The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

I'm not gonna play the "we don't look like a top X team right now card" because if you watched any college football this weekend it was slooooopy. Also, Texas is still in the top 10. So screw it.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

(09-27-2020 07:48 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  I'm not gonna play the "we don't look like a top X team right now card" because if you watched any college football this weekend it was slooooopy. Also, Texas is still in the top 10. So screw it.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Yeah agreed. I wasn’t impressed with #8Auburn against Kentucky one bit. They did get the win though and maybe it was just an off game, but boy am I used to those top tier SEC teams controlling both lines of scrimmage against a Kentucky. Auburn did not do that.

(09-27-2020 05:02 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-27-2020 04:53 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  The other thing that bothers me is we finished #21 last season to UCF's #24. We beat them head-to-head and we returned the bulk of the starters for this season. We also started the poll this year ranked above them one spot. You see other teams get preferential treatment/deference in the rankings or consideration based on past history. We typically get hosed up the wazoo. I know, we just need to keep winning but it's hard to get past our drop and UCF's rise based on who we've played thus far.

My guess is they’re looking at how we both play. Pollsters probably seeing a ceiling with who’s at QB.

I mean to be fair, I don’t really blame them. I’m not confident that we can go to UCF and come out with a win unless the QB play gets much better. It’s a shame because our defense is significantly better, our OL is better, and we have just as much talent at the skill positions. The difference may well be having a consistent QB.

Gabriel UCF 59 of 88 for 67% 825 yards and 8 TD and 1 INT
Ridder UC 31 of 52 for 60% 454 yards and 4 TD and 1 INT

(09-27-2020 05:56 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Click on the map to look at any of the pollsters ballots. David Jablonski of the Dayton Daily News ranked us above UCF. Thank you very much sir!

View The Ballots!

Matt Baker of the Tampa Bay Times also has us ranked ahead of UCF.

(09-27-2020 10:41 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(09-27-2020 05:02 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-27-2020 04:53 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  The other thing that bothers me is we finished #21 last season to UCF's #24. We beat them head-to-head and we returned the bulk of the starters for this season. We also started the poll this year ranked above them one spot. You see other teams get preferential treatment/deference in the rankings or consideration based on past history. We typically get hosed up the wazoo. I know, we just need to keep winning but it's hard to get past our drop and UCF's rise based on who we've played thus far.

My guess is they’re looking at how we both play. Pollsters probably seeing a ceiling with who’s at QB.

I mean to be fair, I don’t really blame them. I’m not confident that we can go to UCF and come out with a win unless the QB play gets much better. It’s a shame because our defense is significantly better, our OL is better, and we have just as much talent at the skill positions. The difference may well be having a consistent QB.

Having watched both UC and UCF, I have to agree with your point about the QB situation at the present time. UC had abundant O line problems last year that had Ridder running for his life and the offense moving backwards constantly with penalties. That's not been a problem through two games but we're not seeing an improvement in passing efficiency one might reasonably expect given those other problems are resolved.

I was initially angry that teams are being included in the poll that haven't played, and won't play for another month. Alternately though, it's probably better they're in there now, as it would be a bigger insult to play another month, climb the rankings ladder, and get bounced out for teams that have never taken the field yet. So maybe this will preserve "earned" rankings better than arbitrarily dropping half a dozen new teams in later this fall.

(09-28-2020 07:14 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(09-27-2020 10:41 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(09-27-2020 05:02 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-27-2020 04:53 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  The other thing that bothers me is we finished #21 last season to UCF's #24. We beat them head-to-head and we returned the bulk of the starters for this season. We also started the poll this year ranked above them one spot. You see other teams get preferential treatment/deference in the rankings or consideration based on past history. We typically get hosed up the wazoo. I know, we just need to keep winning but it's hard to get past our drop and UCF's rise based on who we've played thus far.

My guess is they’re looking at how we both play. Pollsters probably seeing a ceiling with who’s at QB.

