(11-22-2017 01:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 01:48 PM)pesik Wrote:  Aresco on Orlando radio this morning

-thinks it's crazy how low ranked UCF
-starting to think it will take a miracle for the AAC to make the playoffs (was told originally it was possible)
-wishes Houston was undefeated last year to test it out (hinting if houston didn't get it last year blowing out 2 top 3 teams, its never going to happen) and the public outcry if they didn't
- set to meet the committee in the offseason, and will talk about this. "They clearly aren't paying attention to us enough and don't realize how good we are"

The committee has virtually all P5 representatives except for one. The group think echo chamber narrative within the committee room is that no G5 can really ever possibly be a top 10 team--let alone a top 4 team (though they will never straight up say that publically---they come as close as possible with the "eye test" non-sense). So, of course its going to be impossible for a G5 to get into the playoff. Hell, right now its impossible for a G5 to even make the top 10.

We need a ten member selection committee comprised of one representative from each FBS conference. One conference--one vote. Do that and the playoff will be legit. Until then, the committee is just P5 fan boys touching themselves.

Doesn't matter if the committee was made up of 1000 people. Nobody in the group would say UCF is a top 4 team right now.

(11-22-2017 02:56 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 01:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 01:48 PM)pesik Wrote:  Aresco on Orlando radio this morning

-thinks it's crazy how low ranked UCF
-starting to think it will take a miracle for the AAC to make the playoffs (was told originally it was possible)
-wishes Houston was undefeated last year to test it out (hinting if houston didn't get it last year blowing out 2 top 3 teams, its never going to happen) and the public outcry if they didn't
- set to meet the committee in the offseason, and will talk about this. "They clearly aren't paying attention to us enough and don't realize how good we are"

The committee has virtually all P5 representatives except for one. The group think echo chamber narrative within the committee room is that no G5 can really ever possibly be a top 10 team--let alone a top 4 team (though they will never straight up say that publically---they come as close as possible with the "eye test" non-sense). So, of course its going to be impossible for a G5 to get into the playoff. Hell, right now its impossible for a G5 to even make the top 10.

We need a ten member selection committee comprised of one representative from each FBS conference. One conference--one vote. Do that and the playoff will be legit. Until then, the committee is just P5 fan boys touching themselves.

Doesn't matter if the committee was made up of 1000 people. Nobody in the group would say UCF is a top 4 team right now.

Correct, but quite a few would say that there is no possible way that we can have MS State leap frog UCF over winning at the last second against Arkansas while UCF smashes Temple. They would look and say, "hey, we are not showing any consistency when one week we had them behind." They at least would be in the top ten at this point.
SMU was a good win and no movement. Then suddenly they win against UCONN in Orlando and suddenly the head honcho of the committee is interviewed and says that they deserved the 3 spot jump. The following week they smash Temple in Philly and no movement while kissing the feet of MS State for barely winning against an atrocious team.

This committee would fail any class on consistent analysis.

(11-22-2017 03:04 PM)otown Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 02:56 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 01:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 01:48 PM)pesik Wrote:  Aresco on Orlando radio this morning

-thinks it's crazy how low ranked UCF
-starting to think it will take a miracle for the AAC to make the playoffs (was told originally it was possible)
-wishes Houston was undefeated last year to test it out (hinting if houston didn't get it last year blowing out 2 top 3 teams, its never going to happen) and the public outcry if they didn't
- set to meet the committee in the offseason, and will talk about this. "They clearly aren't paying attention to us enough and don't realize how good we are"

The committee has virtually all P5 representatives except for one. The group think echo chamber narrative within the committee room is that no G5 can really ever possibly be a top 10 team--let alone a top 4 team (though they will never straight up say that publically---they come as close as possible with the "eye test" non-sense). So, of course its going to be impossible for a G5 to get into the playoff. Hell, right now its impossible for a G5 to even make the top 10.

We need a ten member selection committee comprised of one representative from each FBS conference. One conference--one vote. Do that and the playoff will be legit. Until then, the committee is just P5 fan boys touching themselves.

Doesn't matter if the committee was made up of 1000 people. Nobody in the group would say UCF is a top 4 team right now.

Correct, but quite a few would say that there is no possible way that we can have MS State leap frog UCF over winning at the last second against Arkansas while UCF smashes Temple. They would look and say, "hey, we are not showing any consistency when one week we had them behind." They at least would be in the top ten at this point.
SMU was a good win and no movement. Then suddenly they win against UCONN in Orlando and suddenly the head honcho of the committee is interviewed and says that they deserved the 3 spot jump. The following week they smash Temple in Philly and no movement while kissing the feet of MS State for barely winning against an atrocious team.

