(11-09-2017 03:57 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:55 PM)FIUFan 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.

And how do you propose a G-5 proves itself against "top-flight competition"?
Boise is all ears.

Don't schedule dregs like FIU in their OOC.

I doubt FIU will hurt their SOS any more than their upcoming opponent will.

(11-09-2017 04:06 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:57 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:55 PM)FIUFan 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.

And how do you propose a G-5 proves itself against "top-flight competition"?
Boise is all ears.

Don't schedule dregs like FIU in their OOC.

I doubt FIU will hurt their SOS any more than their upcoming opponent will.

Board, please note: Even G4 fans don't fully understand the purpose of the G4. Let me refer you to our resident G4 expert, Billy Bob Bearcat.

(11-09-2017 04:13 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 04:06 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:57 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:55 PM)FIUFan 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.

And how do you propose a G-5 proves itself against "top-flight competition"?
Boise is all ears.

Don't schedule dregs like FIU in their OOC.

I doubt FIU will hurt their SOS any more than their upcoming opponent will.

Board, please note: Even G4 fans don't fully understand the purpose of the G4. Let me refer you to our resident G4 expert, Billy Bob Bearcat.

well that was incoherent.

(11-09-2017 04:32 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 04:13 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 04:06 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:57 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:55 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  And how do you propose a G-5 proves itself against "top-flight competition"?
Boise is all ears.

Don't schedule dregs like FIU in their OOC.

I doubt FIU will hurt their SOS any more than their upcoming opponent will.

Board, please note: Even G4 fans don't fully understand the purpose of the G4. Let me refer you to our resident G4 expert, Billy Bob Bearcat.

well that was incoherent.

Not surprised it was over your head. That's a G4 education for ya...

(11-09-2017 03:55 PM)FIUFan 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.

And how do you propose a G-5 prove itself against "top-flight competition"?

Boise is all ears.

You have to schedule like Houston did two years ago, with two top-level P5 opponents OOC, at least.

(11-09-2017 04:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:55 PM)FIUFan 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.

And how do you propose a G-5 prove itself against "top-flight competition"?

Boise is all ears.

You have to schedule like Houston did two years ago, with two top-level P5 opponents OOC, at least.

Gee...if it were only that simple. UCF attempts to schedule good P5 teams, but many times those teams have no interest in signing a home and home series. UCF is not going to agree to a bunch of one and done away games. When UCF scheduled NC I think they had won their division in the AAC that year. We do have Stanford coming to Orlando in 2019 and one remaining game in the Texas series sometime in the next 4-5 years.

(11-09-2017 04:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:55 PM)FIUFan 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.

And how do you propose a G-5 prove itself against "top-flight competition"?
Boise is all ears.

You have to schedule like Houston did two years ago, with two top-level P5 opponents OOC, at least.

.....and be fortunate enough that the year you do coincides with your perfect run through your schedule. Chances of that happening are slim and none.

(11-09-2017 03:57 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:55 PM)FIUFan 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.

And how do you propose a G-5 proves itself against "top-flight competition"?

Boise is all ears.

Don't schedule dregs like FIU in their OOC.

6-2 FIU,

(11-09-2017 02:26 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  It's pretty obvious as to why he's so upset...

He knows this ranking was going to UCF's highest of the season. It's all downhill after the Knights lose this weekend.

You surprised us once before. I hope UCF does not forget it. This is like a bowl game for UCONN. I predict an easy win for UCF if they play up to their potential. If not it could be scary.

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.

(11-09-2017 05:21 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:57 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:55 PM)FIUFan 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.

And how do you propose a G-5 proves itself against "top-flight competition"?

Boise is all ears.

Don't schedule dregs like FIU in their OOC.

6-2 FIU,

A G4 is still a G4, regardless of record (which is always inflated by their G4 conference competition).

I'd like to thank Billy Bob for all that I've learned from him the past few days.

