replacement for title game) vs #11 Oklahoma (at-large)

Orange Bowl: #12 Clemson (ACC replacement for title game team) vs #7 Ohio State (at-large)

Fiesta Bowl: #6 Baylor (Big 12 champ) vs ......

So if the AAC was not AQ, there were two avenues to the BCS for UCF: (1) as an automatic qualifier via the special rules for non-AQ teams, or (2) as a pure at-large team. But UCF couldn't make it either way:

First, UCF could not have qualified under the special rules for non-AQ conferences, because to get in that way, the non-AQ had to be either (a) ranked in the top 12, or (b) ranked in the top 16 and ahead of at least one AQ champ. UCF was ranked #15, but all the other AQ champs were ranked higher than them.

Second, UCF could not have gotten in as an at-large selection, because to be eligible for at-large, you had to be ranked in the top 14 teams.

So who would have gone to the Fiesta Bowl vs Baylor? UCF was #15, and after the above selections, there were five higher-ranked teams left out: #8 Missouri, #9 South Carolina, #10 Oregon, #13 OK State, and #14 Arizona State. Now, four of those teams could not be taken instead of UCF, because they would violate the "two teams maximum per conference" rule. But one of them, #10 Oregon, did not violate that rule.

So since the PAC only had one team in the BCS, had the AAC not had an auto-bid, #10 Oregon would have played in the Fiesta Bowl instead of UCF.

The only way you can say that UCF would have gotten in had the AAC not been AQ would be to apply later rules or circumstances (like expanding the number of Major bowls from five to six). But if you keep everything as it was in 2013, but just make the AAC non-AQ, then UCF doesn't get in.
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2017 12:58 PM by quo vadis.)
10-12-2017 12:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Mestophalies Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,765
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 126
I Root For: USF
Location: Florida
Post: #148
RE: Does this season's success make UCF/USF more attractive to the P5?
(10-12-2017 12:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-12-2017 12:20 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 01:39 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 01:22 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  If anything, that data leads more evidence towards a separation, not an inclusion:

The AAC is 4-9 against P5 schools this year, and 27-66 since organizing in 2013 against the P5. The AAC has only placed two teams (2013 UCF - Fiesta, and 2015 Houston - Peach) in NY6 Bowl games, and carries a dreadful 8-17 record in bowl games in that time span.

Let's not forget in 2013, it was the last year of the BCS and the AAC champ regardless of record, was contracted to play the Big East's automatic bid. In the CFP era, Boise State, Houston and Western Michigan have played in NY6 bowls.

The AAC would have selected for the NY6/BCS bowl, even if it did NOT have an automatic tie-in in 2013. The fact they had one is irrelevant. This has been stated over and over again. UCF would have been selected under previous criteria, or under current criteria, even if AAC did not have an auto bid. Why is this so hard for some to understand?

This is incorrect. The only way UCF could have gotten in to a BCS bowl that year under that year's criteria was the way they did, by the AAC having an auto-bid. We can work it through:

National Title game: #1 FSU vs #2 Auburn

Rose Bowl: #4 MSU (B1G champ) vs #5 Stanford (PAC champ)

Sugar Bowl: #3 Alabama (SEC replacement for title game) vs #11 Oklahoma (at-large)

Orange Bowl: #12 Clemson (ACC replacement for title game team) vs #7 Ohio State (at-large)

Fiesta Bowl: #6 Baylor (Big 12 champ) vs ......

So if the AAC was not AQ, there were two avenues to the BCS for UCF: (1) as an automatic qualifier via the special rules for non-AQ teams, or (2) as a pure at-large team. But UCF couldn't make it either way:

First, UCF could not have qualified under the special rules for non-AQ conferences, because to get in that way, the non-AQ had to be either (a) ranked in the top 12, or (b) ranked in the top 16 and ahead of at least one AQ champ. UCF was ranked #15, but all the other AQ champs were ranked higher than them.

Second, UCF could not have gotten in as an at-large selection, because to be eligible for at-large, you had to be ranked in the top 14 teams.

So who would have gone to the Fiesta Bowl vs Baylor? UCF was #15, and after the above selections, there were five higher-ranked teams left out: #8 Missouri, #9 South Carolina, #10 Oregon, #13 OK State, and #14 Arizona State. Now, four of those teams could not be taken instead of UCF, because they would violate the "two teams maximum per conference" rule. But one of them, #10 Oregon, did not violate that rule.

So since the PAC only had one team in the BCS, had the AAC not had an auto-bid, #10 Oregon would have played in the Fiesta Bowl instead of UCF.

The only way you can say that UCF would have gotten in had the AAC not been AQ would be to apply later rules or circumstances (like expanding the number of Major bowls from five to six). But if you keep everything as it was in 2013, but just make the AAC non-AQ, then UCF doesn't get in.

Just stop already!!!

You know damn well that had the Football Championship Playoffs and the NY6 Bowls been in effect, that UCF would have been the highest ranked non-power team available. This means that UCF would have been chosen as the G5 representative for the NY6 bowl. Because by their simple existence, that would mean that the BigEast/AAC would have not been a Power Conference any longer.