This committee would fail any class on consistent analysis.

I agree with you.

However, I think your problem is that you have yourself convinced that you were a part of the club. Like the "p6" club. However, you were never invited, and viewed as inferior. It is a shame, but true.

(11-22-2017 03:04 PM)otown Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 02:56 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 01:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 01:48 PM)pesik Wrote:  Aresco on Orlando radio this morning

-thinks it's crazy how low ranked UCF
-starting to think it will take a miracle for the AAC to make the playoffs (was told originally it was possible)
-wishes Houston was undefeated last year to test it out (hinting if houston didn't get it last year blowing out 2 top 3 teams, its never going to happen) and the public outcry if they didn't
- set to meet the committee in the offseason, and will talk about this. "They clearly aren't paying attention to us enough and don't realize how good we are"

The committee has virtually all P5 representatives except for one. The group think echo chamber narrative within the committee room is that no G5 can really ever possibly be a top 10 team--let alone a top 4 team (though they will never straight up say that publically---they come as close as possible with the "eye test" non-sense). So, of course its going to be impossible for a G5 to get into the playoff. Hell, right now its impossible for a G5 to even make the top 10.

We need a ten member selection committee comprised of one representative from each FBS conference. One conference--one vote. Do that and the playoff will be legit. Until then, the committee is just P5 fan boys touching themselves.

Doesn't matter if the committee was made up of 1000 people. Nobody in the group would say UCF is a top 4 team right now.

Correct, but quite a few would say that there is no possible way that we can have MS State leap frog UCF over winning at the last second against Arkansas while UCF smashes Temple. They would look and say, "hey, we are not showing any consistency when one week we had them behind." They at least would be in the top ten at this point.
SMU was a good win and no movement. Then suddenly they win against UCONN in Orlando and suddenly the head honcho of the committee is interviewed and says that they deserved the 3 spot jump. The following week they smash Temple in Philly and no movement while kissing the feet of MS State for barely winning against an atrocious team.

This committee would fail any class on consistent analysis.

It's pretty simple.... The committee values wins over UCONN.

(11-22-2017 03:04 PM)otown Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 02:56 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 01:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 01:48 PM)pesik Wrote:  Aresco on Orlando radio this morning

-thinks it's crazy how low ranked UCF
-starting to think it will take a miracle for the AAC to make the playoffs (was told originally it was possible)
-wishes Houston was undefeated last year to test it out (hinting if houston didn't get it last year blowing out 2 top 3 teams, its never going to happen) and the public outcry if they didn't
- set to meet the committee in the offseason, and will talk about this. "They clearly aren't paying attention to us enough and don't realize how good we are"

The committee has virtually all P5 representatives except for one. The group think echo chamber narrative within the committee room is that no G5 can really ever possibly be a top 10 team--let alone a top 4 team (though they will never straight up say that publically---they come as close as possible with the "eye test" non-sense). So, of course its going to be impossible for a G5 to get into the playoff. Hell, right now its impossible for a G5 to even make the top 10.

We need a ten member selection committee comprised of one representative from each FBS conference. One conference--one vote. Do that and the playoff will be legit. Until then, the committee is just P5 fan boys touching themselves.

Doesn't matter if the committee was made up of 1000 people. Nobody in the group would say UCF is a top 4 team right now.

Correct, but quite a few would say that there is no possible way that we can have MS State leap frog UCF over winning at the last second against Arkansas while UCF smashes Temple. They would look and say, "hey, we are not showing any consistency when one week we had them behind." They at least would be in the top ten at this point.
SMU was a good win and no movement. Then suddenly they win against UCONN in Orlando and suddenly the head honcho of the committee is interviewed and says that they deserved the 3 spot jump. The following week they smash Temple in Philly and no movement while kissing the feet of MS State for barely winning against an atrocious team.

This committee would fail any class on consistent analysis.

Kirby Hocutt, selection chairperson, said today on TV that they don't look at teams week to week, rather every week they look at their entire season of work. This question was asked because Miami jumped Clemson. Miami trailed much of the game against crappy Virginia while Clemson demolished the Citadel.
So the committee can't say they are going to penalize Clemson for playing a crap team because they'd have to do the same to Bama for playing Our Sisters of Mercer.

So instead they say they evaluate the entire season from scratch every week.

Can’t let UCF in. It might not be a competitive game. Just like 6 of the 9 games the CFP has given us since its inception.

Anyone remember these thrilling games between college football’s best?

