(11-09-2017 08:20 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  You raise an interesting point, but IMO it's not so simple. A schedule can't be viewed as 12 isolated games, it's also an accumulation of games. That can make even a small difference in SOS important.

E.g., Sagarin says that Wisky has played the #68 schedule, UCF the #92 schedule. Viewing the games in isolation, one can say "well, I'd favor UCF to beat everyone Wisconsin has played, so the schedules are functionally the same". Basically, the logic is, UCF is an "A" team that has beaten (on average) a bunch of "D" teams. Wisconsin has beaten a bunch of "C" teams, but so what, because we'd expect an "A" like UCF to beat all those "Cs" too.

But here's the thing: When you play "D", chances are you can wipe them out easily. That brings benefits like resting starters - which not only reduces injuries to starters but saves on cumulative wear and tear, and also playing backups more, which gives those backups more experience, making them better contributors if or when a starter does need some down time. Then, since you whipped last week's D and got to rest your starters, that makes it more likely you will be fresh to whip this week's D, and a virtuous circle starts.

In contrast, playing a "C" is tougher, so you have to exert yourself more to beat them. The game stays closer longer, so starters have to play more, increasing chances of injury and causing greater overall wear-and-tear. And because backups aren't getting playing time, when a starter does go down, they aren't as prepared to contribute.

That starts a negative cycle whereby a team gets worn down, making an upset loss to a "C" later in the season more likely, and more likely still when you play the occasional "B".

So when you say you think that UCF would be unbeaten vs Wisconsin's schedule, you have to consider if that would be true had UCF suffered the wear-and-tear that they haven't suffered thanks to blowing out cupcakes every week.

But the schedules aren't Wisconsin played Cs and UCF played Ds. I'm going back to my standard deviation argument here because no one has addressed the argument whatsoever

You and a previous poster use the Saragin argument SOS different of Wisconsin at #68 and UCF at #92. I'm going to prove that as a downright misleading stat as you can get. The standard deviation of UCF is blown out of the water when you consider Austin Peay at #186 (forced to play them due to cancellations).

Consider that standard deviation grows smaller when more data is available. UCF has only played 8 games while Wisconsin has played 9. Hence the Austin Peay game gets exaggerated in the smaller played schedule by UCF.

Lets go to my passion that uses handicaps that are calculated using the amount of rounds you play. That game is the game of golf. In golf, you do not get a handicap until 20 rounds are recorded. For those 20 rounds, the worst 10 are removed as a way of removing outliers.

Same thing should be done for SOS in college football. Interestingly when Navy plays ND (perhaps Army as well), win or lose, the entire AAC will benefit with a SOS bump, regardless if the AAC actually plays Navy. Likewise, when Alabama plays #188 Mercer, the entire SEC's SOS will drop a bit.

Saragin's formula for SOS is essentially crap by looking at every game a team plays when they have only played 8 games, too small a number to provide meaningful conclusions. It never takes into account the standard deviation factor. I'd love someone with math skills to prove me wrong and explain why what I'm saying makes no sense.

There's some truth in what you say - SOS isn't an exact science, which is why different formulas often have different SOS rankings. I use Sagarin because it has the longest pedigree, for what that's worth.

But sometimes you have to go with the available evidence rather than perfect evidence because, well, there's no other choice. Would we have more confidence in UCF and Wisconsin strength of schedule - and quality as teams- if they had played 40 games instead of 8? Sure. But in the world we live in they've played 8 games, so that's the evidence we have to go on.

Certainly, many computers agree with you. Massey Composite has UCF at #9. FWIW, they also have Wisconsin at #5, so they are more impressed with being undefeated than the CFP.

Personally, I am happy with UCF at #18. They just haven't had the chance to show me anything against good teams so far.

(11-09-2017 09:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  There's some truth in what you say - SOS isn't an exact science, which is why different formulas often have different SOS rankings. I use Sagarin because it has the longest pedigree, for what that's worth.

But sometimes you have to go with the available evidence rather than perfect evidence because, well, there's no other choice. Would we have more confidence in UCF and Wisconsin strength of schedule - and quality as teams- if they had played 40 games instead of 8? Sure. But in the world we live in they've played 8 games, so that's the evidence we have to go on.

Certainly, many computers agree with you. Massey Composite has UCF at #9. FWIW, they also have Wisconsin at #5, so they are more impressed with being undefeated than the CFP.

