(03-02-2018 06:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 07:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 08:57 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 08:39 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Being a P conference is not having to advertise that you're a P conference

Tell that to all the Bama fans who get so defensive when it is pointed out UCF won the national title per at least one legit (former BCS) poll.

Laughing at UCF isn't being 'defensive'.

Colley-Matrix isn't a poll, it's a computer, and it means nothing to be chosen #1 by a computer.

Heck, Alabama was chosen #1 in a bunch of computers last year after they lost the title game to Clemson. For UCF to claim a title on the basis of CM is beyond absurd.

Most SEC schools do the same thing.

To my knowledge, nobody in the SEC or any place else has claimed a national title based on anything but the BCS/CFP, or AP or coaches poll the past 45 years. All those cases where SEC and others make bizarro claims are from before 1975, when the polls voted before the bowls, and when other institutions were recognized as also being title designaters.

But UCF claims based on Colley-Matrix computer?

Who else does that? E.g. Alabama was #1 in Colley-Matrix in 2016 (when they lost to Clemson in the CFP title game), but they don't claim that as a title.

You know when even Alabama declines to claim a title, it's truly bogus, LOL.

Notre Dame, like UCF, was #1 in Colley-Matrix in 2012, they have never claimed that as a title.

This notion that Colley-Matrix alone means there is a "split title" is absurd.

Heck, the fact that CM had Alabama and Notre Dame #1 those years even after they lost the BCS/CFP title games tells us what we know about its credibility.

(03-02-2018 06:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 08:38 AM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 04:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree. FWIW, I don't care if ECU claims to be national champs for last year, it has just as much validity as UCF's claim, and neither impacts my day in any way.

It's just silly, though, like say the San Francisco 49ers claiming to be the "NFL Champs" even though Philly won the Super Bowl, because the Niners think they should have made the playoffs. It's just nonsense.

If San Francisco wants to make the playoffs all it has to do is win their games. UCF won all their games and wasn't allowed to compete for a National Championship. So it's not a good comparison.

When the 49ers go undefeated and don't make the playoffs let me know.

It's an excellent comparison. The NFL could have a 32-team playoff and the 49ers therefore could have been in it, just like the CFP could be a 32-team playoff and UCF would have been in it.

Both missed the playoffs by the rules that govern who does and doesn't get in.

But even if UCF had a claim to be in the playoffs, it's still ridiculous to try and claim that because you were kept out of the playoffs and should have been in, that means you can claim equality ("a national title") with whoever did make the playoffs and won them.

At that point, you're giving yourself credit for something you didn't actually do - win the playoffs.

No, they are just saying that its still an MNC. So they have a right to claim it. Nobody else went unbeaten. I think its silly, but your argument against it is wrong. The rules are not inclusive. They are stacked in favor of the P5. The committee is stacked in favor of the Big 10, SEC and Pac 12 (not that it has helped the P12 much).

They have no more right to claim a title than does Arkansas State or USF or Penn State. UCF agreed to the CFP system, and they didn't win the CFP playoff. Ohio State didn't either.

And unbeaten means zero, because of SOS, and because schools can actually pick several teams to be on their schedule, which isn't true in pro leagues.

It's really bizarro that anyone thinks that because they felt they should have been in the playoff but was excluded, that this means they can act as if they did beat two playoff teams to win the playoffs. Amazing, really.

Think about it: What if the 49ers would have made the playoffs if they won their last game, but they missed out because they lost their last game. But, they lost because the NFL agrees that a bad call was made and they should have won.

Does that mean that because the 49ers were screwed out of making the playoffs that they can claim they are champions, as if they actually won two playoff games and the Super Bowl even though they didn't actually do so?

Beyond dumb, eh?

(03-02-2018 06:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 07:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 08:57 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 08:39 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Being a P conference is not having to advertise that you're a P conference

Tell that to all the Bama fans who get so defensive when it is pointed out UCF won the national title per at least one legit (former BCS) poll.

Laughing at UCF isn't being 'defensive'.

Colley-Matrix isn't a poll, it's a computer, and it means nothing to be chosen #1 by a computer.

Heck, Alabama was chosen #1 in a bunch of computers last year after they lost the title game to Clemson. For UCF to claim a title on the basis of CM is beyond absurd.

Most SEC schools do the same thing.