(11-09-2017 02:17 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 02:06 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  There is nothing new or newsworthy in what is essentially a newspaper columnist publishing a message board style rant for a greater audience to read. Bianchi is still a hack. However, he is correct to a certain degree. The current system is crooked and antiquated.

Question: where does he think UCF should be ranked? Top 4? Top8?
IMO, I think the Knights should be in the Top12...but then it gets harder to justify moving UCF up higher based on SOS and other intangibles.

Solution would be go to 8 teams: 5 P5 autobids 1 G5 autobid 2 wildcards

That would solve a lot of problems and create a fun college football post season that would preserve the value of the regular season and provide us with some great inter-sectional match ups that we wouldn't ordinarily get to see.

Combine this with reducing the current bowl game lineup by half and suddenly you make the post-season meaningful again.

He calls out the EIGHT teams, so I would be left to assume he believes UCF should be ranked at least 10th.

I don't necessarily disagree, but 12 is the right number where people can at least start making compelling arguments why 'their team' should be in the Top8/Top4.

The biggest problem with UCF is that you guys haven't been tested yet on both sides of the ball. That is, I think your offense can score on anyone. Defensively, you have enough athletes and talent.

What you have not done yet is play a defense that can lineup with your offense speed wise and athletically. That is what I think will be fun to watch on Black Friday. Offensively, its going to depend if our OC allows Flowers to be Flowers. I honestly don't know which way to call it. I can make a case for USF and UCF winning/losing big. If Milton can be pressured he tends to turn the ball over. IF USF decides to stay one dimensional and stick to the run game between the tackle...it may be a long day for USF.

With that said, your AD is 100% correct that this is insulting to UCF and the AAC. There are teams that have been getting the benefit of the doubt all year..and ranked higher.

(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.

(11-09-2017 02:26 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  [quote='sfink16' pid='14761607' dateline='1510255077']
In their minds, even if UCF had scheduled Alabama, Georgia, Notre Dame and Clemson OOC, they would consider Wisconsin's schedule to be tougher because they had to play 8 P5 teams which UCF got to "snack" on 8 AAC schools.

That is simply not true. If UCF had played that schedule and won, it would be ranked in the Top4. No doubt about it. Nobody else would have four better wins.

Plus, playing three ranked AAC schools would only hurt.

The system is rigged but no way any AAC school with that resume would get left out....and they even get to have a loss in conference and finish 11-1 and still get into the playoffs.

The way the P5 schedule is this: 1 FCS, 1 Cupcake G4, 1 P5. If everyone in the conference beats their FCS, almost everyone beats their G4, and your good teams win their P5 games, Viola everyone in your conference has a strong SoS.
That's the P5 formula, why doesn't the AAC follow that? First step is 9 conference games.

(11-09-2017 04:59 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 04:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:55 PM)FIUFan 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.

And how do you propose a G-5 prove itself against "top-flight competition"?

Boise is all ears.

You have to schedule like Houston did two years ago, with two top-level P5 opponents OOC, at least.

Gee...if it were only that simple.

Nobody said it was simple, but that's what you have to do.

Man, if this was anybody other than Bianchi, maybe I'd be able to take it seriously. But the man is SUCH a clickbait tool who's craving attention that it hurts to even contemplate taking the same side as him.

Go look up his annual (or at least every other year) column on why UCF and USF should be in the SEC instead of the Mississippi schools to find a good example of an embarrassing writer.

USFFan

(11-09-2017 07:21 PM)usffan Wrote:  Man, if this was anybody other than Bianchi, maybe I'd be able to take it seriously. But the man is SUCH a clickbait tool who's craving attention that it hurts to even contemplate taking the same side as him.

Go look up his annual (or at least every other year) column on why UCF and USF should be in the SEC instead of the Mississippi schools to find a good example of an embarrassing writer.

USFFan

Its obviously blatant homerism and will never happen, but you can't say if it were drafted up from scratch with no history attached those miss schools would be ahead of either of us.

(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.

(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.