Personally, I am happy with UCF at #18. They just haven't had the chance to show me anything against good teams so far.

And there is some truth to what you are saying as well. However, when you suggest that "they (UCF) haven't had the chance to show me anything against good teams so far", that statement could be attached to some of the teams above the 18th ranking. Lets look at one of those.

Miss. St. best win is the 37-7 win over an average LSU team, one that lost to Troy. UCF's best win is clearly the blowout of Memphis 40-13. It's easy to argue that Memphis is a better win than LSU by every measure (polls) I've found. Yet Miss. St. is ranked 16th, ahead of UCF.

Sure they play two far superior teams than UCF has played in Georgia and Auburn but got blown out in those games (80 to 13 combined). Are you suggesting that getting blown out by superior teams is better than not playing them at all? I'm not sure what the difference is. I can't imagine UCF doing any worse than those scores against those opponents, and certainly can't prove it one way or another.

(11-09-2017 08:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 06:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 01:52 PM)First Mate Wrote:  Good read. I believe the playoff will go to 8 teams and the highest rated champ outside the power leagues will get an auto bid.

This system is totally bogus and different than any other sport at any level.

It's a homer read, as CyberBull says, it reads more like a rant. Proof? He refers to SMU as a "good" team. SMU is not a good team. They are a decent team, but Sagarin has them ranked #64 right now. That's just not all that good.

He also says that UCF's schedule is almost exactly the same as Wisconsin's. But that's not true either. E.g, Sagarin has UCF's schedule at 92, Wisconsin's at 68. That's a big gap, not a small one.

Bottom line is that UCF just hasn't proved itself against top-flight competition. Being ranked #18 out of 120 teams isn't a bad thing, it means the CFP thinks you are better than more than 100 of those 120 teams. But the standard for playoffs is just way higher than that.

Neither has Wisconsin. In fact, you have 2 loss teams in front of UCF, I assume because they have a stronger SOS. The reason they have a higher SOS is because they played at least 2 good teams which improved their SOS----but they lost to those teams. So---what? Is the implication that UCF is not capable of losing to those teams if they played them? Hell, UCF might actually beat those teams---we dont know. All we do know is that the teams in front of UCF lost to them. Its a fairly worthless data point and a poor argument in my opinion.

SOS isn't a small thing, it's pretty much everything. E.g. if your Houston played 12 games against FCS Prairie View, you'd be 12-0. If you played 12 games against the Philadelphia Eagles you'd be 0-12. Exact same team, completely different records strictly because of who you played.

In UCF's case, who knows, as you say, maybe if they played Alabama and Georgia and Clemson they would beat them all. We don't know.

But you can't give a team credit for what you don't know. What we know is that UCF is 8-0 against a roster of collectively very bad teams, an SOS of 92. That merits about being the #18 team in the country.

A high rank, btw, nothing to sneeze at.

The bolded is where you show your bias. Take Austin Peay out and THEN tell me what their SOS is.

(11-09-2017 08:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 06:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 01:52 PM)First Mate Wrote:  Good read. I believe the playoff will go to 8 teams and the highest rated champ outside the power leagues will get an auto bid.

This system is totally bogus and different than any other sport at any level.

It's a homer read, as CyberBull says, it reads more like a rant. Proof? He refers to SMU as a "good" team. SMU is not a good team. They are a decent team, but Sagarin has them ranked #64 right now. That's just not all that good.

He also says that UCF's schedule is almost exactly the same as Wisconsin's. But that's not true either. E.g, Sagarin has UCF's schedule at 92, Wisconsin's at 68. That's a big gap, not a small one.

Bottom line is that UCF just hasn't proved itself against top-flight competition. Being ranked #18 out of 120 teams isn't a bad thing, it means the CFP thinks you are better than more than 100 of those 120 teams. But the standard for playoffs is just way higher than that.

Neither has Wisconsin. In fact, you have 2 loss teams in front of UCF, I assume because they have a stronger SOS. The reason they have a higher SOS is because they played at least 2 good teams which improved their SOS----but they lost to those teams. So---what? Is the implication that UCF is not capable of losing to those teams if they played them? Hell, UCF might actually beat those teams---we dont know. All we do know is that the teams in front of UCF lost to them. Its a fairly worthless data point and a poor argument in my opinion.

