As long as CFB has 130 D1 teams and 10 conferences...an objective system is impossible. I don't want them to blow up the system to allow access to Fresno State and UL-Lafayette. They shouldn't be in the same "league" as Alabama and USC to begin with. But as long as they are "equals," you need to use subjectivity (and common sense) to realize that Alabama is better than UL-Lafayette, even if they don't square off on the field.

That said, my proposal combines objectivity and subjectivity nicely.
Five auto-bids. Conferences would love the money available for their CCGs because
Two at-large. Let the debate rage between idle non-CCG participants (like OSU '16 and 'Bama '17) and strong CCG losers (like Iowa '15 or Michigan '06).
One G5 rep. Again...mostly subjective in choosing which team gets a chance, but at least UCF doesn't have to end their season in frustration.

Seed them...1-8...with top seeds hosting two weekends after the CCG weekend. Home field advantage is a huge advantage and teams will still whine about being #5 instead of #4 and getting the home field advantage. The seeds mean VERY little currently (as the top 4 teams on a neutral field are EXTREMELY equal)...but #7 is more likely to play a much tougher team than #6 will...so the seeding matters.

Semifinals then use the bowls for neutral sites.

How exactly is any of this new?

(01-03-2018 11:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 11:19 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  This is all very simple.

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

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

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

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

I agree with all of that. That is why I say an eight team or even a 16 team playoff is significantly better than a four team playoff. However, it has to come with automatic bids for the major conference champions.

Everyone’s afraid of some mythical team winning a conference at 8-5 and that ruining the legitimacy of the playoff. No, it won’t! That doesn’t make sense. That’s not going to happen very often and it sure beats the controversy we get under the current system every single year.

Does anyone really care if that results in the diminishing of the Citrus or Alamo bowls?

I’m watching that Oklahoma/Georgia game and I just can’t get out of my head how awesome it is because of the stakes involved. If that was just a typical bowl game, it’s a good game but then it’s nothing else. However, with the added stakes involved, that changed everything. That’s what made it so much more dramatic. I want more of that, not less of that.

Obviously, with a “league,” as it were, that large you can’t make it perfect or completely objective. I accept that reality. However, the more objectivity you can infuse into process the better.

Also regardless of whether or not you go to an eight or a 16 team playoff, you have to create pathways to the title for the G5 schools. In an eight team playoff, that spot should not be guaranteed. They would have to meet a certain ranking criteria or some other PRE-ESTABLISHED benchmark. However, school like UCF should be there, there’s no doubt about that.

And the Knights were not remotely alone. Teams like Boise State, Houston, Utah, TCU, etc. all proved the non-power conference schools were/are more than capable of competing with the big boys.

If they went to a full 16 team concept, you could include either all conference champions or guarantee a spot or two for the best performing non-power conference champions.

Either way it has to happen and it has to be determined as objectively as possible. Having a committee of “experts” telling else who would win a mythical game between Ohio State and Alabama is not nearly as interesting as an actual matchup between Alabama and Ohio State.

(01-03-2018 11:14 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 11:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 11:04 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 10:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 09:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Yup. The CFP played this completely wrong. Should have just admitted they blew it and "promised" to reassess the way they judge G5's (in other words, do nothing different going forward). Instead--they brainlessly insisted they were right---when everyone in the audience knows they were not. Now they have just exposed themselves to be the arrogant buffoons they are really are and they are rightfully getting called out for it. I guess they just couldnt hide their true nature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is the dumbest post I have ever read, not surprised you were the one that wrote it

Actually, it totally destroys the arguments of the UCF fans around here claiming a "national championship", but because you are too dumb or biased to recognize that, and either way have no substantive answer for it, you decided to post this nonsense instead.

Hey just imagine, if instead of UCF getting left out, its the Rams and Eagles...

You are setting new standards for poor comprehension here.

(01-04-2018 08:40 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Everyone’s afraid of some mythical winning a P5 conference at 8-5 and that ruining the legitimacy of the playoff. No, it won’t! That doesn’t make sense. That’s not going to happen very often and it sure beats the controversy we get under the current system every single year.

But you turn around and say

Quote: Also regardless of whether or not you go to an eight or a 16 team playoff, you have to create pathways to the title for the G5 schools. In an eight team playoff, that G5spot should not be guaranteed.

How do you reconcile those? A 2012 Wisconsin at 8-5 would be okay (I agree), but an 2014 Boise STate at 11-2, #20 would be bad?