To my knowledge, nobody in the SEC or any place else has claimed a national title based on anything but the BCS/CFP, or AP or coaches poll the past 45 years. All those cases where SEC and others make bizarro claims are from before 1975, when the polls voted before the bowls, and when other institutions were recognized as also being title designaters.

But UCF claims based on Colley-Matrix computer?

Who else does that? E.g. Alabama was #1 in Colley-Matrix in 2016 (when they lost to Clemson in the CFP title game), but they don't claim that as a title.

You know when even Alabama declines to claim a title, it's truly bogus, LOL.

Notre Dame, like UCF, was #1 in Colley-Matrix in 2012, they have never claimed that as a title.

This notion that Colley-Matrix alone means there is a "split title" is absurd.

Heck, the fact that CM had Alabama and Notre Dame #1 those years even after they lost the BCS/CFP title games tells us what we know about its credibility.

(03-02-2018 06:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 04:58 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 03:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 03:28 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 03:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Another swing and miss. The term “Have nots” does not appear in the CFP agreement. Your conference is free to embrace that term as well.

Never said it did. Know what is listed in the contract? The American Athletic Conference. You know where it's listed? Amongst a gang of five conferences that are on their knees picking up crumbs from the carpet.

The terminology doesn't matter. The grouping of the AAC alongside the SBC, MAC, MWC & CUSA and separate from the B10, B12, PAC, SEC & ACC + Notre Dame is very real. Your conference agreed to it. Signed on the dotted line.

Lol. If terminology doesn’t matter, then your attack on P6 is kinda pointless. I think terminology does matter.

See your problem isn't the terminology though. If you had a problem with the G5/P5 terminology you wouldn't being using P6. You just don't like where your conference came down in the divide. But saying it's not so doesn't make it not so. This isn't about wins or losses, not about attendance or contributions it's about power brokering. That's where the P in P5 comes from and you guys just don't have it. You could beat Texas in every sport for 10 straight years and they could still buy and sell you. If the B12 had another embarrassing dog and pony show next year where they trotted out all the candidates for ascension and made them dance, you'd all come out and dance. I'd dance too if I thought my school had a chance. Why? Because you make tens of millions of dollars more on that side of the line. And I understand that your school is pretty close to that line, you can probably taste the milk and honey at times it's so close. But you're on the outside looking in. So there's really no point in arguing where the line is. The P6 as a marketing campaign? Meh. Kind of stupid. But that's just my opinion though.

As i've said before. Its marketing. The point is simply to differentiate the AAC product from the rest of the G5. The casual fan thinks P5 football is different. The key to increasing the AAC media value is to convince enough casual viewers that the AAC plays a brand of football thats worth watching because its "basically the 6th power conference".

Essentially thats what the marketing is designed to do. Instead of defining the AAC as the top of the bottom five--its strives to define the AAC as the bottom of the top 6.

The relative position is exactly the same, but the difference in perception might be the trigger that gets a casual fan to watch a tight game between a pair of top AAC teams rather than P5 game thats pretty much decided. Once they see a few games, the hope is they will see an interesting enough brand of ball that they opt to catch other AAC games in the future. Its a process.

(03-02-2018 09:49 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  The AAC saying they are P6 is like the Southland Conference saying they are G5. It is just a combination of delusion, lies and fantasy, kind of dumb actually.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(03-02-2018 09:56 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 09:49 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  The AAC saying they are P6 is like the Southland Conference saying they are G5. It is just a combination of delusion, lies and fantasy, kind of dumb actually.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yet people keep talking about it.

(03-02-2018 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 06:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 12:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Then most every conference is doing it. The Mountain West tag line was “Above the Rest”. The Sunbelts is “together we rise” (Rise? Above who?). CUSA at one time used “Where champions are born”. They all suggest superiority. P6 is basically just a play on the popular made up P5/G5 term. It’s actually kinda clever.

It's not the same. "Above the rest' is amorphous and could just as easily apply to P5 as G5.

But the Aresco campaign is specific: it clearly is aimed at the other G5.

Thats not better---its even worse--becasue there is no metric that backs it up. The AAC is saying it is #6. Most people agree with that. Basically, the entire controversy revolves around the use of the word "Power" as a modifier. Honestly, its basically saying Pepsi doesnt like the Coca Cola ad campaign because it implies other soft drinks are less refreshing. Essentially, its an AD having a temper tantrum.

You might as well say Aresco is having a temper tantrum every time he complains about some slight from the Power group.