I mean to be fair, I don’t really blame them. I’m not confident that we can go to UCF and come out with a win unless the QB play gets much better. It’s a shame because our defense is significantly better, our OL is better, and we have just as much talent at the skill positions. The difference may well be having a consistent QB.

Having watched both UC and UCF, I have to agree with your point about the QB situation at the present time. UC had abundant O line problems last year that had Ridder running for his life and the offense moving backwards constantly with penalties. That's not been a problem through two games but we're not seeing an improvement in passing efficiency one might reasonably expect given those other problems are resolved.

I was initially angry that teams are being included in the poll that haven't played, and won't play for another month. Alternately though, it's probably better they're in there now, as it would be a bigger insult to play another month, climb the rankings ladder, and get bounced out for teams that have never taken the field yet. So maybe this will preserve "earned" rankings better than arbitrarily dropping half a dozen new teams in later this fall.

Speaking of UCF QB's I wonder if Milton will ever play again for UCF. He is still rehabbing at UCF after 11 surgeries. He played full years in 2016, 17 and 18. I guess the NCAA will let him have 2019 and 2020 as med redshirt years. But if he can play in 2021 he would have to beat out Dillon Gabriel who would be a Junior with 2 solid years of results.

Meh- for all the hand-wringing about our place in the polls due to having a non-explosive offense, UCF is only a couple spots above us. The fact is the poll keepers appear to have a ceiling on where they put a G5 team anyway. They don't want to put us too high as it could lead to putting us in the top 4 at the end of the season when other teams lose. All that matters at the end of the day is the head to head matchup(s) with UCF this year.

(09-28-2020 08:02 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Meh- for all the hand-wringing about our place in the polls due to having a non-explosive offense, UCF is only a couple spots above us. The fact is the poll keepers appear to have a ceiling on where they put a G5 team anyway. They don't want to put us too high as it could lead to putting us in the top 4 at the end of the season when other teams lose. All that matters at the end of the day is the head to head matchup(s) with UCF this year.

Bolded, no question in my mind at this point that this is the case. Watch any college football broadcast and all announcer comments on the G5 drip with condescension. The P5 narrative has become so ubiquitous it's as if they were comparing MLB with Triple A baseball. Yet the reality is, there are less than a dozen elite P5 programs that appear to be able to compete in a world dominated by the CFP. And some not named Alabama or Clemson have only shown up in the playoff long enough for a cup of coffee. Is this good for the sport? Unlike pro sports, when this happens, I'm not sure everyone tunes in because the college football market is still fragmented because of so many more college teams with loyal, regional followings.

An eight team playoff would help, especially if there is a G5 seat at that table every year. Let UCF, UC, BYU or Houston take its best shot every year and there is at the least the appearance of opportunity for the more than 100 FBS programs that are competing each year.

(09-28-2020 12:15 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(09-28-2020 08:02 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Meh- for all the hand-wringing about our place in the polls due to having a non-explosive offense, UCF is only a couple spots above us. The fact is the poll keepers appear to have a ceiling on where they put a G5 team anyway. They don't want to put us too high as it could lead to putting us in the top 4 at the end of the season when other teams lose. All that matters at the end of the day is the head to head matchup(s) with UCF this year.

Bolded, no question in my mind at this point that this is the case. Watch any college football broadcast and all announcer comments on the G5 drip with condescension. The P5 narrative has become so ubiquitous it's as if they were comparing MLB with Triple A baseball. Yet the reality is, there are less than a dozen elite P5 programs that appear to be able to compete in a world dominated by the CFP. And some not named Alabama or Clemson have only shown up in the playoff long enough for a cup of coffee. Is this good for the sport? Unlike pro sports, when this happens, I'm not sure everyone tunes in because the college football market is still fragmented because of so many more college teams with loyal, regional followings.