(01-04-2018 12:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 10:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 09:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 07:33 PM)UCFBS Wrote:  Here's the 1-2 reality ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for the rest of this silliness you posted--there would be no reason for the Rams or any other NFL team to declare themselves champion. If they finished an entire season and post season undefeated---the NFL (and every other sport 20th century sport) has the good sense to declare them champion. Its only college football that still uses ice skating judges and chicken blood to determine their champion.

WTF? You are missing MY point. I wasn't addressing those who are debating the technical details of the current playoff model. I was addressing those UCF fans - and there are many - who are saying UCF is justified in claiming a "national championship" as a result of being excluded from the playoffs and then beating Auburn in the Sugar Bowl.

That is a ridiculous idea, and that was what i was addressing.

As for the CFP rankings, as i said, I thought they ranked UCF a little low. Should have been around #9. Wasn't the only example, I thought Notre Dame was ranked low, and Auburn a little too high (they were also ranked ahead of several two-loss Power teams, including PAC champ USC). But why keep yammering about these minor quibbles? Who cares if UCF should have been #9 and Auburn #11 as they probably should have been? They play in the Peach Bowl anyway, and no there is no 'precedent' set that matters in the future.

And there's no silliness, my analogy is spot-on: It doesn't matter what the Rams record was going in to the playoff game, they could have been 9-7 or 16-0, what matters is the Rams were 'robbed' of a spot in the Final 4, just like UCF claims it was robbed of a spot in the Final 4 (they weren't, but that's the claim).

But even if you are robbed of a spot in the Final 4 doesn't mean you can claim that you are champions, as if you not only got in but then won it, which you didn't.

There should be an exhibition game in August where the big schools schedule FCS schools at home and keep the gate. Then reduce regular season to 11 games. FCS games should not count. The SEC can schedule Sun Belt teams in November if they want.

8 team playoff with 5 auto-bids and three wild cards. First round of playoffs on-campus. Keep the Final Four the way it is.

The 5 auto-bids could even come from the five highest ranked conference champs; eliminate P5/G5 garbage. How many sub-divisions does one collegiate sport need?

(01-04-2018 09:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  WTF? You are missing MY point. I wasn't addressing those who are debating the technical details of the current playoff model. I was addressing those UCF fans - and there are many - who are saying UCF is justified in claiming a "national championship" as a result of being excluded from the playoffs and then beating Auburn in the Sugar Bowl.

That is a ridiculous idea, and that was what i was addressing.

Was UCF the best team in college football this year? Probably not. But you never know unless you play the games.

Is UCF's 2017 National Championship Banner any LESS legitimate than 10-20 NC's claimed by various schools, often decades after the fact after someone runs a statistical analysis of the game scores from that year, or for years where they lost a bowl game? Absolutely not.

Quote:As for the CFP rankings, as i said, I thought they ranked UCF a little low. Should have been around #9. Wasn't the only example, I thought Notre Dame was ranked low, and Auburn a little too high (they were also ranked ahead of several two-loss Power teams, including PAC champ USC). But why keep yammering about these minor quibbles?

Because, in the world of college football, if you don't ***** and moan you don't get anywhere.

Quote:Who cares if UCF should have been #9 and Auburn #11 as they probably should have been? They play in the Peach Bowl anyway, and no there is no 'precedent' set that matters in the future.

IT matters a lot if the playoffs go to 8 someday. If UCF's ranking is legitimate, they wouldn't "belong" in an 8 team field. UCF's 2017 season is going to be used as an argument by everyone who supports converting the Access Bowl spot into a playoff autobid.

Quote:And there's no silliness, my analogy is spot-on: It doesn't matter what the Rams record was going in to the playoff game, they could have been 9-7 or 16-0, what matters is the Rams were 'robbed' of a spot in the Final 4, just like UCF claims it was robbed of a spot in the Final 4 (they weren't, but that's the claim).

But even if you are robbed of a spot in the Final 4 doesn't mean you can claim that you are champions, as if you not only got in but then won it, which you didn't.

Except that in college football schools make silly-ass National Championship claims all the time. So if Alabama claims 3-4 tinsel "national championships"
on top of their 12-13 legitimate ones, and another dozen schools claim National Championships that aren't recognized outside their stadiums, why should UCF accept a lesser status?