Bottom line: "P6" clearly raises the AAC above the other "G" conferences, so it is an attack on their interests. Therefore, it's not surprising some like Frazier are resisting, just like it isn't a surprise that Aresco takes umbrage at "P5" because that hurts the AAC.

Splitting hairs. Basically, by that definition, any boast about ones conference is essentially an attack on the other conferences interests.

(03-02-2018 09:02 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 06:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 07:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 08:57 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Tell that to all the Bama fans who get so defensive when it is pointed out UCF won the national title per at least one legit (former BCS) poll.

Laughing at UCF isn't being 'defensive'.

Colley-Matrix isn't a poll, it's a computer, and it means nothing to be chosen #1 by a computer.

Heck, Alabama was chosen #1 in a bunch of computers last year after they lost the title game to Clemson. For UCF to claim a title on the basis of CM is beyond absurd.

Most SEC schools do the same thing.

To my knowledge, nobody in the SEC or any place else has claimed a national title based on anything but the BCS/CFP, or AP or coaches poll the past 45 years. All those cases where SEC and others make bizarro claims are from before 1975, when the polls voted before the bowls, and when other institutions were recognized as also being title designaters.

But UCF claims based on Colley-Matrix computer?

Who else does that? E.g. Alabama was #1 in Colley-Matrix in 2016 (when they lost to Clemson in the CFP title game), but they don't claim that as a title.

You know when even Alabama declines to claim a title, it's truly bogus, LOL.

Notre Dame, like UCF, was #1 in Colley-Matrix in 2012, they have never claimed that as a title.

This notion that Colley-Matrix alone means there is a "split title" is absurd.

Heck, the fact that CM had Alabama and Notre Dame #1 those years even after they lost the BCS/CFP title games tells us what we know about its credibility.

All it tells me is Alabama and Notre Dame got a chance to prove it on the field. Undefeated UCF didn't get that opportunity.

(03-02-2018 07:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 06:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 07:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 08:57 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Tell that to all the Bama fans who get so defensive when it is pointed out UCF won the national title per at least one legit (former BCS) poll.

Laughing at UCF isn't being 'defensive'.

Colley-Matrix isn't a poll, it's a computer, and it means nothing to be chosen #1 by a computer.

Heck, Alabama was chosen #1 in a bunch of computers last year after they lost the title game to Clemson. For UCF to claim a title on the basis of CM is beyond absurd.

Most SEC schools do the same thing.

To my knowledge, nobody in the SEC or any place else has claimed a national title based on anything but the BCS/CFP, or AP or coaches poll the past 45 years. All those cases where SEC and others make bizarro claims are from before 1975, when the polls voted before the bowls, and when other institutions were recognized as also being title designaters.

But UCF claims based on Colley-Matrix computer?

Who else does that? E.g. Alabama was #1 in Colley-Matrix in 2016 (when they lost to Clemson in the CFP title game), but they don't claim that as a title.

You know when even Alabama declines to claim a title, it's truly bogus, LOL.

Notre Dame, like UCF, was #1 in Colley-Matrix in 2012, they have never claimed that as a title.

This notion that Colley-Matrix alone means there is a "split title" is absurd.

Heck, the fact that CM had Alabama and Notre Dame #1 those years even after they lost the BCS/CFP title games tells us what we know about its credibility.

Aggie has one thats not based on a poll. Auburn handed out national championship rings less than a decade ago when they were not #1 or #2--but they were undefeated. Thats basically what UCF did. I also believe the power ranking the NCAA uses to determine the top FBS team has UCF as number one. You might not think thats a reason to declare a national championship, but I dont think they care.

(03-02-2018 07:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 06:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 08:38 AM)Huskies12 Wrote:  If San Francisco wants to make the playoffs all it has to do is win their games. UCF won all their games and wasn't allowed to compete for a National Championship. So it's not a good comparison.

When the 49ers go undefeated and don't make the playoffs let me know.

It's an excellent comparison. The NFL could have a 32-team playoff and the 49ers therefore could have been in it, just like the CFP could be a 32-team playoff and UCF would have been in it.

Both missed the playoffs by the rules that govern who does and doesn't get in.

But even if UCF had a claim to be in the playoffs, it's still ridiculous to try and claim that because you were kept out of the playoffs and should have been in, that means you can claim equality ("a national title") with whoever did make the playoffs and won them.

At that point, you're giving yourself credit for something you didn't actually do - win the playoffs.

