Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Final AP poll for the season: Bama, UGA, OU, Clemson, tOSU, UCF
Author Message
Sellular1 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,385
Joined: May 2016
Reputation: 92
I Root For: USF
Location: The ATL
Post: #51
RE: Final AP poll for the season: Bama, UGA, OU, Clemson, tOSU, UCF
(01-09-2018 06:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Um .... how did UCF give the committee a "black eye" and "exposed their bias" when every other outlet had UCF outside of the top 10 as well? Humans and computers (see Sagarin and MC) all agree - even AFTER the Big Win over Auburn, UCF still isn't a top 4 team!

You have made a big point about the composition of the CFP committee as being biased against the G5. But the AP vote just drives the point home that *any* committee, unless literally chaired by Aresco and consisting of 10 AAC AD's, would have kept UCF out too.

UCF fans have had fun the past week posting links to sports columns and blogs saying that "UCF deserves to hang their banner" and the like, but in the end, the sportswriters voted 57 to 4 for Alabama over UCF, and put UCF at #6.

So this hardly constitutes an indictment of the CFP, eh?

We've gone over this 100 times. The Selection Committee has complete power in determining the CFP. The CFP methodology has signficantly influeced the AP/Coaches polls. Those non-CFP have drastically changed thier nature since the CFP. Rather than being object opinions of the rankings---the voters have instead ...

Obvious problem with this is that the final AP poll clearly had zero to do with the CFP committee rankings.

Then explain the massive difference in G5 treatment in pre-CFP poll treatment of G5s and post-CFP poll treatment of G5's. The Committee bias has influenced poll voters.

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.
01-09-2018 07:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,310
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 886
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Final AP poll for the season: Bama, UGA, OU, Clemson, tOSU, UCF
(01-09-2018 07:13 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 04:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 04:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The polls are more favorable to the best teams from "non-power" conferences than they used to be. You can see that in the long list I posted earlier in this thread. Toledo was undefeated and untied in two consecutive seasons and got little respect from the poll voters; they never cracked the top 10 and were ranked behind 3-loss teams in both of those seasons. Miami-Ohio had two consecutive undefeated seasons, with a tie in each, followed by an 11-1 season. A 3-year stretch in which they only lost a total of one game, and the best the poll voters gave them for it was one week in one season ranked #10. They were also ranked behind 3-loss teams in the final poll of each of those three seasons.

Thats the MAC. To be honest, while I do believe the next undefeated AAC will be in the top 10---I think its harder to say if will happen for any other G5 undefeated champ. I think the MW would probably be treated similarly since they have teams that won most of thier NYD games--but who knows. My main point of contention is the the difference in the way two VERY similar G5 teams were treated in 2011 and 2017.

You may have an argument for seventies Toledo since they literally played zero power conference teams during their undefeated stretch, but Miami beat Purdue twice, South Carolina twice, Florida, and Georgia with their only two blemishes being a Purdue tie and one-point Michigan state loss. Not ever really breaking into the Top 10 was a crime, even our 2003 team finished 10th and they started the season with a loss. Had we beaten Iowa (who finished 8th) in the opener we probably would've ended up somewhere around 7 after thrashing a Petrino Louisville team in Mobile.

Understand---that statement is about how I think the committee will treat a MAC/SB/CUSA team. Im not saying thats how I think the committee SHOULD treat them.
01-09-2018 07:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,310
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 886
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #53
RE: Final AP poll for the season: Bama, UGA, OU, Clemson, tOSU, UCF
(01-09-2018 07:23 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 06:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  We've gone over this 100 times. The Selection Committee has complete power in determining the CFP. The CFP methodology has signficantly influeced the AP/Coaches polls. Those non-CFP have drastically changed thier nature since the CFP. Rather than being object opinions of the rankings---the voters have instead ...

Obvious problem with this is that the final AP poll clearly had zero to do with the CFP committee rankings.

Then explain the massive difference in G5 treatment in pre-CFP poll treatment of G5s and post-CFP poll treatment of G5's. The Committee bias has influenced poll voters.

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.

Honestly, I didnt think they were necessarily playoff caliber before Auburn either. I did think there was more than sufficient reason to believe they were top ten caliber.
01-09-2018 07:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,640
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 541
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #54
RE: Final AP poll for the season: Bama, UGA, OU, Clemson, tOSU, UCF
(01-09-2018 07:23 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 06:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  We've gone over this 100 times. The Selection Committee has complete power in determining the CFP. The CFP methodology has signficantly influeced the AP/Coaches polls. Those non-CFP have drastically changed thier nature since the CFP. Rather than being object opinions of the rankings---the voters have instead ...