God I wish you'd drop all references to USF from your profile. 03-banghead
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2017 04:27 PM by Mestophalies.)
10-12-2017 04:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CardFan1 Offline
Red Thunderbird
*

Posts: 13,550
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 511
I Root For: Louisville ACC
Location:
Post: #149
RE: Does this season's success make UCF/USF more attractive to the P5?
(10-12-2017 08:25 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  UL your school is on the verge of joining the ash heap. You are stinking dirty in BB and FB and will pay for that. Enjoy the whirlpool ride down the throne of shame.

And you can enjoy the G5 for a long time !03-lmfao
10-12-2017 04:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,004
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 518
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #150
RE: Does this season's success make UCF/USF more attractive to the P5?
(10-12-2017 04:22 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  
(10-12-2017 12:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-12-2017 12:20 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 01:39 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 01:22 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  If anything, that data leads more evidence towards a separation, not an inclusion:

The AAC is 4-9 against P5 schools this year, and 27-66 since organizing in 2013 against the P5. The AAC has only placed two teams (2013 UCF - Fiesta, and 2015 Houston - Peach) in NY6 Bowl games, and carries a dreadful 8-17 record in bowl games in that time span.

Let's not forget in 2013, it was the last year of the BCS and the AAC champ regardless of record, was contracted to play the Big East's automatic bid. In the CFP era, Boise State, Houston and Western Michigan have played in NY6 bowls.

The AAC would have selected for the NY6/BCS bowl, even if it did NOT have an automatic tie-in in 2013. The fact they had one is irrelevant. This has been stated over and over again. UCF would have been selected under previous criteria, or under current criteria, even if AAC did not have an auto bid. Why is this so hard for some to understand?

This is incorrect. The only way UCF could have gotten in to a BCS bowl that year under that year's criteria was the way they did, by the AAC having an auto-bid. We can work it through:

National Title game: #1 FSU vs #2 Auburn

Rose Bowl: #4 MSU (B1G champ) vs #5 Stanford (PAC champ)

Sugar Bowl: #3 Alabama (SEC replacement for title game) vs #11 Oklahoma (at-large)

Orange Bowl: #12 Clemson (ACC replacement for title game team) vs #7 Ohio State (at-large)

Fiesta Bowl: #6 Baylor (Big 12 champ) vs ......

So if the AAC was not AQ, there were two avenues to the BCS for UCF: (1) as an automatic qualifier via the special rules for non-AQ teams, or (2) as a pure at-large team. But UCF couldn't make it either way:

First, UCF could not have qualified under the special rules for non-AQ conferences, because to get in that way, the non-AQ had to be either (a) ranked in the top 12, or (b) ranked in the top 16 and ahead of at least one AQ champ. UCF was ranked #15, but all the other AQ champs were ranked higher than them.

Second, UCF could not have gotten in as an at-large selection, because to be eligible for at-large, you had to be ranked in the top 14 teams.

So who would have gone to the Fiesta Bowl vs Baylor? UCF was #15, and after the above selections, there were five higher-ranked teams left out: #8 Missouri, #9 South Carolina, #10 Oregon, #13 OK State, and #14 Arizona State. Now, four of those teams could not be taken instead of UCF, because they would violate the "two teams maximum per conference" rule. But one of them, #10 Oregon, did not violate that rule.

So since the PAC only had one team in the BCS, had the AAC not had an auto-bid, #10 Oregon would have played in the Fiesta Bowl instead of UCF.

The only way you can say that UCF would have gotten in had the AAC not been AQ would be to apply later rules or circumstances (like expanding the number of Major bowls from five to six). But if you keep everything as it was in 2013, but just make the AAC non-AQ, then UCF doesn't get in.

Just stop already!!!

You know damn well that had the Football Championship Playoffs and the NY6 Bowls been in effect, that UCF would have been the highest ranked non-power team available.

The issue wasn't "if the Playoffs and NY6 Bowls had been in effect", it was whether UCF would have qualified under that year's BCS rules, the rules that actually were in effect that year, had the AAC not been AQ.

That's it: Hold everything else constant, don't add any other bowl games, don't assume CFP rules, etc., just hold everything else constant as it was in 2013, save for the AAC being non-AQ rather than AQ.

And if that was the case, UCF doesn't make it.

I have no idea why, when this issue comes up, people try to throw in all kinds of other factors like applying CFP/2014 rules to 2013, etc. like you just did. The idea of making 2013 a CFP/playoffs year to test whether UCF would have made it if the AAC wasn't AQ is just nonsensical, irrelevant to the issue.

2013 was in fact a BCS year, not a CFP year, so the accurate test is simply to make the AAC non-AQ, and see what would have happened.

As for sigs, yours is garishly huge, i have no idea why the mods let you have it. Even worse, it's embarrassing to see an alleged USF fan step in and defend UCF and prop UCF up. Barf-worthy, really.
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2017 05:52 PM by quo vadis.)
10-12-2017 05:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.