Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
Author Message
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,633
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 465
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #31
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-03-2018 11:19 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  This is all very simple.

The more objective the qualification the better. The problem lies in the subjectivity. Unfortunately, the sheer size of the field dictates that you cannot eliminate all subjectivity, but you have to eliminate it as much as possible.

Unless you do that, it doesn’t matter how big you make the field, there will always be problems.

While making the field larger doesn’t solve all problems, I think people are too willing to use that as an excuse for the status quo. If you have 5 P5 auto-bids plus a spot for the top G5 team in a playoff, that eliminates the vast majority of the issues of perceived inequity. We may still debate whether team #8 should have gotten in over team #9, but that impact is a lot less when those teams failed to qualify automatically by winning its conference (which is literally the only thing a team has total control over, unlike strength of schedule, non-conference opponents, the “eye test”, etc.).

There isn’t anything objective in this 4-team playoff, which, to be fair, is really the only way that you can structure such a limited field. (We can’t have a conference champ requirement that would treat a non-SEC champ Alabama team any differently than an independent Notre Dame under the current system.) A 4-team playoff can’t be based on anything other than subjective factors. An 8-team playoff is large enough for P5 auto-bids, which can introduce objective standards.
01-03-2018 11:27 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EvilVodka Offline
kwisatz haderach
*

Posts: 2,897
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 107
I Root For: The Mars Volta
Location: Houston, TX
Post: #32
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-03-2018 11:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I don’t think UCF should have been in this particular playoff (nothing against UCF, but in this 4-team playoff system, they simply shouldn’t have gotten in), while I also think the CFP committee can be wrong and there should be a larger playoff that can include a G5 team like UCF. These aren’t mutually exclusive thoughts.

As long as you have teams still standing that have the legitimate beefs, the system is a bust...fans are sick of it. Give us an 8 team playoff where ALL P5 Conference Champs, the top G5 champ, and the best remaining teams can play it on the field.

Play the games on the field
01-03-2018 11:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,279
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 883
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #33
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-03-2018 10:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-03-2018 09:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-03-2018 07:33 PM)UCFBS Wrote:  Here's the 1-2 reality ...

1) No UCF fan believes UCF should have been top 4 pre-bowl, but #12 was a direct insult

2) UCF President Dr. Hitt agreed to the "National Championship" as a direct result of the CFP's post-Peach Bowl comments "re-justifying" UCF's #12 ranking

Most UCF fans thought #6-9 pre-Peach. Even BCS had UCF #7 -- #3 for computer, #10 in AP. Putting UCF #18, then #14, and even considering a 4 loss team head of UCF at #12, before they finally put UCF #12, was exactly what Scott Frost meant by, "They didn't want to rank UCF too high, in case more losses came."

Although UCF AD Danny White jokingly mouthed the "National Championship" claim on TV, it was UCF's President Dr. Hitt that caused this to really go forward. Dr. Hitt, after hearing the CFP head honcho directly say UCF deserved its #12 ranking, and should basically be thankful they got the Peach Bowl, further insinuating UCF wouldn't even make a 8 team playoff, was beyond pissed off.

Dr. Hitt is a soft-spoken and very witty man. He does do things lightly. You really have to piss him off before he'll go off on you to make a point. And now he is ...

Everyone at UCF is ... and UCF is big, really, really freak'n big, and only growing in the nation's 3rd most populous state. UCF may be 100,000+ students projected by 2030, with thousands of acres set aside that wraps from the east side and down towards Lake Nona and the airport.

"The University of Central Florida, or UCF, is an American public state university in Orlando, Florida. It is the largest university in the United States by undergraduate enrollment,[8] as well as the largest by enrollment at a single campus.[3]"

Yup. The CFP played this completely wrong. Should have just admitted they blew it and "promised" to reassess the way they judge G5's (in other words, do nothing different going forward). Instead--they brainlessly insisted they were right---when everyone in the audience knows they were not. Now they have just exposed themselves to be the arrogant buffoons they are really are and they are rightfully getting called out for it. I guess they just couldnt hide their true nature.

It's amazing that UCF fans think that because UCF beat a 3-loss Auburn team that this means the committee really did blow it and they deserved a spot in the top 4, the playoffs.

Then, many of these same UCF fans make another Snake River Canyon leap and say that because UCF deserved to be in the playoffs but wasn't invited this means that beating this same 3-loss Auburn team, a team absolutely nobody thought belonged in the playoffs, means that they not only deserved to be in the playoffs but are in fact National Champions, even though they did not win the two playoff games against top-4 teams that would be needed to claim that!

It's the most bizarro sequence of logic ever posted to this board.

I mean, imagine if in the NFC divisional playoffs, the Rams are playing the Eagles, and on the last play of the game a critical call goes against the Rams and as a result the Eagles win the game. The NFL then issues a statement saying yes, the call was wrong and the Rams should have won the game, but the game results are final and so the Eagles still advance to the NFC title game not the Rams.

Would it be reasonable for Rams fans to say "we should have been in the NFC title game but were robbed of it, therefore we are declaring ourselves Super Bowl Champions!" even though they didn't actually play and win either the NFC title game or Super Bowl?