SOS isn't a small thing, it's pretty much everything. E.g. if your Houston played 12 games against FCS Prairie View, you'd be 12-0. If you played 12 games against the Philadelphia Eagles you'd be 0-12. Exact same team, completely different records strictly because of who you played.

In UCF's case, who knows, as you say, maybe if they played Alabama and Georgia and Clemson they would beat them all. We don't know.

But you can't give a team credit for what you don't know. What we know is that UCF is 8-0 against a roster of collectively very bad teams, an SOS of 92. That merits about being the #18 team in the country.

A high rank, btw, nothing to sneeze at.

SOS is certainly important--but its also incredibly subjective. Common opponents are important. So is head to head. That still doesnt answer my question. If your big advantage in strength of schedule is based on playing and losing to one or two high ranking teams---its worthless data in determining quality. Any team can lose to a highly ranked team. It takes no great collection of talent to LOSE to a high ranking team. Its no more indicative of quality than winning 12 times against Prairie View. That's where the committee logic falls apart and exposed rampant bias. They like to use SOS because they know its subject and cant be "proven".

The key problem is you have a 12 man committee made up of members who in their heart of hearts already know before the first snap of the season that its not remotely possible that a G5 could field a top ten team (lol...they'd probably add the phrase--"not on my watch" to that sentence).

(11-09-2017 10:13 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 08:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 06:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 01:52 PM)First Mate Wrote:  Good read. I believe the playoff will go to 8 teams and the highest rated champ outside the power leagues will get an auto bid.

This system is totally bogus and different than any other sport at any level.

It's a homer read, as CyberBull says, it reads more like a rant. Proof? He refers to SMU as a "good" team. SMU is not a good team. They are a decent team, but Sagarin has them ranked #64 right now. That's just not all that good.

He also says that UCF's schedule is almost exactly the same as Wisconsin's. But that's not true either. E.g, Sagarin has UCF's schedule at 92, Wisconsin's at 68. That's a big gap, not a small one.

Bottom line is that UCF just hasn't proved itself against top-flight competition. Being ranked #18 out of 120 teams isn't a bad thing, it means the CFP thinks you are better than more than 100 of those 120 teams. But the standard for playoffs is just way higher than that.

Neither has Wisconsin. In fact, you have 2 loss teams in front of UCF, I assume because they have a stronger SOS. The reason they have a higher SOS is because they played at least 2 good teams which improved their SOS----but they lost to those teams. So---what? Is the implication that UCF is not capable of losing to those teams if they played them? Hell, UCF might actually beat those teams---we dont know. All we do know is that the teams in front of UCF lost to them. Its a fairly worthless data point and a poor argument in my opinion.

SOS isn't a small thing, it's pretty much everything. E.g. if your Houston played 12 games against FCS Prairie View, you'd be 12-0. If you played 12 games against the Philadelphia Eagles you'd be 0-12. Exact same team, completely different records strictly because of who you played.

In UCF's case, who knows, as you say, maybe if they played Alabama and Georgia and Clemson they would beat them all. We don't know.

But you can't give a team credit for what you don't know. What we know is that UCF is 8-0 against a roster of collectively very bad teams, an SOS of 92. That merits about being the #18 team in the country.

A high rank, btw, nothing to sneeze at.

The bolded is where you show your bias. Take Austin Peay out and THEN tell me what their SOS is.

IIRC, UCFs schedule was still around 80 before Austin Peay.

But that is kind of the point: while real playoff contenders are being tested by top opponents, UCF is playing Austin Pea and UConn.

See I think it should be top six conferences based on .... sag rating or something like that gets the auto bid and ceding rights. That way if one of the P5 conferences **** the bed.... and there are some strong G5 schools ...why not?

(11-09-2017 11:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 10:13 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 08:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 06:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's a homer read, as CyberBull says, it reads more like a rant. Proof? He refers to SMU as a "good" team. SMU is not a good team. They are a decent team, but Sagarin has them ranked #64 right now. That's just not all that good.

He also says that UCF's schedule is almost exactly the same as Wisconsin's. But that's not true either. E.g, Sagarin has UCF's schedule at 92, Wisconsin's at 68. That's a big gap, not a small one.

Bottom line is that UCF just hasn't proved itself against top-flight competition. Being ranked #18 out of 120 teams isn't a bad thing, it means the CFP thinks you are better than more than 100 of those 120 teams. But the standard for playoffs is just way higher than that.

