(01-09-2018 02:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 02:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 02:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 02:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-09-2018 01:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Exactly. A G5 is not going to be allowed in the playoff. This talk that the Georgia Tech game would have made a difference is really silly. So I am to believe that beating a 5-6 Georgia Tech would tell the Committee something that beating a 4-8 Maryland didnt? That game would have made zero difference. This Committee was never going to put a G5 in the top 10--much less the top 4.

That said, I think UCF did the G5 a favor. They gave the committee a black eye. They exposed the bias.

Um .... how did UCF give the committee a "black eye" and "exposed their bias" when every other outlet had UCF outside of the top 10 as well? Humans and computers (see Sagarin and MC) all agree - even AFTER the Big Win over Auburn, UCF still isn't a top 4 team!

You have made a big point about the composition of the CFP committee as being biased against the G5. But the AP vote just drives the point home that *any* committee, unless literally chaired by Aresco and consisting of 10 AAC AD's, would have kept UCF out too.

UCF fans have had fun the past week posting links to sports columns and blogs saying that "UCF deserves to hang their banner" and the like, but in the end, the sportswriters voted 57 to 4 for Alabama over UCF, and put UCF at #6.

So this hardly constitutes an indictment of the CFP, eh?

We've gone over this 100 times. The Selection Committee has complete power in determining the CFP. The CFP methodology has signficantly influeced the AP/Coaches polls. Those non-CFP have drastically changed thier nature since the CFP. Rather than being object opinions of the rankings---the voters have instead ...

Obvious problem with this is that the final AP poll clearly had zero to do with the CFP committee rankings.

Then explain the massive difference in G5 treatment in pre-CFP poll treatment of G5s and post-CFP poll treatment of G5's. The Committee bias has influenced poll voters.

I don't have to explain an alleged 'massive' difference - what are you going to say, that obviously better TCU and Boise teams got as high as #3 in the BCS era but flawed Houston and UCF teams didn't make it past #10? Seasonal differences can easily explain that.

More importantly, i have logic on my side: The most critical poll votes, the last vote before the CFP makes it decision, and the final, post-bowls vote, cannot possibly be determined by the CFP: The final pre-bowl poll vote is made BEFORE the CFP makes its final determination, which means if anything it is the polls that influence the final, decisive CFP rankings not vice-versa. We saw that last month: Before the CFP made its big unveiling of the playoff teams, the AP and coaches had already released their polls with Alabama at #4 ahead of Ohio State.

And then the final post-bowl vote comes out a month AFTER the CFP has finished its work.

Bottom line is that we haven't heard from the CFP in a month, and all those sportswriters have had a week to digest the fact that UCF beat Auburn. And yet last night they voted for Alabama #1 anyway and put post-Auburn UCF at #6. CFP clearly had zilch to do with that.

And I just checked Sagarin and Massey Composite, and UCF isn't anywhere near the top 4 in those either.

So if i was the CFP I'd feel vindicated in leaving UCF out, after all, everyone else agrees they didn't belong either.