Oregon 59
FSU 20

OSU 42
Oregon 20

Alabama 38
Michigan State 0

Clemson 37
Oklahoma 17

Clemson 31
OSU 0

Boy, I’m glad we have these experts saving us from having to watch UCF get blown out by Alabama.

FWIW, I posted this on another thread today:
Here's this years CFP Selection Committee
Kirby Hocutt, Chair
Director of Athletics, Texas Tech University
Frank Beamer
Former Head Coach, Virginia Tech
Jeff Bower
Former Head Coach, University of Southern Mississippi
Herb Deromedi
Former Head Coach, Central Michigan University. Master’s degree, University of Michigan.
Chris Howard
President, Robert Morris University. Harvard, Oxford.
Bobby Johnson
Former Head Coach, Vanderbilt University. Clemson grad.
Jeff Long
Vice Chancellor and Director of Athletics, University of Arkansas. Former athletics director representative, Southeastern Conference. Various positions at 6 "P5" schools
Rob Mullens
Director of Athletics, University of Oregon
Dan Radakovich
Director of Athletics, Clemson University
Gene Smith
Director of Athletics, Ohio State University
Steve Wieberg
Former College Football Reporter, USA TODAY. University of Missouri grad.

http://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports...ittee.aspx

(11-22-2017 03:14 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  Kirby Hocutt, selection chairperson, said today on TV that they don't look at teams week to week, rather every week they look at their entire season of work. This question was asked because Miami jumped Clemson. Miami trailed much of the game against crappy Virginia while Clemson demolished the Citadel.
So the committee can't say they are going to penalize Clemson for playing a crap team because they'd have to do the same to Bama for playing Our Sisters of Mercer.

So instead they say they evaluate the entire season from scratch every week.

The selection committee needs to be more forthcoming as to exactly what criteria they are looking for.

For example, does LSU's loss to Troy even matter versus if UCF had lost top the same team or are they treated differently because of reputation and what conference they play in? When does losing to a lesser team matter and when does it not matter?

Does margin of victory matter? If so, does the 80 to 13 thrashing Miss. St. suffered in back to back games to Georgia and Auburn matter, or is it more important to simply have those games on the schedule, no matter how bad you get destroyed?

Perhaps the AAC should schedule like SMU did in 2014 when they got destroyed by A&M, TCU, and Baylor (when they were still good).

After all winning games doesn't seem to matter as much as who you play.

(11-22-2017 02:56 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 01:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 01:48 PM)pesik Wrote:  Aresco on Orlando radio this morning

-thinks it's crazy how low ranked UCF
-starting to think it will take a miracle for the AAC to make the playoffs (was told originally it was possible)
-wishes Houston was undefeated last year to test it out (hinting if houston didn't get it last year blowing out 2 top 3 teams, its never going to happen) and the public outcry if they didn't
- set to meet the committee in the offseason, and will talk about this. "They clearly aren't paying attention to us enough and don't realize how good we are"

The committee has virtually all P5 representatives except for one. The group think echo chamber narrative within the committee room is that no G5 can really ever possibly be a top 10 team--let alone a top 4 team (though they will never straight up say that publically---they come as close as possible with the "eye test" non-sense). So, of course its going to be impossible for a G5 to get into the playoff. Hell, right now its impossible for a G5 to even make the top 10.

We need a ten member selection committee comprised of one representative from each FBS conference. One conference--one vote. Do that and the playoff will be legit. Until then, the committee is just P5 fan boys touching themselves.

Doesn't matter if the committee was made up of 1000 people. Nobody in the group would say UCF is a top 4 team right now.

Frankly, I dont know if they are. I do know they are a top 10 team...and so does the committee.

(11-22-2017 03:45 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 03:14 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  Kirby Hocutt, selection chairperson, said today on TV that they don't look at teams week to week, rather every week they look at their entire season of work. This question was asked because Miami jumped Clemson. Miami trailed much of the game against crappy Virginia while Clemson demolished the Citadel.
So the committee can't say they are going to penalize Clemson for playing a crap team because they'd have to do the same to Bama for playing Our Sisters of Mercer.

So instead they say they evaluate the entire season from scratch every week.

The selection committee needs to be more forthcoming as to exactly what criteria they are looking for.

For example, does LSU's loss to Troy even matter versus if UCF had lost top the same team or are they treated differently because of reputation and what conference they play in? When does losing to a lesser team matter and when does it not matter?

Does margin of victory matter? If so, does the 80 to 13 thrashing Miss. St. suffered in back to back games to Georgia and Auburn matter, or is it more important to simply have those games on the schedule, no matter how bad you get destroyed?