(01-04-2018 09:53 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 09:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  WTF? You are missing MY point. I wasn't addressing those who are debating the technical details of the current playoff model. I was addressing those UCF fans - and there are many - who are saying UCF is justified in claiming a "national championship" as a result of being excluded from the playoffs and then beating Auburn in the Sugar Bowl.

That is a ridiculous idea, and that was what i was addressing.

Was UCF the best team in college football this year? Probably not. But you never know unless you play the games.

Is UCF's 2017 National Championship Banner any LESS legitimate than 10-20 NC's claimed by various schools, often decades after the fact after someone runs a statistical analysis of the game scores from that year, or for years where they lost a bowl game? Absolutely not.

I agree that there are other claims to a national title out there that are as ridiculous as UCF's claim. But that doesn't make UCF's claim any less ridiculous or more valid. Those 10-20 other bogus NC's that you reference are ridiculous and not to be taken seriously either, their existence doesn't means UCF's has any legitimacy.

(01-03-2018 09:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 07:26 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 06:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol...when the CFP collaspes early---which it will--it will be because they stood like buffoons saying "we stand by our decisions" when its obvious to anyone capable of fogging a mirror they were wrong, biased, pig headed, and arrogant. Hancock would have been much better served to acknowledge the mistake with something like---"We probably did under rank the top G5 these last few years and we need to reassess how we look at the top G5 options". Hancock is truly a complete moron. He always has been.

Before Monday, I didn't hear too much about UCF being "robbed" out of a playoff spot. If Danny White was so confident, he should have been saying this stuff to the nation starting on selection day. But now that they won, he is acting like he knew this all along.

Too be fair--he did. He has said for quite some time that he felt UCF was being under rated and was not getting proper respect from the committee. Aresco has said much the same on multiple occasions during November and December.

Underrated is different than from declaring them national champions after beating the #7 team. I agree that they were underrated, but the majority of the country was not saying they should have been in the playoff on 12/3.

(01-04-2018 08:40 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 11:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 11:19 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  This is all very simple.

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

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

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

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

I agree with all of that. That is why I say an eight team or even a 16 team playoff is significantly better than a four team playoff. However, it has to come with automatic bids for the major conference champions.

Everyone’s afraid of some mythical team winning a conference at 8-5 and that ruining the legitimacy of the playoff. No, it won’t! That doesn’t make sense. That’s not going to happen very often and it sure beats the controversy we get under the current system every single year.

Does anyone really care if that results in the diminishing of the Citrus or Alamo bowls?

I’m watching that Oklahoma/Georgia game and I just can’t get out of my head how awesome it is because of the stakes involved. If that was just a typical bowl game, it’s a good game but then it’s nothing else. However, with the added stakes involved, that changed everything. That’s what made it so much more dramatic. I want more of that, not less of that.

Obviously, with a “league,” as it were, that large you can’t make it perfect or completely objective. I accept that reality. However, the more objectivity you can infuse into process the better.

Also regardless of whether or not you go to an eight or a 16 team playoff, you have to create pathways to the title for the G5 schools. In an eight team playoff, that spot should not be guaranteed. They would have to meet a certain ranking criteria or some other PRE-ESTABLISHED benchmark. However, school like UCF should be there, there’s no doubt about that.

And the Knights were not remotely alone. Teams like Boise State, Houston, Utah, TCU, etc. all proved the non-power conference schools were/are more than capable of competing with the big boys.

If they went to a full 16 team concept, you could include either all conference champions or guarantee a spot or two for the best performing non-power conference champions.

Either way it has to happen and it has to be determined as objectively as possible. Having a committee of “experts” telling else who would win a mythical game between Ohio State and Alabama is not nearly as interesting as an actual matchup between Alabama and Ohio State.

Then your 8-team playoff idea is DOA. It's not gonna happen w/o a guarantee.

(01-04-2018 10:15 AM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 09:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 07:26 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 06:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol...when the CFP collaspes early---which it will--it will be because they stood like buffoons saying "we stand by our decisions" when its obvious to anyone capable of fogging a mirror they were wrong, biased, pig headed, and arrogant. Hancock would have been much better served to acknowledge the mistake with something like---"We probably did under rank the top G5 these last few years and we need to reassess how we look at the top G5 options". Hancock is truly a complete moron. He always has been.

Before Monday, I didn't hear too much about UCF being "robbed" out of a playoff spot. If Danny White was so confident, he should have been saying this stuff to the nation starting on selection day. But now that they won, he is acting like he knew this all along.

