UCF is in a no win situation this year.
If they lose (big if there) the AAC cha,pionship, then everyone says "see? They weren't that great."
If they win everyone says "Who did they beat?"

Lose/lose

(12-01-2017 07:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 12:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 12:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 11:27 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 08:58 AM)Chappy Wrote:  The comment (in the accompanying video) about their "best win is Maryland" irks me. UCF has beaten Navy, USF, and Memphis! Those are three strong wins. I think our #1 problem right now is we don't get credit for beating the top teams in-conference; all the attention is on the OOC games. Yet nobody complains about SEC schools playing 3 Sun Belt teams and an FCS team OOC.

For example, Wisconsin gets a pass for playing Utah State, FAU and BYU OOC because they beat Iowa and Michigan in-conference... but those two teams were a combined 9-9 in B1G play!

Just another reflection of the P5 bias.

I have no qualms with the UCF athletic director claiming that UCF should be in the playoff hunt, he's paid to put UCF's best foot forward.

But that doesn't mean anyone else has to buy his propaganda. It's not just the CFP, everyone else (AP, Coaches, Massey Comp) has UCF out of the playoff hunt as well.

Their schedule was just too soft this year to prove they belonged. There's no getting around that.

We dont know if UCF is playoff material or not. But there is no evidence at this time to indicate they are not playoff quality (or at the very least top 10 quality). Yet, tjhey are ranked behind teams we KNOW are not capable of beating the top teams.

There is an issue with G5/P5 scheduling that is never going to be solved. We need a system that can sort through that. A committee of 13 with 12 P5 representatives is never going to come close to being tha type of body that can work through that issue. In fact, such a committee likely has a strong vested interest in perpetuating and exploiting that issue.

The current system is probably fixable. All you have to do is make the committee a 10 member body with each FBS conference having one rep on the committee. Bias issue solved. You have to exercise respect and cooperate within a group that contains all points of view in order to reach a consensus. Such a process minimizes most any problems with fairness.

There is an option to fix scheduling issues at least partially: be willing to play *at* the top P5 teams without a return home game, beat them there, and do it consistently. Now, that may not be what AAC and MWC contenders want to hear (as the other G5 schools generally accept that this is their lot in life), but if making the strongest argument possible for a CFP spot (as opposed to maximizing home ticket revenue) is the goal, then that’s effectively what it would take that is reasonably within the control of the G5 leagues. Otherwise, the SOS argument will *always* be at the disposal of the committee and, frankly, the general public. Schools like Ohio State and Alabama will NEVER play a road game against an AAC school. Those schools are on a rotation where they’ll play, at the very most, one true OOC road game every *two* years (and Bama may just be happy with just a neutral site game every year in perpetuity), and they’re simply not “wasting” one of those slots on a G5 school. The Houston-Oklahoma neutral site game last year was probably a once-in-a-generation event, so you can’t reasonably depend on those opportunities, either. Plenty of those top power teams, though, will pay you a ton of money to come to their place only (and that’s the reason why the old school CFP committee members don’t take complaints about the “inability to schedule” seriously because they’ve effectively laid out that a G5 schools needs to beat at least 2 top P5 teams plus go undefeated overall. Houston actually did what it needed to do last year OOC but didn’t go undefeated on the conference front. The issue is Houston’s OOC schedule last year will be difficult to ever replicate again in this environment, so those top P5 games will almost always need to be on the road or they won’t happen at all.

That’s the choice: get that schedule strength by playing on the road or take the revenue of more home games (but never have the schedule argument at your disposal). I’m not saying that’s a great or even fair choice, but that seems to be the reality.

So, G5’s need to win on the road consistently vs the Top P5s to get recognition, yet P5s can’t even do that. Seems like an impossible task.

Pounded hell out of American (G5) opponents but did not pound a Big 10 (P5) bottom dweller. That's why UCF did not get rated for playoff.

Thu, Aug 31 vs FIU W61-17
Sat, Sept 23 @ Maryland W38-10 (2-7 Big 10, 4-8 not impressive)
Sat, Sept 30 vs Memphis W40-13
Sat, Oct 7 @ Cincinnati W51-23
Sat, Oct 14 vs East Carolina W63-21
Sat, Oct 21 @ Navy W31-21
Sat, Oct 28 vs Austin Peay W73-33
Sat, Nov 4 @ SMU W31-24
Sat, Nov 11 vs UConn W49-24
Sat, Nov 18 @ Temple W45-19
Fri, Nov 24 vs USF W49-42

(12-02-2017 12:08 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Pounded hell out of American (G5) opponents but did not pound a Big 10 (P5) bottom dweller. That's why UCF did not get rated for playoff.

