Good read. I believe the playoff will go to 8 teams and the highest rated champ outside the power leagues will get an auto bid.

This system is totally bogus and different than any other sport at any level.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/op...story.html

It is a good read and his points hit the mark. Merit takes a backseat to protecting the entrenched schools - many of whom would be relegated to the “G-5” except by geography and circumstances in a by-gone era. Like every other level of NCAA football, a real playoff should be put in place for FBS.

There is nothing new or newsworthy in what is essentially a newspaper columnist publishing a message board style rant for a greater audience to read. Bianchi is still a hack. However, he is correct to a certain degree. The current system is crooked and antiquated.

Question: where does he think UCF should be ranked? Top 4? Top8?
IMO, I think the Knights should be in the Top12...but then it gets harder to justify moving UCF up higher based on SOS and other intangibles.

Solution would be go to 8 teams: 5 P5 autobids 1 G5 autobid 2 wildcards

That would solve a lot of problems and create a fun college football post season that would preserve the value of the regular season and provide us with some great inter-sectional match ups that we wouldn't ordinarily get to see.

Combine this with reducing the current bowl game lineup by half and suddenly you make the post-season meaningful again.

(11-09-2017 02:00 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  It is a good read and his points hit the mark. Merit takes a backseat to protecting the entrenched schools - many of whom would be relegated to the “G-5” except by geography and circumstances in a by-gone era. Like every other level of NCAA football, a real playoff should be put in place for FBS.

In my opinion it is not the playoffs that matter it is the amount money the P5 are getting and the gap keeps getting wider. The networks have put the G5 in their place while the likes of Vandy, ISU, KSU, et al fill their pockets. This gap has and will continue to create a hurdle that will cause many G5 school athletic programs to become extinct.

Of course he's right, but nobody is listening. The whole situation was intentionally set up this way in attempts to create further barriers for the "Johnny-Come-Lately's", (ie. the schools in the AAC, Boise State, San Diego State, etc.). They are not going to change the CFP for us. If they somehow go to 8 teams they will just take in more P5 schools.

(11-09-2017 02:11 PM)Tigeer Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 02:00 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  It is a good read and his points hit the mark. Merit takes a backseat to protecting the entrenched schools - many of whom would be relegated to the “G-5” except by geography and circumstances in a by-gone era. Like every other level of NCAA football, a real playoff should be put in place for FBS.

In my opinion it is not the playoffs that matter it is the amount money the P5 are getting and the gap keeps getting wider. The networks have put the G5 in their place while the likes of Vandy, ISU, KSU, et al fill their pockets. This gap has and will continue to create a hurdle that will cause many G5 school athletic programs to become extinct.

The $$ is definitely problem #1. With the disparity of wealth, the P5 schools can pluck any head coach they want from the non-cartel programs. Heck, in some cases they are paying coordinators more than what some head coaches are making in this league.

The playoff thing is also a problem though. Coaches and players want a shot at playing for a championship- end of story. The fact is if you are not a P5 or Notre Dame there is a zero percentage chance in getting there. Even the crappy P5 schools likes Kansas have at least a mathematical chance of getting there, even it is only like a 1-2% chance.

(11-09-2017 02:06 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  There is nothing new or newsworthy in what is essentially a newspaper columnist publishing a message board style rant for a greater audience to read. Bianchi is still a hack. However, he is correct to a certain degree. The current system is crooked and antiquated.

Question: where does he think UCF should be ranked? Top 4? Top8?
IMO, I think the Knights should be in the Top12...but then it gets harder to justify moving UCF up higher based on SOS and other intangibles.

Solution would be go to 8 teams: 5 P5 autobids 1 G5 autobid 2 wildcards

That would solve a lot of problems and create a fun college football post season that would preserve the value of the regular season and provide us with some great inter-sectional match ups that we wouldn't ordinarily get to see.

Combine this with reducing the current bowl game lineup by half and suddenly you make the post-season meaningful again.

He calls out the EIGHT teams, so I would be left to assume he believes UCF should be ranked at least 10th.

Best line from the piece --> "Except UCF’s strength of schedule is almost exactly the same as fellow unbeaten Wisconsin, which is ranked No. 8 in the poll.".

While there are no guarantees, the odds are great that if UCF played the exact same schedule as Wisconsin AND played in the very weak B!G West division, that they too would be undefeated. Why not? Who of Wisconsin's schedule would beat them?