Neither has Wisconsin. In fact, you have 2 loss teams in front of UCF, I assume because they have a stronger SOS. The reason they have a higher SOS is because they played at least 2 good teams which improved their SOS----but they lost to those teams. So---what? Is the implication that UCF is not capable of losing to those teams if they played them? Hell, UCF might actually beat those teams---we dont know. All we do know is that the teams in front of UCF lost to them. Its a fairly worthless data point and a poor argument in my opinion.

SOS isn't a small thing, it's pretty much everything. E.g. if your Houston played 12 games against FCS Prairie View, you'd be 12-0. If you played 12 games against the Philadelphia Eagles you'd be 0-12. Exact same team, completely different records strictly because of who you played.

In UCF's case, who knows, as you say, maybe if they played Alabama and Georgia and Clemson they would beat them all. We don't know.

But you can't give a team credit for what you don't know. What we know is that UCF is 8-0 against a roster of collectively very bad teams, an SOS of 92. That merits about being the #18 team in the country.

A high rank, btw, nothing to sneeze at.

The bolded is where you show your bias. Take Austin Peay out and THEN tell me what their SOS is.

IIRC, UCFs schedule was still around 80 before Austin Peay.

But that is kind of the point: while real playoff contenders are being tested by top opponents, UCF is playing Austin Pea and UConn.

No one (I don't think) is saying UCF should be considered a playoff contender, at least not at this stage. BTST, no one SHOULD be saying Wisconsin is a playoff contender either. We just want UCF to get their just reward of being ranked where they SHOULD be ranked - right with (directly in front of or behind) Wisconsin.

Now, if UCF should win out, they should be considered, because an AAC schedule is not the same as a C-USA schedule. I'm not saying they should be in over an undefeated Wisconsin, but a 1-loss Wisconsin, maybe. A 2-loss Wisconsin, yes.

(11-09-2017 05:51 PM)BullsBEAST Wrote:  He is exactly right. Ucf at 18 kills any real interest I have in that cfb playoff poll. It proves that the committee is there to ensure that no G5 gets anything of value. I don't think ucf should be top 4 even if they win out barring some craziness at the top (Bama, GA, Nd are very deserving), but having them 18 is criminal. They should be in the 10-12 range right now.

The way I see it, is that Memphis is UCF main problem. I feel that if UFC were the only ranked AAC team they would be in the top 12 because win or lose they would still only be one NY6 spot in play, but with Memphis also being in the polls with a legit chance to win a rematch against a theoretical top 10-8 UCF in the CCG could potentially give the AAC two NY6 spots with Memphis taking the auto bid and a top 8 UCF still finishing in the top 12 taking another. I think that is why UCF is being held back..

(11-10-2017 07:39 AM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 05:51 PM)BullsBEAST Wrote:  He is exactly right. Ucf at 18 kills any real interest I have in that cfb playoff poll. It proves that the committee is there to ensure that no G5 gets anything of value. I don't think ucf should be top 4 even if they win out barring some craziness at the top (Bama, GA, Nd are very deserving), but having them 18 is criminal. They should be in the 10-12 range right now.

The way I see it, is that Memphis is UCF main problem. I feel that if UFC were the only ranked AAC team they would be in the top 12 because win or lose they would still only be one NY6 spot in play, but with Memphis also being in the polls with a legit chance to win a rematch against a theoretical top 10-8 UCF in the CCG could potentially give the AAC two NY6 spots with Memphis taking the auto bid and a top 8 UCF still finishing in the top 12 taking another. I think that is why UCF is being held back..

If a G5 gets an NY6 spot, playoff or otherwise, there is no G5 auto slot.

(11-10-2017 07:46 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  If a G5 gets an NY6 spot, playoff or otherwise, there is no G5 auto slot.

This is only correct IF the G5 team that makes the playoffs is the top-ranked G5 champ. If the G5 team that makes the playoffs is somehow not a champion of their conference, then it is not correct. And it's not correct for a G5 team that makes a non-playoff NY6 bowl as a non-champ at all. The top G5 champion is always guaranteed a spot in the NY6. If there is another G5 team that is not a conference champion, but if is somehow ranked in the top 4 (thus in the playoffs) or is the highest-ranked available team to fill an at-large spot, then that G5 team qualifies as well, but they do not displace the top-ranked G5 champ from the NY6.