Perhaps the AAC should schedule like SMU did in 2014 when they got destroyed by A&M, TCU, and Baylor (when they were still good).

After all winning games doesn't seem to matter as much as who you play.

Doesnt matter. They change the key arguments and criteria from week to week to reach the desired outcome. One week the issue will be SOS. The next week the focus will be on victories vs winning teams. The next week the primary cirteria will be how many players on each roster like lemons better than oranges. But seriously, when all else fails and the facts don't support their desired outcome, suddenly the dreaded "eye test" will get alot of sound bite time as the primary "support" for the rankings. The committee knows what they want to do and simply spends the meeting time figuring out the argument that will support the desired outcome.

(11-22-2017 03:14 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  So instead they say they evaluate the entire season from scratch every week.

If this is in fact the case, what impact will playing 1 less game than a potential 11-2 Boise have for the winner of the AAC? How big will that missed game end up being?

** EDIT: and no, I do not think that this year's Boise team deserves to be ranked ahead of a 1-loss or 2-loss AAC champion, except maybe USF, let alone an undefeated UCF. Just wondering about the weight of the missed game.

(11-22-2017 05:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 03:45 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 03:14 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  Kirby Hocutt, selection chairperson, said today on TV that they don't look at teams week to week, rather every week they look at their entire season of work. This question was asked because Miami jumped Clemson. Miami trailed much of the game against crappy Virginia while Clemson demolished the Citadel.
So the committee can't say they are going to penalize Clemson for playing a crap team because they'd have to do the same to Bama for playing Our Sisters of Mercer.

So instead they say they evaluate the entire season from scratch every week.

The selection committee needs to be more forthcoming as to exactly what criteria they are looking for.

For example, does LSU's loss to Troy even matter versus if UCF had lost top the same team or are they treated differently because of reputation and what conference they play in? When does losing to a lesser team matter and when does it not matter?

Does margin of victory matter? If so, does the 80 to 13 thrashing Miss. St. suffered in back to back games to Georgia and Auburn matter, or is it more important to simply have those games on the schedule, no matter how bad you get destroyed?

Perhaps the AAC should schedule like SMU did in 2014 when they got destroyed by A&M, TCU, and Baylor (when they were still good).

After all winning games doesn't seem to matter as much as who you play.

Doesnt matter. They change the key arguments and criteria from week to week to reach the desired outcome. One week the issue will be SOS. The next week the focus will be on victories vs winning teams. The next week the primary cirteria will be how many players on each roster like lemons better than oranges. But seriously, when all else fails and the facts don't support their desired outcome, suddenly the dreaded "eye test" will get alot of sound bite time as the primary "support" for the rankings. The committee knows what they want to do and simply spends the meeting time figuring out the argument that will support the desired outcome.

Exactamondo!

(11-22-2017 05:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 03:45 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 03:14 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  Kirby Hocutt, selection chairperson, said today on TV that they don't look at teams week to week, rather every week they look at their entire season of work. This question was asked because Miami jumped Clemson. Miami trailed much of the game against crappy Virginia while Clemson demolished the Citadel.
So the committee can't say they are going to penalize Clemson for playing a crap team because they'd have to do the same to Bama for playing Our Sisters of Mercer.

So instead they say they evaluate the entire season from scratch every week.

The selection committee needs to be more forthcoming as to exactly what criteria they are looking for.

For example, does LSU's loss to Troy even matter versus if UCF had lost top the same team or are they treated differently because of reputation and what conference they play in? When does losing to a lesser team matter and when does it not matter?

Does margin of victory matter? If so, does the 80 to 13 thrashing Miss. St. suffered in back to back games to Georgia and Auburn matter, or is it more important to simply have those games on the schedule, no matter how bad you get destroyed?

Perhaps the AAC should schedule like SMU did in 2014 when they got destroyed by A&M, TCU, and Baylor (when they were still good).

After all winning games doesn't seem to matter as much as who you play.

Doesnt matter. They change the key arguments and criteria from week to week to reach the desired outcome. One week the issue will be SOS. The next week the focus will be on victories vs winning teams. The next week the primary cirteria will be how many players on each roster like lemons better than oranges. But seriously, when all else fails and the facts don't support their desired outcome, suddenly the dreaded "eye test" will get alot of sound bite time as the primary "support" for the rankings. The committee knows what they want to do and simply spends the meeting time figuring out the argument that will support the desired outcome.

Exactly! They will never use any published standard criteria. The only criteria is keeping the top ten teams only from the P5.

They don't want UCF to win!

(11-22-2017 06:29 PM)BroncoBailey Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 03:14 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  So instead they say they evaluate the entire season from scratch every week.