An eight team playoff would help, especially if there is a G5 seat at that table every year. Let UCF, UC, BYU or Houston take its best shot every year and there is at the least the appearance of opportunity for the more than 100 FBS programs that are competing each year.

I agree and think this is a legitimate possibility in the future. All 5 P5 Conference Champs, Best G5 Conference Champ, and 2 At large Bids.

This seems relatively fair and while most years the G5 is going to get pummeled, there is always a chance at an upset.

(09-29-2020 10:29 AM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(09-28-2020 12:15 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(09-28-2020 08:02 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Meh- for all the hand-wringing about our place in the polls due to having a non-explosive offense, UCF is only a couple spots above us. The fact is the poll keepers appear to have a ceiling on where they put a G5 team anyway. They don't want to put us too high as it could lead to putting us in the top 4 at the end of the season when other teams lose. All that matters at the end of the day is the head to head matchup(s) with UCF this year.

Bolded, no question in my mind at this point that this is the case. Watch any college football broadcast and all announcer comments on the G5 drip with condescension. The P5 narrative has become so ubiquitous it's as if they were comparing MLB with Triple A baseball. Yet the reality is, there are less than a dozen elite P5 programs that appear to be able to compete in a world dominated by the CFP. And some not named Alabama or Clemson have only shown up in the playoff long enough for a cup of coffee. Is this good for the sport? Unlike pro sports, when this happens, I'm not sure everyone tunes in because the college football market is still fragmented because of so many more college teams with loyal, regional followings.

An eight team playoff would help, especially if there is a G5 seat at that table every year. Let UCF, UC, BYU or Houston take its best shot every year and there is at the least the appearance of opportunity for the more than 100 FBS programs that are competing each year.

I agree and think this is a legitimate possibility in the future. All 5 P5 Conference Champs, Best G5 Conference Champ, and 2 At large Bids.

This seems relatively fair and while most years the G5 is going to get pummeled, there is always a chance at an upset.

I think it's fair as long as they don't just make the G5 team the 8 seed every single season. Unfortunately, we all know that's what will happen. Still beats the current format though.

(09-29-2020 12:49 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 10:29 AM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(09-28-2020 12:15 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(09-28-2020 08:02 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Meh- for all the hand-wringing about our place in the polls due to having a non-explosive offense, UCF is only a couple spots above us. The fact is the poll keepers appear to have a ceiling on where they put a G5 team anyway. They don't want to put us too high as it could lead to putting us in the top 4 at the end of the season when other teams lose. All that matters at the end of the day is the head to head matchup(s) with UCF this year.

Bolded, no question in my mind at this point that this is the case. Watch any college football broadcast and all announcer comments on the G5 drip with condescension. The P5 narrative has become so ubiquitous it's as if they were comparing MLB with Triple A baseball. Yet the reality is, there are less than a dozen elite P5 programs that appear to be able to compete in a world dominated by the CFP. And some not named Alabama or Clemson have only shown up in the playoff long enough for a cup of coffee. Is this good for the sport? Unlike pro sports, when this happens, I'm not sure everyone tunes in because the college football market is still fragmented because of so many more college teams with loyal, regional followings.

An eight team playoff would help, especially if there is a G5 seat at that table every year. Let UCF, UC, BYU or Houston take its best shot every year and there is at the least the appearance of opportunity for the more than 100 FBS programs that are competing each year.

I agree and think this is a legitimate possibility in the future. All 5 P5 Conference Champs, Best G5 Conference Champ, and 2 At large Bids.

This seems relatively fair and while most years the G5 is going to get pummeled, there is always a chance at an upset.

I think it's fair as long as they don't just make the G5 team the 8 seed every single season. Unfortunately, we all know that's what will happen. Still beats the current format though.

The G5 will be #8 every year and lose to #1 every year. Of course we know #4 -#8 would meet the same fate. The P5 can then say "See they do not belong!"