The CFP protocol for AFTER the playoff teams have been assigned says:

"All displaced conference champs and the highest-ranked champion from a non-contract conference, as ranked by the committee, will participate in selected other bowl games and will be assigned to those games by the committee. If berths in the selected other bowl games remain available after those teams have been identified, the highest-ranked other teams, as ranked by the committee, will fill those berths in rank order".

So this means that if a G5 team is selected for the playoffs AND they are not the top-ranked G5 conference champ, then the team that IS the top-ranked G5 champ would still be in an NY6 game.

E.g., for a moment last year, it looked like the G5 could get two teams in. Houston, before they lost their second game, was ranked around #15 in the CFP, but it was unlikely that they were going to be the AAC champ because they had lost to Navy, in the same AAC division.

If Western Michigan finished at #17 in the CFP, and were the top-ranked G5 champion, but Houston finished up at say #11 in the CFP, such that they were the highest-ranked team eligible for an at-large spot in the NY6, but were NOT the AAC champ, then the G5 would have gotten two teams into the NY6 - the top ranked G5 champ, WMU, and Houston.

The same would have been true had Houston somehow finished #4 and thus in the playoffs, but were not the AAC champion. Houston would have made the playoffs, and WMU would have been in the NY6 as the top-ranked G5 champ.

(11-09-2017 10:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 08:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 06:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 01:52 PM)First Mate Wrote:  Good read. I believe the playoff will go to 8 teams and the highest rated champ outside the power leagues will get an auto bid.

This system is totally bogus and different than any other sport at any level.

It's a homer read, as CyberBull says, it reads more like a rant. Proof? He refers to SMU as a "good" team. SMU is not a good team. They are a decent team, but Sagarin has them ranked #64 right now. That's just not all that good.

He also says that UCF's schedule is almost exactly the same as Wisconsin's. But that's not true either. E.g, Sagarin has UCF's schedule at 92, Wisconsin's at 68. That's a big gap, not a small one.

Bottom line is that UCF just hasn't proved itself against top-flight competition. Being ranked #18 out of 120 teams isn't a bad thing, it means the CFP thinks you are better than more than 100 of those 120 teams. But the standard for playoffs is just way higher than that.

Neither has Wisconsin. In fact, you have 2 loss teams in front of UCF, I assume because they have a stronger SOS. The reason they have a higher SOS is because they played at least 2 good teams which improved their SOS----but they lost to those teams. So---what? Is the implication that UCF is not capable of losing to those teams if they played them? Hell, UCF might actually beat those teams---we dont know. All we do know is that the teams in front of UCF lost to them. Its a fairly worthless data point and a poor argument in my opinion.

SOS isn't a small thing, it's pretty much everything. E.g. if your Houston played 12 games against FCS Prairie View, you'd be 12-0. If you played 12 games against the Philadelphia Eagles you'd be 0-12. Exact same team, completely different records strictly because of who you played.

In UCF's case, who knows, as you say, maybe if they played Alabama and Georgia and Clemson they would beat them all. We don't know.

But you can't give a team credit for what you don't know. What we know is that UCF is 8-0 against a roster of collectively very bad teams, an SOS of 92. That merits about being the #18 team in the country.

A high rank, btw, nothing to sneeze at.

SOS is certainly important--but its also incredibly subjective. Common opponents are important. So is head to head. That still doesnt answer my question. If your big advantage in strength of schedule is based on playing and losing to one or two high ranking teams---its worthless data in determining quality. Any team can lose to a highly ranked team. It takes no great collection of talent to LOSE to a high ranking team. Its no more indicative of quality than winning 12 times against Prairie View. That's where the committee logic falls apart and exposed rampant bias. They like to use SOS because they know its subject and cant be "proven".

The key problem is you have a 12 man committee made up of members who in their heart of hearts already know before the first snap of the season that its not remotely possible that a G5 could field a top ten team (lol...they'd probably add the phrase--"not on my watch" to that sentence).

SOS is always gonna favor the "power" conf teams. That's why they set it up that way. It doesn't mean they are better always. All the writer is saying, and many others, is give everyone from every conference a chance. Like every other sport at every other level.

(11-09-2017 06:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 01:52 PM)First Mate Wrote:  Good read. I believe the playoff will go to 8 teams and the highest rated champ outside the power leagues will get an auto bid.

