(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 09:13 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.

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)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

(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.

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.

(10-11-2017 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)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.

(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.

(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 !

(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.

(10-12-2017 05:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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:  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.

I'm not sticking up for UCif or any team from the American not named USF. I merely hate the subjective crap on this board where people quibble over semantics while they continually fail to answer the previous question.

As for my Signature, how's this? I'm sure you get my point.

(10-12-2017 04:26 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(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 !

You really want to go there? Its gonna take quite some time for Louisville to recover from this mess. Heck, maybe not until the next round of realignment in the mid 2020's. For the next 5-7 years, I do believe there are some G5 teams that do in fact have a brighter future than Louisville. Sure, you can pump your chest on a fat check from the conference (not like its going in your personal bank account anyways), but the fan experience as well as the entire athletic program is gonna sink rather quickly with the future sanctions.

(10-12-2017 08:14 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 05:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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:  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.

I'm not sticking up for UCif or any team from the American not named USF. I merely hate the subjective crap on this board where people quibble over semantics while they continually fail to answer the previous question.

I didn't quibble over semantics. BFIT said UCF would have qualified for a major bowl in 2013 had the AAC not been AQ, under any criteria. I pointed out, in a very thorough and specific way, why this was not the case.

Under 2013 BCS rules, UCF would not have qualified. The only way they qualify is if you apply later CFP rules to that year.

Does it really matter, the AAC still had the auto bid, UCF won the conf In Louisville by beating a top 10 UL. on their turf.
Then made it very clear they belonged there by destroying Baylor in the Fiesta.

(10-13-2017 07:28 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Does it really matter, the AAC still had the auto bid, UCF won the conf In Louisville by beating a top 10 UL. on their turf.
Then made it very clear they belonged there by destroying Baylor in the Fiesta.

Thanks to coach Strong trying to protect a lead instead of playing to win. But yeah, You guys had an outstanding team that year. Loads of great talent.

The point was we beat 2 top 10 schools and the rules were what they were, trying to rewrite them is dumb. It is like saying G5 school X wouldn't have qualified for bcs bowl, doesn't matter now when qualifying for Access bowl.

OK, so UCF would have qualified under the current criteria, or under the former BE's auto bid. Either way, they earned it and whipped Baylor in a major bowl.

(10-09-2017 01:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 01:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 10:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This is strictly for the attractiveness of UCF and USF for the Big 12 (as it's pointless to even consider them for the SEC or ACC, much less the Big Ten or Pac-12):

Advantages for UCF and USF: great locations both in terms of TV markets and recruiting; large enrollment schools that are growing fast; fairly good on-the-field track records compared to other G5 schools

Disadvantages for UCF and USF: arguably the most competitive college football market in the country with Florida and FSU being elite marquee programs and Miami being a top tier national TV brand (making attendance irrelevant with respect to Miami); very young FBS programs in a P5 world that craves/demands old school blue blood history even from weak programs (see Rutgers); real and perceived bias against "directional" schools in terms of branding; academic perception

Non-factor: It's irrelevant to argue that a G5 school would have better attendance or TV ratings by playing a P5 schedule because that would be true of *every* G5 school. Instead, a G5 school has to show that it would bring attendance, TV viewers and revenue to those *P5* schools as opposed to the other way around.

Now, I'll know we'll hear the arguments that it's hypocritical to use, say, academics as a factor against UCF and USF when you see a school like UNC systemically violating the NCAA's academic procedures... and those arguments are entirely correct. However, if you're a school on the outside looking in, it simply doesn't matter. Every argument that is used to keep you out will be emphasized much more heavily than any argument to bring you in. Simply being better than #65 out of the 65 P5 schools is NOT the standard being used.

Of course, all those points are moot if the Big 12 or any other P5 conference doesn't yield more per school revenue by choosing to expand. UCF and/or USF could go undefeated for the next 10 years straight and it wouldn't matter if that revenue equation doesn't change.

Addressing solely the point about directional names and perception of academics: I agree that is probably what people think in average. And it’s too bad and a bit unfair in USF’s case, because it actually has pretty good research.

Would be interesting if they’d consider a name change. Not sure what would make sense or be available, though. UF-Tampa Bay?

What would be wrong with University of Tampa and University of Orlando? USF may be south of UCF, but not by much.

Edit: U of Tampa is taken (private DII school). U of Orlando isn't.

UCF actually looked at branding itself UF-Orlando, until they noticed UFO. That nixed the idea permanently. UCF decided on a different course of action and it has really paid off well for them: insist on being referred to as UCF, much like USC is referred to as USC, and not Southern California. Nobody is going to confuse UCF for USC, but USC has made its directional name work by referring to itself by initials. UCF decided to adopt that same strategy and it has worked. USF is doing something similar. If any Florida schools need to look at a name change, it would be FAU & FIU. Those schools have really struggled, IMO, and their names don't help them at all.

UFO Citronauts would have been great and iconic.

(10-14-2017 11:59 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 01:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 01:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 10:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This is strictly for the attractiveness of UCF and USF for the Big 12 (as it's pointless to even consider them for the SEC or ACC, much less the Big Ten or Pac-12):

Advantages for UCF and USF: great locations both in terms of TV markets and recruiting; large enrollment schools that are growing fast; fairly good on-the-field track records compared to other G5 schools

Disadvantages for UCF and USF: arguably the most competitive college football market in the country with Florida and FSU being elite marquee programs and Miami being a top tier national TV brand (making attendance irrelevant with respect to Miami); very young FBS programs in a P5 world that craves/demands old school blue blood history even from weak programs (see Rutgers); real and perceived bias against "directional" schools in terms of branding; academic perception

Non-factor: It's irrelevant to argue that a G5 school would have better attendance or TV ratings by playing a P5 schedule because that would be true of *every* G5 school. Instead, a G5 school has to show that it would bring attendance, TV viewers and revenue to those *P5* schools as opposed to the other way around.

Now, I'll know we'll hear the arguments that it's hypocritical to use, say, academics as a factor against UCF and USF when you see a school like UNC systemically violating the NCAA's academic procedures... and those arguments are entirely correct. However, if you're a school on the outside looking in, it simply doesn't matter. Every argument that is used to keep you out will be emphasized much more heavily than any argument to bring you in. Simply being better than #65 out of the 65 P5 schools is NOT the standard being used.

Of course, all those points are moot if the Big 12 or any other P5 conference doesn't yield more per school revenue by choosing to expand. UCF and/or USF could go undefeated for the next 10 years straight and it wouldn't matter if that revenue equation doesn't change.

Addressing solely the point about directional names and perception of academics: I agree that is probably what people think in average. And it’s too bad and a bit unfair in USF’s case, because it actually has pretty good research.

Would be interesting if they’d consider a name change. Not sure what would make sense or be available, though. UF-Tampa Bay?

What would be wrong with University of Tampa and University of Orlando? USF may be south of UCF, but not by much.

Edit: U of Tampa is taken (private DII school). U of Orlando isn't.

[/b]UCF actually looked at branding itself UF-Orlando, until they noticed UFO. That nixed the idea permanently. UCF decided on a different course of action and it has really paid off well for them: insist on being referred to as UCF, much like USC is referred to as USC, and not Southern California. Nobody is going to confuse UCF for USC, but USC has made its directional name work by referring to itself by initials. UCF decided to adopt that same strategy and it has worked. USF is doing something similar. If any Florida schools need to look at a name change, it would be FAU & FIU. Those schools have really struggled, IMO, and their names don't help them at all.

Did you actually just make this up?