Thu, Aug 31 vs FIU W61-17
Sat, Sept 23 @ Maryland W38-10 (2-7 Big 10, 4-8 not impressive)
Sat, Sept 30 vs Memphis W40-13
Sat, Oct 7 @ Cincinnati W51-23
Sat, Oct 14 vs East Carolina W63-21
Sat, Oct 21 @ Navy W31-21
Sat, Oct 28 vs Austin Peay W73-33
Sat, Nov 4 @ SMU W31-24
Sat, Nov 11 vs UConn W49-24
Sat, Nov 18 @ Temple W45-19
Fri, Nov 24 vs USF W49-42

No offense, but that's just stupid. 28 point win is a pounding.

(12-02-2017 12:08 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Pounded hell out of American (G5) opponents but did not pound a Big 10 (P5) bottom dweller. That's why UCF did not get rated for playoff.

Thu, Aug 31 vs FIU W61-17
Sat, Sept 23 @ Maryland W38-10 (2-7 Big 10, 4-8 not impressive)
Sat, Sept 30 vs Memphis W40-13
Sat, Oct 7 @ Cincinnati W51-23
Sat, Oct 14 vs East Carolina W63-21
Sat, Oct 21 @ Navy W31-21
Sat, Oct 28 vs Austin Peay W73-33
Sat, Nov 4 @ SMU W31-24
Sat, Nov 11 vs UConn W49-24
Sat, Nov 18 @ Temple W45-19
Fri, Nov 24 vs USF W49-42

Maryland was still healthy and had their 1st and 2nd string QBs when they played UCF. They had just the previous week beat Texas on the road to open the season.

(12-01-2017 11:14 PM)NavyKnight Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 07:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 12:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 12:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2017 11:27 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Just another reflection of the P5 bias.

I have no qualms with the UCF athletic director claiming that UCF should be in the playoff hunt, he's paid to put UCF's best foot forward.

But that doesn't mean anyone else has to buy his propaganda. It's not just the CFP, everyone else (AP, Coaches, Massey Comp) has UCF out of the playoff hunt as well.

Their schedule was just too soft this year to prove they belonged. There's no getting around that.

We dont know if UCF is playoff material or not. But there is no evidence at this time to indicate they are not playoff quality (or at the very least top 10 quality). Yet, tjhey are ranked behind teams we KNOW are not capable of beating the top teams.

There is an issue with G5/P5 scheduling that is never going to be solved. We need a system that can sort through that. A committee of 13 with 12 P5 representatives is never going to come close to being tha type of body that can work through that issue. In fact, such a committee likely has a strong vested interest in perpetuating and exploiting that issue.

The current system is probably fixable. All you have to do is make the committee a 10 member body with each FBS conference having one rep on the committee. Bias issue solved. You have to exercise respect and cooperate within a group that contains all points of view in order to reach a consensus. Such a process minimizes most any problems with fairness.

There is an option to fix scheduling issues at least partially: be willing to play *at* the top P5 teams without a return home game, beat them there, and do it consistently. Now, that may not be what AAC and MWC contenders want to hear (as the other G5 schools generally accept that this is their lot in life), but if making the strongest argument possible for a CFP spot (as opposed to maximizing home ticket revenue) is the goal, then that’s effectively what it would take that is reasonably within the control of the G5 leagues. Otherwise, the SOS argument will *always* be at the disposal of the committee and, frankly, the general public. Schools like Ohio State and Alabama will NEVER play a road game against an AAC school. Those schools are on a rotation where they’ll play, at the very most, one true OOC road game every *two* years (and Bama may just be happy with just a neutral site game every year in perpetuity), and they’re simply not “wasting” one of those slots on a G5 school. The Houston-Oklahoma neutral site game last year was probably a once-in-a-generation event, so you can’t reasonably depend on those opportunities, either. Plenty of those top power teams, though, will pay you a ton of money to come to their place only (and that’s the reason why the old school CFP committee members don’t take complaints about the “inability to schedule” seriously because they’ve effectively laid out that a G5 schools needs to beat at least 2 top P5 teams plus go undefeated overall. Houston actually did what it needed to do last year OOC but didn’t go undefeated on the conference front. The issue is Houston’s OOC schedule last year will be difficult to ever replicate again in this environment, so those top P5 games will almost always need to be on the road or they won’t happen at all.

That’s the choice: get that schedule strength by playing on the road or take the revenue of more home games (but never have the schedule argument at your disposal). I’m not saying that’s a great or even fair choice, but that seems to be the reality.

So, G5’s need to win on the road consistently vs the Top P5s to get recognition, yet P5s can’t even do that. Seems like an impossible task.

It’s *supposed* to be hard even for the best P5 teams. Look at the glacial pace that it took for Wisconsin to get into the top 4 and they’re an undefeated P5 team. Ohio State effectively got into the playoff based on beating Oklahoma on the road last year, and Oklahoma on the flip side has been getting every benefit of the doubt based on beating Ohio State on the road this year. If Alabama doesn’t get into the playoff, it will be because they couldn’t win a road game against their rival. Winning big games on the road is what you *have* to do even if you play a full P5 conference schedule. Pretty much the main thing that the CFP committee has been consistent on since its formation is that it values top tier elite wins more than lack of losses (or even comparing “good” versus “bad” losses).