This system is totally bogus and different than any other sport at any level.

It's a homer read, as CyberBull says, it reads more like a rant. Proof? He refers to SMU as a "good" team. SMU is not a good team. They are a decent team, but Sagarin has them ranked #64 right now. That's just not all that good.

He also says that UCF's schedule is almost exactly the same as Wisconsin's. But that's not true either. E.g, Sagarin has UCF's schedule at 92, Wisconsin's at 68. That's a big gap, not a small one.

Bottom line is that UCF just hasn't proved itself against top-flight competition. Being ranked #18 out of 120 teams isn't a bad thing, it means the CFP thinks you are better than more than 100 of those 120 teams. But the standard for playoffs is just way higher than that.

Neither has Wisconsin. In fact, you have 2 loss teams in front of UCF, I assume because they have a stronger SOS. The reason they have a higher SOS is because they played at least 2 good teams which improved their SOS----but they lost to those teams. So---what? Is the implication that UCF is not capable of losing to those teams if they played them? Hell, UCF might actually beat those teams---we dont know. All we do know is that the teams in front of UCF lost to them. Its a fairly worthless data point and a poor argument in my opinion.

Exactly---Wisconsin gets the benefit of the doubt because they are in the Big10. It's total BS. Everyone deserves a shot. Those outside the club are kept out. It's anti-competitive and no other division does it this way. There's a reason for that

(11-10-2017 08:46 AM)First Mate Wrote:  Exactly---Wisconsin gets the benefit of the doubt because they are in the Big10. It's total BS. Everyone deserves a shot. Those outside the club are kept out. It's anti-competitive and no other division does it this way. There's a reason for that

Remember, the benefit of the doubt can cut a lot of ways. E.g., why was USF ranked in the top 20 for all those weeks before we lost to Houston, even though we were playing terrible teams and often did not look impressive in beating them?

Reputation carry-over from last year, when we finished with 11 wins and were top-ranked G5 team in the final post-bowl polls.

E.g., i've tried to explain to some people that Clemson, if they win out, will absolutely make the playoffs. They make 'rational' arguments against it, but i tell them that Clemson, by winning the national title last year and making the national title game the year before, has built up a tremendous amount of credibility with the committee, and they will not be left out.

Like it or not, last year can and often does influence this year, in the CFP and all other polls. The UCF program hasn't proven, via last year's performance, that this team isn't a paper tiger.

(11-09-2017 11:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 10:13 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 08:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 06:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's a homer read, as CyberBull says, it reads more like a rant. Proof? He refers to SMU as a "good" team. SMU is not a good team. They are a decent team, but Sagarin has them ranked #64 right now. That's just not all that good.

He also says that UCF's schedule is almost exactly the same as Wisconsin's. But that's not true either. E.g, Sagarin has UCF's schedule at 92, Wisconsin's at 68. That's a big gap, not a small one.

Bottom line is that UCF just hasn't proved itself against top-flight competition. Being ranked #18 out of 120 teams isn't a bad thing, it means the CFP thinks you are better than more than 100 of those 120 teams. But the standard for playoffs is just way higher than that.

Neither has Wisconsin. In fact, you have 2 loss teams in front of UCF, I assume because they have a stronger SOS. The reason they have a higher SOS is because they played at least 2 good teams which improved their SOS----but they lost to those teams. So---what? Is the implication that UCF is not capable of losing to those teams if they played them? Hell, UCF might actually beat those teams---we dont know. All we do know is that the teams in front of UCF lost to them. Its a fairly worthless data point and a poor argument in my opinion.

SOS isn't a small thing, it's pretty much everything. E.g. if your Houston played 12 games against FCS Prairie View, you'd be 12-0. If you played 12 games against the Philadelphia Eagles you'd be 0-12. Exact same team, completely different records strictly because of who you played.

In UCF's case, who knows, as you say, maybe if they played Alabama and Georgia and Clemson they would beat them all. We don't know.

But you can't give a team credit for what you don't know. What we know is that UCF is 8-0 against a roster of collectively very bad teams, an SOS of 92. That merits about being the #18 team in the country.

A high rank, btw, nothing to sneeze at.

The bolded is where you show your bias. Take Austin Peay out and THEN tell me what their SOS is.

IIRC, UCFs schedule was still around 80 before Austin Peay.