(11-09-2017 02:17 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  Best line from the piece --> "Except UCF’s strength of schedule is almost exactly the same as fellow unbeaten Wisconsin, which is ranked No. 8 in the poll.".

While there are no guarantees, the odds are great that if UCF played the exact same schedule as Wisconsin AND played in the very weak B!G West division, that they too would be undefeated. Why not? Who of Wisconsin's schedule would beat them?

The problem is that in college football the voters can't get past the logo on the helmet. In their minds Wisconsin plays a tougher schedule because schools like Nebraska, Illinois and Iowa are always considered > than anyone in the American, whether they actually are or not on the field.

Moreover, the voters also have a perverse sense of the "grind of the schedule". In their minds, even if UCF had scheduled Alabama, Georgia, Notre Dame and Clemson OOC, they would consider Wisconsin's schedule to be tougher because they had to play 8 P5 teams which UCF got to "snack" on 8 AAC schools.

It's pretty obvious as to why he's so upset...

He knows this ranking was going to UCF's highest of the season. It's all downhill after the Knights lose this weekend.

(11-09-2017 02:11 PM)Tigeer Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 02:00 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  It is a good read and his points hit the mark. Merit takes a backseat to protecting the entrenched schools - many of whom would be relegated to the “G-5” except by geography and circumstances in a by-gone era. Like every other level of NCAA football, a real playoff should be put in place for FBS.

In my opinion it is not the playoffs that matter it is the amount money the P5 are getting and the gap keeps getting wider. The networks have put the G5 in their place while the likes of Vandy, ISU, KSU, et al fill their pockets. This gap has and will continue to create a hurdle that will cause many G5 school athletic programs to become extinct.

I agree, but to some extent the gap could be moderated by the ability to build a brand through achievement on a national stage.

Well it looks like my comment from yesterday gained some traction.

Nothing left to do now but SUE. I mean why does the CFP use a "selection committee" instead of the rpi like hoops, baseball, hockey, soccer.....do? Don't answer, it's rhetorical.

I think UCF is about the 10th best team in the country. I would put them ahead of all the 2-loss teams except maybe for Auburn. Ohio State and USC are more talented, but I don't think UCF would get blown out by anybody like those teams have.

(11-09-2017 01:52 PM)First Mate Wrote:  Good read. I believe the playoff will go to 8 teams and the highest rated champ outside the power leagues will get an auto bid.

This system is totally bogus and different than any other sport at any level.

It's a homer read, as CyberBull says, it reads more like a rant. Proof? He refers to SMU as a "good" team. SMU is not a good team. They are a decent team, but Sagarin has them ranked #64 right now. That's just not all that good.

He also says that UCF's schedule is almost exactly the same as Wisconsin's. But that's not true either. E.g, Sagarin has UCF's schedule at 92, Wisconsin's at 68. That's a big gap, not a small one.

Bottom line is that UCF just hasn't proved itself against top-flight competition. Being ranked #18 out of 120 teams isn't a bad thing, it means the CFP thinks you are better than more than 100 of those 120 teams. But the standard for playoffs is just way higher than that.

(11-09-2017 02:17 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  While there are no guarantees, the odds are great that if UCF played the exact same schedule as Wisconsin AND played in the very weak B!G West division, that they too would be undefeated. Why not? Who of Wisconsin's schedule would beat them?

You raise an interesting point, but IMO it's not so simple. A schedule can't be viewed as 12 isolated games, it's also an accumulation of games. That can make even a small difference in SOS important.

E.g., Sagarin says that Wisky has played the #68 schedule, UCF the #92 schedule. Viewing the games in isolation, one can say "well, I'd favor UCF to beat everyone Wisconsin has played, so the schedules are functionally the same". Basically, the logic is, UCF is an "A" team that has beaten (on average) a bunch of "D" teams. Wisconsin has beaten a bunch of "C" teams, but so what, because we'd expect an "A" like UCF to beat all those "Cs" too.

But here's the thing: When you play "D", chances are you can wipe them out easily. That brings benefits like resting starters - which not only reduces injuries to starters but saves on cumulative wear and tear, and also playing backups more, which gives those backups more experience, making them better contributors if or when a starter does need some down time. Then, since you whipped last week's D and got to rest your starters, that makes it more likely you will be fresh to whip this week's D, and a virtuous circle starts.

In contrast, playing a "C" is tougher, so you have to exert yourself more to beat them. The game stays closer longer, so starters have to play more, increasing chances of injury and causing greater overall wear-and-tear. And because backups aren't getting playing time, when a starter does go down, they aren't as prepared to contribute.