It would beggar belief. But that's what we have going on here from some people.

Heck, we actually have an NFL precedent for that: Millions of Raiders fans will forever believe that the Tuck Rule call robbed them of a victory over New England in the 2001 divisional playoffs. But while I've heard hundreds of them say over the years that this means the Raiders, not the Patriots, should have advanced to the AFC title game, I've never heard a single one claim that this means the Raiders actually deserve to be called the Super Bowl Champions for that year.

Because even dumb Raiders fans know that well, even if they had advanced to the AFC title game like they think they should have, that by no means guarantees they would have actually won the AFC title game, and then the Super Bowl.

Whats amazing is your are entirely missing the point. This isnt like the committee had them ranked #6 and #7. The committee had a 3 loss Auburn ranked twice as high as an undefeated UCF. There was absolutely ZERO reason for that. NONE. ZIP. Tell me which UCF loss that indicated Auburn was twice as good. I'll wait you figure it out. While your figuring it out, I'll just tell everyone else. The committee assumed that a 3-loss SEC team MUST be twice as good as a G5---because their bias tells them it must be so. They believe that even though #18 Houston beat #9 Florida St. They still believe that even though a UCF ranked in the high teens knocked off a top ten Baylor. They just keep making the same mistake over, and over, and over, and over again. And then you defend it--as if there is no track record of it being wrong.

I really dont know what else to say. When a model is constantly proven wrong--it means the model doesnt work.

As for the rest of this silliness you posted--there would be no reason for the Rams or any other NFL team to declare themselves champion. If they finished an entire season and post season undefeated---the NFL (and every other sport 20th century sport) has the good sense to declare them champion. Its only college football that still uses ice skating judges and chicken blood to determine their champion.
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2018 12:50 AM by Attackcoog.)
01-04-2018 12:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 578
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 16
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #34
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
Congratulations, national co-champions of all of college football, equal in every aspect!

UCF (13-0)
North Carolina A&T (12-0)
Mount Union (15-0)
Possibly JMU (15-0 if they win the championship)
01-04-2018 06:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
otown Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,743
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #35
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
Just curious, does anybody not consider the Houston Rockets the NBA champion in 1995? They were only 5 games over .500, 6th in the weaker western conference at the time, and they won the damn thing.

I find it fascinating how for every single other sport, players, media, etc have no problem proving it on the field. Hell, interview players and they will say it's ok and we will prove it on the field, just like it should be.

Crazy how for college football, so many people go to great length to prove it's a different case. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck......guess what?
01-04-2018 07:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 8,782
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 283
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #36
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-03-2018 05:09 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Should have stuck with the BCS huh?

I'd argue that the BCS formula was a better selector, because it wasn't vulnerable to the charge of "a dozen so-called experts who are biased in (favor of / against) (the SEC / the G5 / megabrands like OSU Bama Notre Dame / P5 have-nots like Baylor & TCU).

It's a lot harder to make that argument against a spreadsheet. (Even if the results are exactly the same, as they have been for the semifinalists since the CFP started.)

Going from the BCS formula to the committee was a loss, but it was overwhelmed by the huge win of going from 2 to 4 teams in the playoff.
01-04-2018 07:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 8,782
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 283
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #37
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-03-2018 06:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol...when the CFP collaspes early---which it will--

Wait, how exactly is this "collapse" supposed to work?

AAC fans whom I respect are losing a little bit of perspective here. Outside of UCF Nation and a vocal faction of AAC fans, this is nothing more than college football being unfair to the little guy, which has been true pretty much as long as there has been college football.

Before I really get rolling, what exactly do you mean by collapse?
01-04-2018 07:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 8,782
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 283
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #38
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-03-2018 07:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-03-2018 07:12 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  
(01-03-2018 05:09 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Should have stuck with the BCS huh?

Well, that wouldn't have satisfied the unhappy ones wither as the BCS system would have produced the exact same four teams per the simulations by BCSKnowHow.com

https://twitter.com/BCSKnowHow/status/93...79/photo/1

Thats a little misleading. I think becasue the Selection Committee has so much power, the tendency of voters is now to try to mimic the thinking of the committee rather than to think for themselves. If the human polls were again part of MAKING the decision rather than just an academic exercise--I think you would see them track differently. As I said, just a few years ago (2011)--UH had a resume VERY similar to UCF's 2017 resume. At that time, UH was ranked #6 with just the CCG left to play. The only real difference between now and then was 4 years of Selection Committee indoctrination.

I think you're off the deep end here. I don't think the poll voters are aping the Selection Committee.

Houston 2011 started off with a little bit of buzz--according to wikipedia, they had some votes in the preseason AP poll, they were #30 in the ESPN Power RAnkings. They cracked the top 25 on October 22.

UCF cracks the top 25 on OCtober 7. Houston's win margins are a little bigger in their later games, but UCF is playing teams in the top 25 at the end of the season. Point for your argument.