That can be solved by guaranteeing the P5+top G5 the top 6 spots since they all won a conference and the 2 at large bids are the bottom 2 seeds. Only issue with that is Notre Dame will complain, but they can join a conference like everyone else also.

(09-29-2020 01:30 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  That can be solved by guaranteeing the P5+top G5 the top 6 spots since they all won a conference and the 2 at large bids are the bottom 2 seeds. Only issue with that is Notre Dame will complain, but they can join a conference like everyone else also.

The only issue I can see with that is that, in a lot of years, the #3 and #4 seeds may end up with an easier 1st-round matchup than the #1 and #2 seeds.

(09-29-2020 02:04 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 01:30 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  That can be solved by guaranteeing the P5+top G5 the top 6 spots since they all won a conference and the 2 at large bids are the bottom 2 seeds. Only issue with that is Notre Dame will complain, but they can join a conference like everyone else also.

The only issue I can see with that is that, in a lot of years, the #3 and #4 seeds may end up with an easier 1st-round matchup than the #1 and #2 seeds.

It’s similar though in other sports like the NFL that gives Division winners a higher seed than Wild Cards. In the past we have seen a 8-8 or even a 7-9 team host a home playoff game (Seattle in 2010 I believe it was hosted a playoff game at 7-9).

(09-29-2020 02:09 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 02:04 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 01:30 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  That can be solved by guaranteeing the P5+top G5 the top 6 spots since they all won a conference and the 2 at large bids are the bottom 2 seeds. Only issue with that is Notre Dame will complain, but they can join a conference like everyone else also.

The only issue I can see with that is that, in a lot of years, the #3 and #4 seeds may end up with an easier 1st-round matchup than the #1 and #2 seeds.

It’s similar though in other sports like the NFL that gives Division winners a higher seed than Wild Cards. In the past we have seen a 8-8 or even a 7-9 team host a home playoff game (Seattle in 2010 I believe it was hosted a playoff game at 7-9).

Yeah, I mean, I don't personally have a problem with it. But I could see the Alabamas and Clemsons of the world voicing opposition.

(09-29-2020 02:29 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 02:09 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 02:04 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 01:30 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  That can be solved by guaranteeing the P5+top G5 the top 6 spots since they all won a conference and the 2 at large bids are the bottom 2 seeds. Only issue with that is Notre Dame will complain, but they can join a conference like everyone else also.

The only issue I can see with that is that, in a lot of years, the #3 and #4 seeds may end up with an easier 1st-round matchup than the #1 and #2 seeds.

It’s similar though in other sports like the NFL that gives Division winners a higher seed than Wild Cards. In the past we have seen a 8-8 or even a 7-9 team host a home playoff game (Seattle in 2010 I believe it was hosted a playoff game at 7-9).

Yeah, I mean, I don't personally have a problem with it. But I could see the Alabamas and Clemsons of the world voicing opposition.

It’s definitely not going to make everyone happy. I mean the SEC has little benefit since they have a good shot to get 2 teams in anyway so this doesn’t help them really.

Then as mentioned Notre Dame probably wouldn’t like it either since they have to either join a conference or qualify for one of 2 at large bids, which would be low seeds.

For those reasons alone it’s problematic, but I also think it’s more fair as a whole. Sadly, the Power conferences don’t care about that and will only go with it if they benefit, which is where I think the trouble getting it passed would come from.

(09-29-2020 03:04 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 02:29 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 02:09 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 02:04 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 01:30 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  That can be solved by guaranteeing the P5+top G5 the top 6 spots since they all won a conference and the 2 at large bids are the bottom 2 seeds. Only issue with that is Notre Dame will complain, but they can join a conference like everyone else also.

The only issue I can see with that is that, in a lot of years, the #3 and #4 seeds may end up with an easier 1st-round matchup than the #1 and #2 seeds.