But that is kind of the point: while real playoff contenders are being tested by top opponents, UCF is playing Austin Pea and UConn.

Yea...
Alabama's games against Fresno State and Mercer are soooo tough.
Auburn plays Georgia Southern, Mercer, and La Monroe
Wisconsin plays Utah State, Florida Atlantic, Illinois
Ohio State has these incredibly difficult games...Indiana, Army, UNLV
Penn State gets to roll over Akron, Georgia State, Indiana, Rutgers
etc...etc.

(11-10-2017 02:18 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 11:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 10:13 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 08:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 06:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Neither has Wisconsin. In fact, you have 2 loss teams in front of UCF, I assume because they have a stronger SOS. The reason they have a higher SOS is because they played at least 2 good teams which improved their SOS----but they lost to those teams. So---what? Is the implication that UCF is not capable of losing to those teams if they played them? Hell, UCF might actually beat those teams---we dont know. All we do know is that the teams in front of UCF lost to them. Its a fairly worthless data point and a poor argument in my opinion.

SOS isn't a small thing, it's pretty much everything. E.g. if your Houston played 12 games against FCS Prairie View, you'd be 12-0. If you played 12 games against the Philadelphia Eagles you'd be 0-12. Exact same team, completely different records strictly because of who you played.

In UCF's case, who knows, as you say, maybe if they played Alabama and Georgia and Clemson they would beat them all. We don't know.

But you can't give a team credit for what you don't know. What we know is that UCF is 8-0 against a roster of collectively very bad teams, an SOS of 92. That merits about being the #18 team in the country.

A high rank, btw, nothing to sneeze at.

The bolded is where you show your bias. Take Austin Peay out and THEN tell me what their SOS is.

IIRC, UCFs schedule was still around 80 before Austin Peay.

But that is kind of the point: while real playoff contenders are being tested by top opponents, UCF is playing Austin Pea and UConn.

Yea...
Alabama's games against Fresno State and Mercer are soooo tough.
Auburn plays Georgia Southern, Mercer, and La Monroe
Wisconsin plays Utah State, Florida Atlantic, Illinois
Ohio State has these incredibly difficult games...Indiana, Army, UNLV
Penn State gets to roll over Akron, Georgia State, Indiana, Rutgers
etc...etc.

....considering all those schools play really tough major conference schedules in the SEC & B1G, I think they get a pass an 'easy' OOC schedule.

(11-10-2017 02:18 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 11:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 10:13 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 08:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 06:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Neither has Wisconsin. In fact, you have 2 loss teams in front of UCF, I assume because they have a stronger SOS. The reason they have a higher SOS is because they played at least 2 good teams which improved their SOS----but they lost to those teams. So---what? Is the implication that UCF is not capable of losing to those teams if they played them? Hell, UCF might actually beat those teams---we dont know. All we do know is that the teams in front of UCF lost to them. Its a fairly worthless data point and a poor argument in my opinion.

SOS isn't a small thing, it's pretty much everything. E.g. if your Houston played 12 games against FCS Prairie View, you'd be 12-0. If you played 12 games against the Philadelphia Eagles you'd be 0-12. Exact same team, completely different records strictly because of who you played.

In UCF's case, who knows, as you say, maybe if they played Alabama and Georgia and Clemson they would beat them all. We don't know.

But you can't give a team credit for what you don't know. What we know is that UCF is 8-0 against a roster of collectively very bad teams, an SOS of 92. That merits about being the #18 team in the country.

A high rank, btw, nothing to sneeze at.

The bolded is where you show your bias. Take Austin Peay out and THEN tell me what their SOS is.

IIRC, UCFs schedule was still around 80 before Austin Peay.

But that is kind of the point: while real playoff contenders are being tested by top opponents, UCF is playing Austin Pea and UConn.

Yea...
Alabama's games against Fresno State and Mercer are soooo tough.
Auburn plays Georgia Southern, Mercer, and La Monroe
Wisconsin plays Utah State, Florida Atlantic, Illinois
Ohio State has these incredibly difficult games...Indiana, Army, UNLV
Penn State gets to roll over Akron, Georgia State, Indiana, Rutgers
etc...etc.

....considering all those schools play really tough major conference schedules in the SEC & B1G, I think they get a pass an 'easy' OOC schedule.

