Attackcoog
Moderator
Posts: 44,859
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2883
I Root For: Houston
Location:
|
RE: Final AP poll for the season: Bama, UGA, OU, Clemson, tOSU, UCF
(01-10-2018 09:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote: (01-10-2018 12:27 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: (01-09-2018 11:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (01-09-2018 07:23 PM)Sellular1 Wrote: (01-09-2018 06:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote: I don't have to explain an alleged 'massive' difference - what are you going to say, that obviously better TCU and Boise teams got as high as #3 in the BCS era but flawed Houston and UCF teams didn't make it past #10? Seasonal differences can easily explain that.
More importantly, i have logic on my side: The most critical poll votes, the last vote before the CFP makes it decision, and the final, post-bowls vote, cannot possibly be determined by the CFP: The final pre-bowl poll vote is made BEFORE the CFP makes its final determination, which means if anything it is the polls that influence the final, decisive CFP rankings not vice-versa. We saw that last month: Before the CFP made its big unveiling of the playoff teams, the AP and coaches had already released their polls with Alabama at #4 ahead of Ohio State.
And then the final post-bowl vote comes out a month AFTER the CFP has finished its work.
Bottom line is that we haven't heard from the CFP in a month, and all those sportswriters have had a week to digest the fact that UCF beat Auburn. And yet last night they voted for Alabama #1 anyway and put post-Auburn UCF at #6. CFP clearly had zilch to do with that.
And I just checked Sagarin and Massey Composite, and UCF isn't anywhere near the top 4 in those either.
So if i was the CFP I'd feel vindicated in leaving UCF out, after all, everyone else agrees they didn't belong either.
Nobody on the planet thought UCF was a playoff caliber team BEFORE the win against auburn. After the game, lots of minds changed.
Well that suggest two things:
1) If nobody on the planet thought UCF was playoff caliber before the win against Auburn, then it's hardly fair to say (as some have) that the CFP was given a "black eye" and their bias was "exposed", because, well, they weren't thinking any differently about UCF than anyone else was.
2) Surely, the opinion about UCF changed in a positive direction after beating Auburn. Any time any team beats the #7 team, then their stock will go up, as it should.
Still, the available evidence suggests it didn't go up far enough to really matter. The AP has UCF at #6, meaning that if the playoffs were to be held now and based on the AP rankings, UCF wouldn't qualify even after beating Auburn.
And there's nothing 'biased' about that either. E.g, other top 10 teams also beat high ranked teams in NY6 games - Ohio State beat PAC champ USC in the Cotton Bowl, Wisconsin beat Miami in the Orange Bowl, Penn State beat Wisconsin in the Fiesta Bowl, and yet nobody is screaming and yelling that this means they belonged in the playoffs, so the whining about UCF from the AAC corner of the sandbox is kind of weird. And these are big-time P5 teams.
If you say so. Essentially, for you to be right—a team that is undefeated with 4 games against top 25 teams including a #7 is not playoff worthy. Do a blind resume test with no team names and I suspect you’ll be able to measure the bias. Frankly, if that’s not good enough there will never be G5 playoff participant. It’s also worth noting—UCF has the #72 ranked schedule.
What most don’t realized is the highest ranked G5 schedule SOS this year is Navy at 67. UCF basically had one of the top 5 schedules in the G5. What the Committee never mentions is the mathematics of SOS basically are such that a G5 can’t get much higher than about 67 no matter what they do.
It's not "if i say so", I was just conveying the information provided by the AP poll - they say so, as that is the obvious implication of their final rankings. If you are #6, then that means you miss out on a 4-team playoff.
In any event, the CFP committee will surely not walk away with this with a 'black eye', as their assessment, rather than being some weird biased outlier, comported and comports with what just about everyone else - humans and computers - thought and think as well.
Concerning the bolded part, there has been a theme running through these UCF complaints that boils down to "if team X doesn't get the opportunity to do something and we think they should have, then it is fair to act not only as if they got that opportunity, but achieved it". That seems to be the notion behind the "UCF deserves a share of the title" argument, as it appears to be based on the notion that since UCF was 'robbed' of a chance to play Clemson and then Georgia in the playoffs, it's OK for us to act as if they not only played, but beat those teams too. That since they deserved to be in the playoffs but were denied, it's OK to pretend that they won the playoffs. Ergo, Champs! It is obviously nonsensical but that's what we seem to have.
And the same thing seems to apply here: Your point seems to be that since top G5 teams play in soft conferences, and therefore cannot mathematically play tough schedules, then the committee is just supposed to pretend that their gaudy 12-0 or 11-1 records were in fact achieved against tough schedules. Again, weird.
Again. Your pretty good at knocking down straw men. The “if you say so” was commenting about your insistance that there is no bias in the system.
Look, even you agree there is no access to the playoff for the G5 in the current system. The base argument is simple. The conferences are different. It is what it is. However, the committee has essentially chosen criteria that by definition eliminate all G5’s from competition in the CFP regardless of who they play or how many games they win.
The bottom line is the Committee and polls KNEW that Auburn was better than UCF. The committee and polls KNEW Florida St was better than Houston. The Committee and polls KNEW Baylor was better than UCF. But they were all proven wrong.
At some point, when the model is continually being proven wrong yet no adjustments are made—-yeah, why not declare yourself champion? It can’t be anymore erroneous than the mythical champions we crown now. As I said before, 50% of the time in the CFP era the 4th seed (that would never have been included in the BCS era) won the national champion. So maybe Auburn in 2004 was right when they handed out national championship rings. We will never know. What we DO know is nobody ever proved they could best them. Same is true of UCF.
Does that mean UCF is the champ in the record books? Of course not. But the move garnered significant sympathetic support among the press and pointed out an inequity in the system. No other legitimate sport leaves out an undefeated team. None. Any move that helps to move the ball toward a larger playoff with a guaranteed access path for the G5 is good in my book.
That said, I’ve made my point and you aren’t ever to agree—so, I’m going to move on before this thread becomes even more repetitious and tedious for others. Bama won the CFP and UCF declared a national championship. Agree or disagree—both happened and there is nothing either of us can do about either event.
(This post was last modified: 01-10-2018 11:20 AM by Attackcoog.)
|
|