It’s similar though in other sports like the NFL that gives Division winners a higher seed than Wild Cards. In the past we have seen a 8-8 or even a 7-9 team host a home playoff game (Seattle in 2010 I believe it was hosted a playoff game at 7-9).

Yeah, I mean, I don't personally have a problem with it. But I could see the Alabamas and Clemsons of the world voicing opposition.

It’s definitely not going to make everyone happy. I mean the SEC has little benefit since they have a good shot to get 2 teams in anyway so this doesn’t help them really.

Then as mentioned Notre Dame probably wouldn’t like it either since they have to either join a conference or qualify for one of 2 at large bids, which would be low seeds.

For those reasons alone it’s problematic, but I also think it’s more fair as a whole. Sadly, the Power conferences don’t care about that and will only go with it if they benefit, which is where I think the trouble getting it passed would come from.

Anything that doesn't satisfy Notre Dame also doesn't satisfy the SEC.

They know Notre Dame will never join the SEC. The absolute last thing the SEC wants is to force Notre Dame's hand and make them join the ACC. That would greatly strengthen the ACC, perhaps making the ACC's money equal to the SEC.

The Big 12 and PAC won't like it either: it would solidify a P3, with those two conferences clearly a step below. Also the PAC's 2 most influential programs would risk losing marquee annual OOC rivalry games with Notre Dame.

(09-29-2020 02:29 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 02:09 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 02:04 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(09-29-2020 01:30 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  That can be solved by guaranteeing the P5+top G5 the top 6 spots since they all won a conference and the 2 at large bids are the bottom 2 seeds. Only issue with that is Notre Dame will complain, but they can join a conference like everyone else also.

The only issue I can see with that is that, in a lot of years, the #3 and #4 seeds may end up with an easier 1st-round matchup than the #1 and #2 seeds.

It’s similar though in other sports like the NFL that gives Division winners a higher seed than Wild Cards. In the past we have seen a 8-8 or even a 7-9 team host a home playoff game (Seattle in 2010 I believe it was hosted a playoff game at 7-9).

Yeah, I mean, I don't personally have a problem with it. But I could see the Alabamas and Clemsons of the world voicing opposition.

Easy solution is to let the top seeds decide who they play down the list. First year Boston College upsets Clemson in the ACC championship and gets slaughtered by Alabama it all changes.

I thought we might swap with UCF after their loss yesterday. Who the fug gives Ohio State two first place votes? Looks like Texas took the biggest tumble and SMU the highest climb after Week 4.

Week 5 AP Poll

1 Clemson (3-0) 1 (52)
2 Alabama (2-0) 2 (8)
3 Georgia (2-0) 4
4 Florida (2-0) 3
5 Notre Dame (2-0) 5
6 Ohio State (0-0) 6 (2)
7 Miami (FL) (3-0) 8
8 North Carolina (2-0) 12
9 Penn State (0-0) 10
10 Oklahoma State (3-0) 17
11 Cincinnati (3-0) 15
12 Oregon (0-0) 14
13 Auburn (1-1) 7
14 Tennessee (2-0) 21
15 Brigham Young (3-0) 22
16 Wisconsin (0-0) 19
17 LSU (1-1) 20
18 SMU (4-0)
19 Virginia Tech (2-0)
20 Michigan (0-0) 23
21 Texas A&M (1-1) 13
22 Texas (2-1) 9
23 Louisiana-Lafayette (3-0)
24 Iowa State (2-1)
25 Minnesota (0-0)

Others receiving votes:
Kansas State 142, USC 115, Mississippi State 112, UCF 112, TCU 97, Marshall 49, Tulsa 46, Utah 30, Iowa 26, Coastal Carolina 25, Oklahoma 20, North Carolina State 18, Ole Miss 18, UAB 15, Army 14, West Virginia 13, Memphis 12, Arkansas 11, Pittsburgh 7, Virginia 5, Arizona State 5, Washington 4, Air Force 4, Indiana 1