Too be fair--he did. He has said for quite some time that he felt UCF was being under rated and was not getting proper respect from the committee. Aresco has said much the same on multiple occasions during November and December.

Underrated is different than from declaring them national champions after beating the #7 team. I agree that they were underrated, but the majority of the country was not saying they should have been in the playoff on 12/3.

BINGO!

To go from "well maybe UCF was a few spots under-rated" which is about all anyone was saying before the bowls to "UCF has earned a share of the national title!" because they beat a 3-loss, #7 team in the Peach Bowl, is an extreme leap of illogic.

Well there is the losers bracket playoffs while the only team in the country not in losers bracket is now claiming championship...sorry in sports...1loss<0

(01-04-2018 10:35 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Well there is the losers bracket playoffs while the only team in the country not in losers bracket is now claiming championship...sorry in sports...1loss<0

Actually no, as there are many examples of teams winning championships with more losses than other teams. A focus on losses alone is idiotic, as it ignores who you played.

Too many people are looking at this the wrong way. The whole champion designation and even the Disney parade on Sunday is mainly about getting the discussion in the mainstream about the plight of the G5 being underranked, and expanding the discusion about making changes to the playoff, mainly expanding it.

I have to say that it's working, because what should be talk about the Georgia and Alabama this week is being overtaken on message boards and the media by UCF talk.

The funny thing is that the P5 should be more upset at Auburn. It's their fault that they unleashed all this. If they only lived up to the P5 hype, this cat would have never been out of the bag.

(01-04-2018 10:47 AM)otown Wrote:  Too many people are looking at this the wrong way. The whole champion designation and even the Disney parade on Sunday is mainly about getting the discussion in the mainstream about the plight of the G5 being underranked, and expanding the discusion about making changes to the playoff, mainly expanding it.

I have to say that it's working, because what should be talk about the Georgia and Alabama this week is being overtaken on message boards and the media by UCF talk.

The funny thing is that the P5 should be more upset at Auburn. It's their fault that they unleashed all this. If they only lived up to the P5 hype, this cat would have never been out of the bag.

This.

I do get a kick though out of reading P5 fanboys. In basketball, when an underdog makes a run in the tournament everyone talks about how great it is and how it makes the sport special. In football the same people say "You sons of ******* have no business to claim anything. There needs to be more legislation to separate the haves and the have-nots".

(01-04-2018 10:53 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:47 AM)otown Wrote:  Too many people are looking at this the wrong way. The whole champion designation and even the Disney parade on Sunday is mainly about getting the discussion in the mainstream about the plight of the G5 being underranked, and expanding the discusion about making changes to the playoff, mainly expanding it.

I have to say that it's working, because what should be talk about the Georgia and Alabama this week is being overtaken on message boards and the media by UCF talk.

The funny thing is that the P5 should be more upset at Auburn. It's their fault that they unleashed all this. If they only lived up to the P5 hype, this cat would have never been out of the bag.

This.

I do get a kick though out of reading P5 fanboys. In basketball, when an underdog makes a run in the tournament everyone talks about how great it is and how it makes the sport special. In football the same people say "You sons of ******* have no business to claim anything. There needs to be more legislation to separate the haves and the have-nots".

It's amazing how college football is the only sport where P5 fans actually think that making the playoffs is equivalent of winning a championship, hense why they feel it being such a privalege to make the playoffs and should not be afforded to anyone else. In 1 year, nobody cares who was 2 through 4, just as nobody would care who was 2 through 8.

Seriously, every other sport does not have this weird infatuation with a small invitational that limits having a true playoff with proving it on the field. It's so strange that many P5 fans love this. Hell, I'm a SEC and Gator fan and I even think this is rediculous.

(01-04-2018 10:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree that there are other claims to a national title out there that are as ridiculous as UCF's claim. But that doesn't make UCF's claim any less ridiculous or more valid. Those 10-20 other bogus NC's that you reference are ridiculous and not to be taken seriously either, their existence doesn't means UCF's has any legitimacy.

UCF has as much right to their silly banner as a lot of other schools.
This banner becomes part of their legacy, the tradition of UCF football, their hook-and-lateral, statue-left Boise State Fiesta Bowl that puts them on the map.

(01-04-2018 10:15 AM)leofrog Wrote:  Underrated is different than from declaring them national champions after beating the #7 team. I agree that they were underrated, but the majority of the country was not saying they should have been in the playoff on 12/3.