No, they are just saying that its still an MNC. So they have a right to claim it. Nobody else went unbeaten. I think its silly, but your argument against it is wrong. The rules are not inclusive. They are stacked in favor of the P5. The committee is stacked in favor of the Big 10, SEC and Pac 12 (not that it has helped the P12 much).

They have no more right to claim a title than does Arkansas State or USF or Penn State. UCF agreed to the CFP system, and they didn't win the CFP playoff. Ohio State didn't either.

And unbeaten means zero, because of SOS, and because schools can actually pick several teams to be on their schedule, which isn't true in pro leagues.

It's really bizarro that anyone thinks that because they felt they should have been in the playoff but was excluded, that this means they can act as if they did beat two playoff teams to win the playoffs. Amazing, really.

Think about it: What if the 49ers would have made the playoffs if they won their last game, but they missed out because they lost their last game. But, they lost because the NFL agrees that a bad call was made and they should have won.

Does that mean that because the 49ers were screwed out of making the playoffs that they can claim they are champions, as if they actually won two playoff games and the Super Bowl even though they didn't actually do so?

Beyond dumb, eh?

That may very well be the most asinine argument you've ever made. UCF didnt LOSE thier last game. UCF didnt lose ANY games. Becasue the NFL utilizes actual on the field results (as opposed to ice skating judges), no team that finishes the season undefeated will ever be anything other than the champion of the NFL for that year. THe NFL is a terrible analogy. Try ice skating---its closer to what the CFP really is.

(03-03-2018 08:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 09:02 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 06:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 07:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Laughing at UCF isn't being 'defensive'.

Colley-Matrix isn't a poll, it's a computer, and it means nothing to be chosen #1 by a computer.

Heck, Alabama was chosen #1 in a bunch of computers last year after they lost the title game to Clemson. For UCF to claim a title on the basis of CM is beyond absurd.

Most SEC schools do the same thing.

To my knowledge, nobody in the SEC or any place else has claimed a national title based on anything but the BCS/CFP, or AP or coaches poll the past 45 years. All those cases where SEC and others make bizarro claims are from before 1975, when the polls voted before the bowls, and when other institutions were recognized as also being title designaters.

But UCF claims based on Colley-Matrix computer?

Who else does that? E.g. Alabama was #1 in Colley-Matrix in 2016 (when they lost to Clemson in the CFP title game), but they don't claim that as a title.

You know when even Alabama declines to claim a title, it's truly bogus, LOL.

Notre Dame, like UCF, was #1 in Colley-Matrix in 2012, they have never claimed that as a title.

This notion that Colley-Matrix alone means there is a "split title" is absurd.

Heck, the fact that CM had Alabama and Notre Dame #1 those years even after they lost the BCS/CFP title games tells us what we know about its credibility.

All it tells me is Alabama and Notre Dame got a chance to prove it on the field. Undefeated UCF didn't get that opportunity.

It should tell you a few other things:

1) On its own terms, Colley-Matrix seems to be a bizarro system, as it actually picked ND #1 and Alabama #1 despite losing title games.

2) The fact that these power teams, famous for claiming whatever titles they can, haven't claimed their alleged Colley titles tells you that Colley has zero credibility as a stand-alone title selector.

Truth is, even if you think the CFP is still mythical and doesn't produce a legit champ like the NCAA hoops tourney, the accepted standard in college football for the past 45 years is that you can claim a 'share' of a title if you win either the coaches or AP poll. That's the standard, and UCF doesn't meet it.

3) Actually, 126 other teams didn't get a chance to "prove it on the field" either, because only 4 teams made the playoffs. Undefeated means nothing, as no other sports league requires that you be undefeated to make the playoffs.

Usually, the designation is division/conference. If you win your division or conference, you make the playoffs regardless of your record. E.g., the Giants can go 9-7, but if they win the NFC East, they make the playoffs.

The equivalent in college football is the conference, but UCF wasn't the only conference champ not to make the playoffs. Only 3 of the 10 FBS conference champs made the playoffs. 7 were left out, including two P5 champs, but only one is claiming "national title", LOL.

4) Even if we agree that UCF should have been in the playoffs and was screwed out of being in them, it is still absurd for them to claim the title, because it assumes they would have won something they didn't win, the playoffs. It's like me thinking "you know, my Redskins should have made the playoffs but the NFL screwed us, therefore since we didn't get to PLAY in them but should have, we can act like we not only played in them but WON them, and declare ourselves champs over the Super Bowl winner!" That's just absurd, acting like you won something you didn't.