If this is in fact the case, what impact will playing 1 less game than a potential 11-2 Boise have for the winner of the AAC? How big will that missed game end up being?

** EDIT: and no, I do not think that this year's Boise team deserves to be ranked ahead of a 1-loss or 2-loss AAC champion, except maybe USF, let alone an undefeated UCF. Just wondering about the weight of the missed game.

Would you be open as a fan for Boise to join AAC ?

(11-23-2017 11:38 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 06:29 PM)BroncoBailey Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 03:14 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  So instead they say they evaluate the entire season from scratch every week.

If this is in fact the case, what impact will playing 1 less game than a potential 11-2 Boise have for the winner of the AAC? How big will that missed game end up being?

** EDIT: and no, I do not think that this year's Boise team deserves to be ranked ahead of a 1-loss or 2-loss AAC champion, except maybe USF, let alone an undefeated UCF. Just wondering about the weight of the missed game.

Would you be open as a fan for Boise to join AAC ?

I'd be open to a "best of the rest" conference, but not the AAC as it currently exists. Much like the MWC, the AAC has some good to great teams and some bottom feeders. If both conferences dropped the bottom feeders, realizing it would mean more losses year-in and year-out, I'd be all for it.

(11-23-2017 11:38 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 06:29 PM)BroncoBailey Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 03:14 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  So instead they say they evaluate the entire season from scratch every week.

If this is in fact the case, what impact will playing 1 less game than a potential 11-2 Boise have for the winner of the AAC? How big will that missed game end up being?

** EDIT: and no, I do not think that this year's Boise team deserves to be ranked ahead of a 1-loss or 2-loss AAC champion, except maybe USF, let alone an undefeated UCF. Just wondering about the weight of the missed game.

Would you be open as a fan for Boise to join AAC ?

If Boise State and other western schools (BYU, SDSU, CSU) were offered a full membership, I think Boise State et al. should probably leave for the AAC. Though, I doubt any meaningful realignment happens until the fallout from the Big12 contract occurs.

(11-23-2017 02:52 PM)BroncoBailey Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 11:38 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 06:29 PM)BroncoBailey Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 03:14 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  So instead they say they evaluate the entire season from scratch every week.

If this is in fact the case, what impact will playing 1 less game than a potential 11-2 Boise have for the winner of the AAC? How big will that missed game end up being?

** EDIT: and no, I do not think that this year's Boise team deserves to be ranked ahead of a 1-loss or 2-loss AAC champion, except maybe USF, let alone an undefeated UCF. Just wondering about the weight of the missed game.

Would you be open as a fan for Boise to join AAC ?

I'd be open to a "best of the rest" conference, but not the AAC as it currently exists. Much like the MWC, the AAC has some good to great teams and some bottom feeders. If both conferences dropped the bottom feeders, realizing it would mean more losses year-in and year-out, I'd be all for it.

In the history of realignment, 2 conferences have never merged by dropping the bottom feeders in both leagues and forming a “best-of” conference. When mergers have happened, it is because the more powerful/stable conference picks up the best schools from the weaker league.

(11-23-2017 10:17 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 02:52 PM)BroncoBailey Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 11:38 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 06:29 PM)BroncoBailey Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 03:14 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  So instead they say they evaluate the entire season from scratch every week.

If this is in fact the case, what impact will playing 1 less game than a potential 11-2 Boise have for the winner of the AAC? How big will that missed game end up being?

** EDIT: and no, I do not think that this year's Boise team deserves to be ranked ahead of a 1-loss or 2-loss AAC champion, except maybe USF, let alone an undefeated UCF. Just wondering about the weight of the missed game.

Would you be open as a fan for Boise to join AAC ?

I'd be open to a "best of the rest" conference, but not the AAC as it currently exists. Much like the MWC, the AAC has some good to great teams and some bottom feeders. If both conferences dropped the bottom feeders, realizing it would mean more losses year-in and year-out, I'd be all for it.

In the history of realignment, 2 conferences have never merged by dropping the bottom feeders in both leagues and forming a “best-of” conference. When mergers have happened, it is because the more powerful/stable conference picks up the best schools from the weaker league.

Yep. Ship sailed with all the cusa schools invited.

(11-21-2017 07:27 PM)FonzKnight Wrote:  3 loss Mississippi State jumps undefeated UCF following their thrilling last second win over 7 loss Arkansas.

Try to read that sentence out loud without banging your head through the nearest desk.

This is looking like a really stupid decision based on the Egg Bowl, even though that unfortunate injury was pretty gruesome.

USFFan