Obvious problem with this is that the final AP poll clearly had zero to do with the CFP committee rankings.

Then explain the massive difference in G5 treatment in pre-CFP poll treatment of G5s and post-CFP poll treatment of G5's. The Committee bias has influenced poll voters.

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 Washington 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.
(This post was last modified: 01-10-2018 09:10 AM by quo vadis.)
01-09-2018 11:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,310
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 886
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Final AP poll for the season: Bama, UGA, OU, Clemson, tOSU, UCF
(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:  
(01-09-2018 02:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-09-2018 02:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Obvious problem with this is that the final AP poll clearly had zero to do with the CFP committee rankings.

Then explain the massive difference in G5 treatment in pre-CFP poll treatment of G5s and post-CFP poll treatment of G5's. The Committee bias has influenced poll voters.

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.
(This post was last modified: 01-10-2018 12:39 AM by Attackcoog.)
01-10-2018 12:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
otown Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,746
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 45
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #56
RE: Final AP poll for the season: Bama, UGA, OU, Clemson, tOSU, UCF
A good exercise it to pretend the top 4 played cupcakes the last game of the season and UCF beat Auburn their last game. What would their SOS have been with the Auburn win? Would it have even been enough?
01-10-2018 05:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,640
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 541
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #57
RE: Final AP poll for the season: Bama, UGA, OU, Clemson, tOSU, UCF
(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:  
(01-09-2018 02:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Then explain the massive difference in G5 treatment in pre-CFP poll treatment of G5s and post-CFP poll treatment of G5's. The Committee bias has influenced poll voters.

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.
(This post was last modified: 01-10-2018 09:26 AM by quo vadis.)
01-10-2018 09:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,310
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 886
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #58
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.)
01-10-2018 11:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 12,785
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 393
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #59
RE: Final AP poll for the season: Bama, UGA, OU, Clemson, tOSU, UCF
(01-10-2018 11:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  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.

UConn men's hoops finished 9th in the Big East regular season one year and won the NCAA tournament. IIRC Villanova was an 8-seed when they won March Madness in 1985. Does that mean that every 9th place team should be invited to the NCAA tournament, or that the committee should draw 68 D-I teams at random rather than selecting at-large teams and seeding the tournament? No. Tournaments often have upsets and unexpected results, but that doesn't mean that the seeding of teams, which is based on pre-tournament results, was wrong or that there should be no seeding at all.

And second-guessing of March Madness selections based on NCAA tournament games, while still dubious, is at least based on meaningful games, whereas after-the-fact second guessing based on bowl games that are not playoff games is about as meaningful as using NIT game results to second guess whether a basketball team should have received an NCAA tournament invitation.
01-10-2018 11:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,640
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 541
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #60
RE: Final AP poll for the season: Bama, UGA, OU, Clemson, tOSU, UCF
(01-10-2018 11:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(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:  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.

This raises a few issues:

1) The better team doesn't always win a given game. Just because team X beat team Y doesn't mean team X was better in some general sense. It means they were better during the 3 hours the game was played, but not necessarily beyond that. We call that an "upset" and they happen all the time. E.g., Syracuse beat Clemson this season, but it would be absurd to say that PROVED that Syracuse was the better team in some general, season-wide sense, they obviously weren't.

2) I wouldn't read too much in to the meaning of #4 winning the CFP two times in four years. The reason is, the committee very well may not pay much attention to the within-playoffs seedings. The crucial thing is to be in the top 4, so it makes sense that the committee really does bear down and think through who the top 4 are versus who is left out. But there is no real advantage to being #1 vs #4 or #2 vs #3. #1 doesn't get home field advantage, #1 doesn't get a touchdown lead to start the game vs #4, it's all the same. So since seeding within the top 4 is essentially trivial, it stands to reason that the committee doesn't spend hours and hours seeding within the top 4, so who wins isn't a real test of their selection prowess.

It's like Bobby Bowden said about the BCS: As a coach, you just want to end up the season ranked in the top two. Doesn't matter if you are #1 or #2, because #2 is the same as being #1 - you are in the playoff/title game just the same as they are so no reason to worry about whether you are 1 or 2.

So add up points (1) and (2) and it really takes away from the notion that the G5 schools are being underrated. Upsets happen all the time, it's not unique to G5/P5 games. Look at the bowls:

UCF beat Auburn

Georgia beat Oklahoma

Alabama beat Georgia

Alabama beat Clemson

TCU beat Stanford

Iowa State beat Memphis

South Carolina beat Michigan

Texas beat Missouri

That's nine bowl games where the lower-seeded/ranked (in AP/Coaches/CFP) team beat the higher seeded/ranked team.

Happens all the time, no big deal.
01-10-2018 11:38 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.