Houston did have Case Keenum, who I thought was a Heisman contender but I don't see anything about that on his wikipedia page.

But the change from being a "BCS Buster" to the Access Bowl race looks like it hurt UCF's ranking towards the end.
01-04-2018 07:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
micahandme Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 90
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 11
I Root For: PSU
Location:
Post: #39
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-03-2018 11:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-03-2018 11:19 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  This is all very simple.

The more objective the qualification the better. The problem lies in the subjectivity. Unfortunately, the sheer size of the field dictates that you cannot eliminate all subjectivity, but you have to eliminate it as much as possible.

Unless you do that, it doesn’t matter how big you make the field, there will always be problems.

While making the field larger doesn’t solve all problems, I think people are too willing to use that as an excuse for the status quo. If you have 5 P5 auto-bids plus a spot for the top G5 team in a playoff, that eliminates the vast majority of the issues of perceived inequity. We may still debate whether team #8 should have gotten in over team #9, but that impact is a lot less when those teams failed to qualify automatically by winning its conference (which is literally the only thing a team has total control over, unlike strength of schedule, non-conference opponents, the “eye test”, etc.).

There isn’t anything objective in this 4-team playoff, which, to be fair, is really the only way that you can structure such a limited field. (We can’t have a conference champ requirement that would treat a non-SEC champ Alabama team any differently than an independent Notre Dame under the current system.) A 4-team playoff can’t be based on anything other than subjective factors. An 8-team playoff is large enough for P5 auto-bids, which can introduce objective standards.

One of the arguments of the "automatic bid" for conference champs is that a 7-5 conference champ will pull an upset in the CCG and allow an awful team to make the 8-team field. However, in the "post-realignment explosion" era, I think 7-5 Wisconsin was the only "dud" team to do this...and they got their spot because 8-0 Ohio State and 6-2 Penn State (in Big Ten play) were ineligible for post-season play. That CCG should have been 12-0 OSU (#3) vs. 10-2 Nebraska (#14).

With the Pac-12, Big Ten, SEC, and ACC all increasing by two teams, they reduced the chance of a weak "division winner" drastically. And the Big 12's new championship game which simply takes the top 2 teams also means that they are highly likely to have two strong teams in the game.

The biggest problem with the current CFP system is that there aren't enough non-conference games between conferences. The Big 12 essentially only had one OOC win of value this whole year (OU over Ohio State). Determining if OU's 12-1 was better than USC's 11-2 then becomes very different. Ironically, CFB may have inadvertently taken a step BACKWARDS to the days when voters decided after the bowls (pre-BCS) who they thought the best team was...a completely arbitrary system (ask me, a fan of 1994 PSU who didn't even get to "share" the title with Nebraska).

As you said, the CFP is better because 4 is more fair than 2. But this arbitrary selection process needs to go.
01-04-2018 07:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
otown Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,743
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #40
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-04-2018 07:37 AM)micahandme Wrote:  
(01-03-2018 11:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-03-2018 11:19 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  This is all very simple.

The more objective the qualification the better. The problem lies in the subjectivity. Unfortunately, the sheer size of the field dictates that you cannot eliminate all subjectivity, but you have to eliminate it as much as possible.

Unless you do that, it doesn’t matter how big you make the field, there will always be problems.

While making the field larger doesn’t solve all problems, I think people are too willing to use that as an excuse for the status quo. If you have 5 P5 auto-bids plus a spot for the top G5 team in a playoff, that eliminates the vast majority of the issues of perceived inequity. We may still debate whether team #8 should have gotten in over team #9, but that impact is a lot less when those teams failed to qualify automatically by winning its conference (which is literally the only thing a team has total control over, unlike strength of schedule, non-conference opponents, the “eye test”, etc.).

There isn’t anything objective in this 4-team playoff, which, to be fair, is really the only way that you can structure such a limited field. (We can’t have a conference champ requirement that would treat a non-SEC champ Alabama team any differently than an independent Notre Dame under the current system.) A 4-team playoff can’t be based on anything other than subjective factors. An 8-team playoff is large enough for P5 auto-bids, which can introduce objective standards.

One of the arguments of the "automatic bid" for conference champs is that a 7-5 conference champ will pull an upset in the CCG and allow an awful team to make the 8-team field. However, in the "post-realignment explosion" era, I think 7-5 Wisconsin was the only "dud" team to do this...and they got their spot because 8-0 Ohio State and 6-2 Penn State (in Big Ten play) were ineligible for post-season play. That CCG should have been 12-0 OSU (#3) vs. 10-2 Nebraska (#14).

I still don't get that argument. They went on to lose the Rose bowl. If the playoffs would be expanded, not only would they have to win that Rose Bowl quarterfinal, but then they would have to win a semifinal, along with the actual championship game. That is beating 3 elite teams all in a row. If that 7-5 Wisconsin goes in to B1G championship game, knocks off #14 Nebraska, then knocks off #8 Stanford in the Rose bowl, then beats a #4 Oregon, and then finishes beating a #2 Alabama...................... they absolutely are champions and they deserve the title too.
01-04-2018 07:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 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, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.