That starts a negative cycle whereby a team gets worn down, making an upset loss to a "C" later in the season more likely, and more likely still when you play the occasional "B".

So when you say you think that UCF would be unbeaten vs Wisconsin's schedule, you have to consider if that would be true had UCF suffered the wear-and-tear that they haven't suffered thanks to blowing out cupcakes every week.

(11-09-2017 02:17 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  Best line from the piece --> "Except UCF’s strength of schedule is almost exactly the same as fellow unbeaten Wisconsin, which is ranked No. 8 in the poll.".

While there are no guarantees, the odds are great that if UCF played the exact same schedule as Wisconsin AND played in the very weak B!G West division, that they too would be undefeated. Why not? Who of Wisconsin's schedule would beat them?

There is a metric that attempts to do exactly that. S&P+
The formula looks at every drive vs every competitor and strives to basically do that. If team X played team Ys schedule, what would be there record. Using that model, UCF would be 5, just above Wisconsin.

The system is setup to crown a champion from the P5. G5 gets a hand-out and it's accepted as ok.

(11-09-2017 02:06 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  There is nothing new or newsworthy in what is essentially a newspaper columnist publishing a message board style rant for a greater audience to read. Bianchi is still a hack. However, he is correct to a certain degree. The current system is crooked and antiquated.

Question: where does he think UCF should be ranked? Top 4? Top8?
IMO, I think the Knights should be in the Top12...but then it gets harder to justify moving UCF up higher based on SOS and other intangibles.

I think the author made a fact-based case for UCF being ranked ahead of Wisconsin. Wherever that duo would be is another matter, but I agree with him. UCF's win over Memphis is better than Wisconsin's win over Northwestern.

(11-09-2017 02:26 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 02:17 PM)sfink16 Wrote:  Best line from the piece --> "Except UCF’s strength of schedule is almost exactly the same as fellow unbeaten Wisconsin, which is ranked No. 8 in the poll.".

While there are no guarantees, the odds are great that if UCF played the exact same schedule as Wisconsin AND played in the very weak B!G West division, that they too would be undefeated. Why not? Who of Wisconsin's schedule would beat them?

The problem is that in college football the voters can't get past the logo on the helmet. In their minds Wisconsin plays a tougher schedule because schools like Nebraska, Illinois and Iowa are always considered > than anyone in the American, whether they actually are or not on the field.

Moreover, the voters also have a perverse sense of the "grind of the schedule". In their minds, even if UCF had scheduled Alabama, Georgia, Notre Dame and Clemson OOC, they would consider Wisconsin's schedule to be tougher because they had to play 8 P5 teams which UCF got to "snack" on 8 AAC schools.

To quote another poster "When G5 teams lose to teams like Georgia, Notre Dame and Alabama, they don't belong. When P5 lose to those same teams it's the grind of the schedule".

(11-09-2017 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's a homer read, as CyberBull says, it reads more like a rant. Proof? He refers to SMU as a "good" team. SMU is not a good team. They are a decent team, but Sagarin has them ranked #64 right now. That's just not all that good.

He also says that UCF's schedule is almost exactly the same as Wisconsin's. But that's not true either. E.g, Sagarin has UCF's schedule at 92, Wisconsin's at 68. That's a big gap, not a small one.

Bottom line is that UCF just hasn't proved itself against top-flight competition. Being ranked #18 out of 120 teams isn't a bad thing, it means the CFP thinks you are better than more than 100 of those 120 teams. But the standard for playoffs is just way higher than that.

And how do you propose a G-5 prove itself against "top-flight competition"?

Boise is all ears.

(11-09-2017 03:55 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(11-09-2017 03:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's a homer read, as CyberBull says, it reads more like a rant. Proof? He refers to SMU as a "good" team. SMU is not a good team. They are a decent team, but Sagarin has them ranked #64 right now. That's just not all that good.

He also says that UCF's schedule is almost exactly the same as Wisconsin's. But that's not true either. E.g, Sagarin has UCF's schedule at 92, Wisconsin's at 68. That's a big gap, not a small one.

Bottom line is that UCF just hasn't proved itself against top-flight competition. Being ranked #18 out of 120 teams isn't a bad thing, it means the CFP thinks you are better than more than 100 of those 120 teams. But the standard for playoffs is just way higher than that.

And how do you propose a G-5 proves itself against "top-flight competition"?

Boise is all ears.

Don't schedule dregs like FIU in their OOC.