And this is why we will have a hard time retaining coaches like Frost. Legit 0% change we ever get to play for the title. Unless you maybe beat 2 top 5 teams OOC and then run off an unbeaten season. Anyone have a schedule like that upcoming?

I mean we were just lucky Louisville was having a great season last year (at least up until they played us) combined with playing OU.

In 2019 we play @OU and host Wazzu. Maybe they'll be a top 25 team if Leach is still around with OU being a top 5.

Still a pipe-dream.

(11-10-2017 02:42 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(11-10-2017 02:18 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 11:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 10:13 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 08:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  SOS isn't a small thing, it's pretty much everything. E.g. if your Houston played 12 games against FCS Prairie View, you'd be 12-0. If you played 12 games against the Philadelphia Eagles you'd be 0-12. Exact same team, completely different records strictly because of who you played.

In UCF's case, who knows, as you say, maybe if they played Alabama and Georgia and Clemson they would beat them all. We don't know.

But you can't give a team credit for what you don't know. What we know is that UCF is 8-0 against a roster of collectively very bad teams, an SOS of 92. That merits about being the #18 team in the country.

A high rank, btw, nothing to sneeze at.

The bolded is where you show your bias. Take Austin Peay out and THEN tell me what their SOS is.

IIRC, UCFs schedule was still around 80 before Austin Peay.

But that is kind of the point: while real playoff contenders are being tested by top opponents, UCF is playing Austin Pea and UConn.

Yea...
Alabama's games against Fresno State and Mercer are soooo tough.
Auburn plays Georgia Southern, Mercer, and La Monroe
Wisconsin plays Utah State, Florida Atlantic, Illinois
Ohio State has these incredibly difficult games...Indiana, Army, UNLV
Penn State gets to roll over Akron, Georgia State, Indiana, Rutgers
etc...etc.

....considering all those schools play really tough major conference schedules in the SEC & B1G, I think they get a pass an 'easy' OOC schedule.

I agree that the top of the P5 are generally elite, no doubt. But no one can tell me that the middle and bottom of any of those conference are special. I remember when there was a day where the B!G was called the Big 2 and the rest when Michigan and tOSU dominated everyone else. Once expansion brought PSU and Wisconsin got good the B!G became the B!G of today, much deeper at the top.

That said, the AAC will never be equal to those elite P5 teams until they start beating them. In the B12, for example, the AAC teams had opportunities to beat Oklahoma, OKST, TCU, WVU, and to a smaller extent Texas Tech. They failed each time. That has to change.

Beating a downtrodden UCLA and Maryland of the P5 is nice but doesn't count as eye opening P6 stuff. The Arizona win is probably the best AAC win this year and close to eye opening but it doesn't quite cut the mustard.

If Navy can pull a miracle and beat ND, that's when the national eyes become wide open for the AAC. If not, the next chance is the NY6 bowl game (hopefully) and an AAC win (hopefully).
Anything short of those two wins merely makes this a good AAC but not great year.

(11-10-2017 02:42 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(11-10-2017 02:18 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  Yea...
Alabama's games against Fresno State and Mercer are soooo tough.
Auburn plays Georgia Southern, Mercer, and La Monroe
Wisconsin plays Utah State, Florida Atlantic, Illinois
Ohio State has these incredibly difficult games...Indiana, Army, UNLV
Penn State gets to roll over Akron, Georgia State, Indiana, Rutgers
etc...etc.

....considering all those schools play really tough major conference schedules in the SEC & B1G, I think they get a pass an 'easy' OOC schedule.

The truth is, we have no idea how good the Big12 or Pac12 or <insert P5>. However, we can look at sagarin and see gaps: P5..AAC..G4

How do the P5 do that? They schedule the same as us:
1 FCS
1 cupcake G4
1-2 P6 OOC

We usually beat our FCSs, we have a good G4 record, but maybe not as good as P5s.

That's not the problem though. Our conference keeps improving (against G4s) and our sagarin's keep going up. Ultimately even if we win the math game, it's the PR and bureaucracy we need to beat.

Until we get a contract bowl and an AD on the committee, it doesn't really matter. UCF could have scheduled and beaten Bama and UGA OOC, we'd maybe be 15. The only real effect it would have is that Bama and UGA would be out of the top4.

So why would the top P5's schedule us? The answer is they don't. Unless it's a one and done, at their place, with their officiating crew.

if UCF had of beat Bama and UGA...you would be in the play off discussion