So, my point is that such P5 games actually are available to G5 schools... it’s just that they’re going to be on the road and they’ll never come to your stadium. The CFP committee doesn’t care about the revenue imbalance with 1-and-done games. Instead, they’ll say, “Well, UCF played at Ohio State a few years ago in Columbus, so why didn’t they do that this year?” That’s seriously the standard that G5 teams will be held to overall, which means that the arguments from such G5 teams that P5 schools “won’t play them” will fall on deaf ears because the reality is that a lot of those schools would be happy to enter into a one-and-done contract. They’re going to expect you take those 1-and-done payday games and win them if you want legit playoff consideration.

(12-02-2017 12:21 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It’s *supposed* to be hard even for the best P5 teams. Look at the glacial pace that it took for Wisconsin to get into the top 4 and they’re an undefeated P5 team.

This is a point that has been missed around here. Only 4 teams get into the playoffs out of 120. Thus, you can be a very, very good team and still not be worthy of the playoffs. The cutoff bar is extremely high.

Im afraid the cancelled game has something to do with this. I do however believe UCF is worthy of consideration if they go undefeated.

Even with the cancelled game, it wouldnt have mattered. In addition, I find it laughable that some use the difficult time Wisconsin had getting into a top 4 position with their schedule before they even play Ohio State as an example of how bad a SOS can affect the ranking. If you take that exact same Wisconsin schedule and replace their name with UCFs, they are no higher than a 10 seed.

QuoTankHood gonna QuoTankHood.

Quo is bitter today since he lost out on the Jimbo sweepstakes

(12-02-2017 12:13 AM)ultraviolet Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 12:08 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Pounded hell out of American (G5) opponents but did not pound a Big 10 (P5) bottom dweller. That's why UCF did not get rated for playoff.

Thu, Aug 31 vs FIU W61-17
Sat, Sept 23 @ Maryland W38-10 (2-7 Big 10, 4-8 not impressive)
Sat, Sept 30 vs Memphis W40-13
Sat, Oct 7 @ Cincinnati W51-23
Sat, Oct 14 vs East Carolina W63-21
Sat, Oct 21 @ Navy W31-21
Sat, Oct 28 vs Austin Peay W73-33
Sat, Nov 4 @ SMU W31-24
Sat, Nov 11 vs UConn W49-24
Sat, Nov 18 @ Temple W45-19
Fri, Nov 24 vs USF W49-42

Maryland was still healthy and had their 1st and 2nd string QBs when they played UCF. They had just the previous week beat Texas on the road to open the season.

First, lots of teams beat Texas, not a big deal.

Second, Maryland lost their starting QB, Kasim Hill, in the first quarter of the UCF game so they really didn't have him for that game. Still, Wilkie is incorrect, a 38-10 win is a beat-down. It was just a beat down of a bad team so not impressive.

Bottom line is Maryland was never any good and it was inevitable that the losses would pile up once big ten play started.

(12-02-2017 08:17 AM)otown Wrote:  Even with the cancelled game, it wouldnt have mattered. In addition, I find it laughable that some use the difficult time Wisconsin had getting into a top 4 position with their schedule before they even play Ohio State as an example of how bad a SOS can affect the ranking. If you take that exact same Wisconsin schedule and replace their name with UCFs, they are no higher than a 10 seed.

No, then UCF would be in the Big Ten and be just about where Wisconsin is now. TCU nearly made the playoff the first year, and they had been in the MWC not that long ago.

(12-02-2017 09:24 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 08:17 AM)otown Wrote:  Even with the cancelled game, it wouldnt have mattered. In addition, I find it laughable that some use the difficult time Wisconsin had getting into a top 4 position with their schedule before they even play Ohio State as an example of how bad a SOS can affect the ranking. If you take that exact same Wisconsin schedule and replace their name with UCFs, they are no higher than a 10 seed.

No, then UCF would be in the Big Ten and be just about where Wisconsin is now. TCU nearly made the playoff the first year, and they had been in the MWC not that long ago.

No, I meant that if you take Wisconsin's schedule up to today, but label it UCF and the AAC, in other words colorblind it.......they are 10 or above. That is pure bias.

I see fair weather quo and smugly superior Frank are giving each other handies. content with the knowledge that they are simply better than us "losers" in the AAC.

(12-02-2017 09:57 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  I see fair weather quo and smugly superior Frank are giving each other handies. content with the knowledge that they are simply better than us "losers" in the AAC.

Smugly superior Illinois/Depaul fan. LOL.