Except that most everybody says they're underrated, and most everybody can make a claim. Not everybody can say they're undefeated and underrated, in a situation where you can't say "UCF didn't play anybody good", because their bowl opponent beat both NCG teams.

(01-04-2018 10:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  To go from "well maybe UCF was a few spots under-rated" which is about all anyone was saying before the bowls to "UCF has earned a share of the national title!" because they beat a 3-loss, #7 team in the Peach Bowl, is an extreme leap of illogic.

[SPOCK]Captain, the record indicates that your "college football" is, in fact, highly illogical.[/SPOCK]

(01-04-2018 10:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:35 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Well there is the losers bracket playoffs while the only team in the country not in losers bracket is now claiming championship...sorry in sports...1loss<0

Actually no, as there are many examples of teams winning championships with more losses than other teams. A focus on losses alone is idiotic, as it ignores who you played.

That idiocy is wired into the DNA of college football. It's changing (before the CFP era, Ohio State's 2014 loss to Virginia Tech would have eliminated them from national title contention), but not anymore.

(01-04-2018 10:47 AM)otown Wrote:  Too many people are looking at this the wrong way. The whole champion designation and even the Disney parade on Sunday is mainly about getting the discussion in the mainstream about the plight of the G5 being underranked, and expanding the discusion about making changes to the playoff, mainly expanding it.

I have to say that it's working, because what should be talk about the Georgia and Alabama this week is being overtaken on message boards and the media by UCF talk.

What this guy said. AAC fans may be overrating how much anyone will remember this in a week, (or how many people are in fact up in arms about it now--probably not a majority of fans), but this is a building block and a talking point to make sure that, if the playoff goes from 4 to 8, that the Access Bowl becomes a playoff spot.

(01-04-2018 10:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:35 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Well there is the losers bracket playoffs while the only team in the country not in losers bracket is now claiming championship...sorry in sports...1loss<0

Actually no, as there are many examples of teams winning championships with more losses than other teams. A focus on losses alone is idiotic, as it ignores who you played.

There are also many many examples of teams declaring themselves national cahmpions---many of them are not even undefeated teams. lol...In one instance, a team that lost its final bowl game declared themselves national champion. UCF's claim is actually not bad. They are the only team in the nation to win every single game they played and they finsihed the season by beating the only team to best the two teams remaining the selection committee's invitational tournament bracket. The college football championship has always been an imperfect opinion based metric. UCF is perfectly within their rights to declare themselves national champs and the action is completely within the realm of historic norms for college football. Now--its up to the CFP to deal with their systemic exclusion of the G5 or to just keep on excluding G5 from any chance of the CFP (as the Big12 commissioner shockingly all but admitted yesterday). My guess is this is a Scott Cowen moment that will slowly create momentum for change.

(01-04-2018 11:01 AM)otown Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:53 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:47 AM)otown Wrote:  Too many people are looking at this the wrong way. The whole champion designation and even the Disney parade on Sunday is mainly about getting the discussion in the mainstream about the plight of the G5 being underranked, and expanding the discusion about making changes to the playoff, mainly expanding it.

I have to say that it's working, because what should be talk about the Georgia and Alabama this week is being overtaken on message boards and the media by UCF talk.

The funny thing is that the P5 should be more upset at Auburn. It's their fault that they unleashed all this. If they only lived up to the P5 hype, this cat would have never been out of the bag.

This.

I do get a kick though out of reading P5 fanboys. In basketball, when an underdog makes a run in the tournament everyone talks about how great it is and how it makes the sport special. In football the same people say "You sons of ******* have no business to claim anything. There needs to be more legislation to separate the haves and the have-nots".

It's amazing how college football is the only sport where P5 fans actually think that making the playoffs is equivalent of winning a championship, hense why they feel it being such a privalege to make the playoffs and should not be afforded to anyone else. In 1 year, nobody cares who was 2 through 4, just as nobody would care who was 2 through 8.

Seriously, every other sport does not have this weird infatuation with a small invitational that limits having a true playoff with proving it on the field. It's so strange that many P5 fans love this. Hell, I'm a SEC and Gator fan and I even think this is rediculous.

The small invitational is due in large part to the history of the FBS, wherein the expansion of the regular season made it more difficult to expand the postseason. The bowls also of course interfere with a larger organized playoff system, unlike in FCS. This is of course not to say that an 8-team CFP would be impossible, but a lot of inertia is going against it.