Those are the things you should have learned from my post.

(03-02-2018 10:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 09:56 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 09:49 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  The AAC saying they are P6 is like the Southland Conference saying they are G5. It is just a combination of delusion, lies and fantasy, kind of dumb actually.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yet people keep talking about it.

^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

The marketing campaign is doing exactly what it’s supposed to do.

(03-02-2018 09:49 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  The AAC saying they are P6 is like the Southland Conference saying they are G5. It is just a combination of delusion, lies and fantasy, kind of dumb actually.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(03-03-2018 10:55 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 09:49 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  The AAC saying they are P6 is like the Southland Conference saying they are G5. It is just a combination of delusion, lies and fantasy, kind of dumb actually.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Or a Iowa state fan lecturing people about who or what constitutes power conferences

(03-03-2018 08:28 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  so I guess Northern Illinois should not expect an invite to the AAC anytime soon

(03-03-2018 08:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 07:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 06:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 11:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's an excellent comparison. The NFL could have a 32-team playoff and the 49ers therefore could have been in it, just like the CFP could be a 32-team playoff and UCF would have been in it.

Both missed the playoffs by the rules that govern who does and doesn't get in.

But even if UCF had a claim to be in the playoffs, it's still ridiculous to try and claim that because you were kept out of the playoffs and should have been in, that means you can claim equality ("a national title") with whoever did make the playoffs and won them.

At that point, you're giving yourself credit for something you didn't actually do - win the playoffs.

No, they are just saying that its still an MNC. So they have a right to claim it. Nobody else went unbeaten. I think its silly, but your argument against it is wrong. The rules are not inclusive. They are stacked in favor of the P5. The committee is stacked in favor of the Big 10, SEC and Pac 12 (not that it has helped the P12 much).

They have no more right to claim a title than does Arkansas State or USF or Penn State. UCF agreed to the CFP system, and they didn't win the CFP playoff. Ohio State didn't either.

And unbeaten means zero, because of SOS, and because schools can actually pick several teams to be on their schedule, which isn't true in pro leagues.

It's really bizarro that anyone thinks that because they felt they should have been in the playoff but was excluded, that this means they can act as if they did beat two playoff teams to win the playoffs. Amazing, really.

Think about it: What if the 49ers would have made the playoffs if they won their last game, but they missed out because they lost their last game. But, they lost because the NFL agrees that a bad call was made and they should have won.

Does that mean that because the 49ers were screwed out of making the playoffs that they can claim they are champions, as if they actually won two playoff games and the Super Bowl even though they didn't actually do so?

Beyond dumb, eh?

That may very well be the most asinine argument you've ever made. UCF didnt LOSE thier last game. UCF didnt lose ANY games. Becasue the NFL utilizes actual on the field results (as opposed to ice skating judges), no team that finishes the season undefeated will ever be anything other than the champion of the NFL for that year. THe NFL is a terrible analogy. Try ice skating---its closer to what the CFP really is.

My argument isn't 'asinine', it's spot-on. What's asinine is this harping about UCF being undefeated. Undefeated in the regular season isn't a requirement to make the playoffs in ANY sport. So the fact that in my scenario, the 49ers weren't undefeated is meaningless. What is meaningful is that they would have made the playoffs had they won their last game, and should have won it, but were screwed by a bad call.

Just as some UCF fans think UCF was screwed out of the playoffs by a 'bad call', in this case the CFP committee's decision to not give them a playoff spot.

See the analogy? In both cases, a team that should have made the playoffs was left out because of a bad decision someone else made.

But again, even if you SHOULD have been in the playoffs but were 'screwed' out of it by a bad decision, system, whatever you want to call it, is "asinine" to then claim you are the champion AS IF you actually won the playoffs.

Even if you are totally correct that you should have been in the playoffs, that doesn't give you any right to claim the status of whoever did win them, because then you are acting as if you not only made the playoffs, but won them, which you did not do.

(03-03-2018 08:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Now true, in 2004 Auburn did make noise about claiming a title. They held a parade and also handed out rings. But, Auburn doesn't officially claim 2004 as a national championship. Their website only claims 1957 and 2010:

http://www.auburntigers.com/trads/02_auburn_national_championships.html

My understanding is that UCF is different, that they are actually trying to claim 2017 as a national championship.

If they aren't, if they are just doing what Auburn did in 2004, and not actually claiming a title, then I still laugh, but withdraw my objection.